If there's something you want to say that would fall within the rules, but you're worried about saying it because it's unpopular, well, don't be. Your opinions are yours, right or wrong, and they should matter to you more than those of random people on here who you'll never meet. If you want to open up a thread saying 'I like Trump' (though that would likely serve better as a post in Ameripol...) or 'Imperialism was great' or 'The hijab is analagous to the confederate flag', do it, and ignore the slings and arrows.Aye, moreover you could easily make those example opinions on bay12 and people would argue with you in polite manner. With exception to tree puns, American elections and the gender helicopter arsenal, bay12 is proper tolerant of disagreements. It's where you'll find jolly cooperation between all peoples even when leaders are redrawing the new world order for a laff
Seems a poor idea to me - we already have guidelines for what is allowed to be posted on the forum, and the makers of the more contentious threads (say, Ameripol, Europol, etc) do a good job staying within them without curtailing them significantly.
Basically, anything that anyone wanted to say but was unable to in other threads, probably wouldn't be permitted on the forum by Toady anyway.
If there's something you want to say that would fall within the rules, but you're worried about saying it because it's unpopular, well, don't be. Your opinions are yours, right or wrong, and they should matter to you more than those of random people on here who you'll never meet. If you want to open up a thread saying 'I like Trump' (though that would likely serve better as a post in Ameripol...) or 'Imperialism was great' or 'The hijab is analagous to the confederate flag', do it, and ignore the slings and arrows.
An amusing thought, is the idea that all ideas are controversial, controversial?To argue against it only adds to its validity.
Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skullsWe need Genghis Khan times a thousand, plus one.
I see what you mean in terms of grouping them together and allowing people to challenge themselves. For me personally, it just seems a bit apropos to nothing. Like, I know my opinion about the Streamline dub of Laputa: Castle in the Sky being vastly superior to the Disney version is a very unpopular one, despite being indisputably objectively correct for all of time and infinity+1. But I can't see myself bringing it up unless we were already having a discussion elsewhere about dubbing or the film or something similar.
I am interested to see unpopular opinions what other people have, though, so I hope it goes well.
Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skullsWell, Russia has been acting up lately... But I think there's better ways of dealing with that than going full Hitler on them.
Seems a poor idea to me - we already have guidelines for what is allowed to be posted on the forum, and the makers of the more contentious threads (say, Ameripol, Europol, etc) do a good job staying within them without curtailing them significantly.So would you call the idea of this thread unpopular, or controversial?
My controversial idea:I say this should have been done after WW1. You know what Machiavelli would say: there's no point to humiliating someone you've defeated. You either leave them be or destroy them utterly. Anything else is a half-measure and will invite revenge-seekers.
We should split up Germany into several interlinked states. The German psyche is ill-suited to a powerful and semi-hegemonic country, our neighbors in Europe fear our power, and we are not living up to the responsibilities that come with it.
Well, Russia has been acting up lately... But I think there's better ways of dealing with that than going full Hitler on them.Nah, the Finngolian Empire would not stop at Russia
My controversial idea:Protestants and catholics but tfw no caliphate? I think you're neglecting the might of neo-umayyads in a Germania devoid of Charlemagnes. Likewise, it is preferable to fix the broken psyche than break the body to fit the unstable mind, for these broken states would naturally still be led by broken psyche. Also Hannover, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is rightful English clay
We should split up Germany into several interlinked states. The German psyche is ill-suited to a powerful and semi-hegemonic country, our neighbors in Europe fear our power, and we are not living up to the responsibilities that come with it. My proposed New Little Germanies are:
- The Old Republic: North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg, Hessia, the Saarland, and maybe the southern part of Lower Saxony join together in the spirit of the pre-1989 Republic. Bonn becomes its capital, and learning French in school will be mandatory.
- The New Hanseatic League: Lower Saxony (at least the costal parts), Hamburg, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern join together in a rough approximation of the Hanseatic League of old. Hamburg becomes its capital.
- The New East: Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, Thuringia, and Berlin join together in a truncated version of the GDR. Berlin becomes its capital, and the Trabant is put back into production.
- Bavaria: The current Bavaria, with Munich still as its capital. Seehofer rules surpreme as its emperor, and the New East starts supplying weapons to Franconian rebels longing for independence. The régime is propped up by Austria. The UN looks on, powerless to stop the many atrocities, and slowly the conflict warps into a religious one, pitting Protestant rebels against Catholic loyalists. The rest of Germany takes it as the final indicator that it was a good idea to get rid of the fucking Bavarians.
didn't Timur basically kill 5% of the entire worlds population at the time? i wonder what % Genghis killed.Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skullsNo no no no. Timur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur). Though be wary if you try to dig up his corpse; it didn't go well the last time. He was exhumed the 19th of June, 1941 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), and re-buried in the middle of November, 1942 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus). I'll quote the Wikipedia article here:QuoteIt is alleged that Timur's tomb was inscribed with the words, "When I rise from the dead, the world shall tremble." It is also said that when Gerasimov exhumed the body, an additional inscription inside the casket was found, which read, "Whomsoever opens my tomb shall unleash an invader more terrible than I."
Here's an unpopular criticism and invective: why do people on the internet, when comparing genocides, treat human lives as if their sole value varies inversely to the degree that it is expendable?Monkeysphere. People don't value each other unless they actually know the other people in question. 7 billion anything is hard to wrap even the most intelligent mind around, and people are no exception.
Sure. But arguing Timur's deathcount is comparable to Genghis Khan's, purely because they killed a similar proportion of the world population, seems... I mean, when people quote Stalin's "A million is a statistic", it's not to recommend it as a way of viewing the world. Because that's exactly what this is. I mean yeah you need to get a grip on the numbers somehow, but ultimately the actual number of lives is more important than their relative value. And when we talk in terms of the "killing XYZ number of millions is 5% of the people who are alive", its easy to forget that "5%", "one-in-twenty" are all semantic games we play, and not what's actually important. 5% is just supposed to be a mental tool to mentally grab onto what matters, but when you start comparing Timur and Genghis Khan, and you hear "well they both killed 5% of people on earth" it's easy to start thinking "well I guess they did the same amount of damage" and "those two things were basically equivalent". Well no, the Mongols killed about 40 million more people than Timur. That's not comparable at all. Not in the slightest. That's every single person living in Poland, dead, and you're still 2 million short.Here's an unpopular criticism and invective: why do people on the internet, when comparing genocides, treat human lives as if their sole value varies inversely to the degree that it is expendable?Monkeysphere. People don't value each other unless they actually know the other people in question. 7 billion anything is hard to wrap even the most intelligent mind around, and people are no exception.
How about those age of consent laws? Huh? 8 year olds are totally up for it, don't believe what the government and media would have you believe.
Humans spent a lot of time as dumb animals while basically the same genetically as modern humans. Therefore maybe we should check out some of the other claver animals on the planet and try to bring them into civilization as-is, no genetic modification or anything required.
Humans spent a lot of time as dumb animals while basically the same genetically as modern humans. Therefore maybe we should check out some of the other claver animals on the planet and try to bring them into civilization as-is, no genetic modification or anything required.
When people defend the hijab as an expression of culture, it is the same as people defending the confederate flag as a cultural symbol and I disagree with both.
if you wear lederhosen you're a nazi, confirmed
the olympics are fucking stupid and so heavily detached from the practical applications of the skills events are derived from that they feel more like a parody of human athletic capabilities than anything else. running is alright i guess, but then you've got shit like olympic fencing which is nothing like actual fencing, or the long jump, where competitors land on their fucking asses. like, what the fuck are you gonna do with that? who gives a shit how far you can jump if you're just gonna be lying on the floor afterwards
I think sports are generally super arbitrary anyway. If you wanted a practical olympics it'd be like preparing your tax returns or making a healthy meal on a budget. Those are real practical life skills, but they'd be boring to watch people do.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Summer_Olympics#Unofficial_sports
I think sports are generally super arbitrary anyway. If you wanted a practical olympics it'd be like preparing your tax returns or making a healthy meal on a budget. Those are real practical life skills, but they'd be boring to watch people do. So I don't see an effective difference between normal fencing and olympic fencing or long jump onto your ass vs long jump onto your feet, none of them are really widely applicable to real life. They are just optimizing for different arbitrary results. So basically, eh, why not?
Edit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
I've kinda missed your point. Although your links are interesting enough further reading for people I'm not sure why you quoted me specifically, often a direct quote feels like it merits a response, and this one feels like it should at least, but since I don't know what you mean I'm not sure how to respond.It just seemed like a useful point to make that the Modern Olympics have strayed beyond mere demonstrations of faster/stronger musculature before...
i'll concede on the long jump, but even then, watching people land on their ass is just as boring as watching people land on their feet, while the latter, tho not widely applicable, still has objective potential to be somewhat useful. something like olympic parkour would be a practical application of the skills that go into performing a long jump, while also being a million times more interesting to watchWhile the last bit's true, even landing on your arse has objective potential to be useful. On the feet and moving moreso, but when it comes down to needing to cross a gap what matters first is getting across it, not landing gracefully.
I think the issue is then they kill themselves even more then they already do and push out anyone who's not willing to poison themselves. There's a sliding scale between entertainment and safety. And I don't think either extreme is correct.well, the idea is that if olympic competitors want to act as guinea pigs for the latest medical advances, might as well standarize and learn from it :p
Edit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
~
Cognitive neuroscientists have shown that Pollock’s fractals induce the same stress-reduction in observers as computer-generated fractals and Nature's fractals.
How about those age of consent laws? Huh? 8 year olds are totally up for it, don't believe what the government and media would have you believe.
The idea behind the laws is that children lack a comprehensive understanding of the world sufficient to compose an informed and reasoned decision, thus making any consent that they might grant invalid. In short, children don't know what's best for them, so grown-ups make the decisions for them. Of course it's typically their legal guardians who make those decisions, not the government. An exception was made in the case of sexual liaisons due to a determined propensity for progressive mental damage that can be incurred from sexual contact during formative years.
At least, that is the explanation commonly given. In reality, it's clear that children mature at vastly differing rates. Some are prepared to deal with life at ages much younger than the legal limit, and some are not prepared until much later. It would make more sense to have some sort of test for determining maturity, rather than a simple age limit. And indeed the current age limit has caused a lot of harm due to guys at parties having a quick fling with some jailbait and ending up being imprisoned for years and then being labeled a sexual predator for the rest of their lives.
The existing laws are imperfect, but the social bias against pedophilia is so strong that the likelihood of anything being done about it in our lifetimes is basically nil. c'est la vie.
Jackson Pollock was a hack. I don't dislike all abstract or "out there" art, I just specifically hate Pollock and his style and the heaps of praise he gets for obscure methods of splashing paint.It's all in how you explain your bullshit that gets it sold.
Look up M1 Knight Fights. It's a between rounds spectacle that is very much a thing in Russia.I think sports are generally super arbitrary anyway. If you wanted a practical olympics it'd be like preparing your tax returns or making a healthy meal on a budget. Those are real practical life skills, but they'd be boring to watch people do. So I don't see an effective difference between normal fencing and olympic fencing or long jump onto your ass vs long jump onto your feet, none of them are really widely applicable to real life. They are just optimizing for different arbitrary results. So basically, eh, why not?
for what it's worth, i've always enjoyed watching actual, proper swordsmanship. there's a lot more depth that goes into real fencing than any kind of sport fencing. even with something like kendo, which imo is leagues ahead of olympic fencing, it's still drastically oversimplified compared to actual sword techniques. at least with kendo, most techniques do carry over to actual fencing, it's just that you're restricted to a very limited number of targets and techniques. olympic fencing is about as detached from real fencing as you can get and still have your weapon somewhat resemble a sword
i'll concede on the long jump, but even then, watching people land on their ass is just as boring as watching people land on their feet, while the latter, tho not widely applicable, still has objective potential to be somewhat useful. something like olympic parkour would be a practical application of the skills that go into performing a long jump, while also being a million times more interesting to watchEdit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
while i haven't really seen any hema sparring done with traditional armour as opposed to modern safety gear, i'm sure it's a thing some people do. people honestly underestimate the efficacy of medieval armour, especially against medieval armaments. between video games being video games and the ubiquity of morons performing weapon tests against completely ahistorical butted mail, there's a lot of misinformation out there about how effective armour actually is, especially mail, and to a lesser degree padded cloth armours
It's no more murder than taking you off dialysis because you can't pay for it anymore. Which is completely legal may I add.
Look up M1 Knight Fights. It's a between rounds spectacle that is very much a thing in Russia.
It's no more murder than taking you off dialysis because you can't pay for it anymore. Which is completely legal may I add.
... I don't think it is, at least in Europe. Then again we have public healthcare.
I believe that as unborn fetuses are actively growing, developing, and have human genetics, they are living humans and have the same inherent rights as fully developed humans. Following that, I believe that abortion is nothing more than industrialized murder and should be treated as such.
I believe that as unborn fetuses are actively growing, developing, and have human genetics, they are living humans and have the same inherent rights as fully developed humans. Following that, I believe that abortion is nothing more than industrialized murder and should be treated as such.
Spoiler: Don't wear leather shorts, kids (click to show/hide)
Also what is non lethal military force, and what is wrong with using it to accomplish one's goals?
Non lethal military force is when you get the enemy to concede without a fight because they want to avoid the lethal kind.Lethality is a quality of death-dealing capability, not a confirmation of death having been dealt. Thus battleships and nuclear weapons are the highest lethal arms mankind currently has available in its arsenal. If I employ my army, armed with howitzers and rifles, to chase away some geese - the lack of any death does not make the artillery and rifles any less lethal
Gunboat diplomacy for example, or nuclear weapons stand-offs.
Also, any time you have an army as a deterrent. It could be lethal, but that's only if it's deterrent mission fails and you resort to the lethal kind of force.
I'm picturing guys in riot gear with those big plastic shields and batons, lining up in a human wall and throwing tear-gas-grenades at people.Hydrocannon demands you cease multiplying
Now I'm picturing this non-lethal military force being used to deter people from breeding. ROFL.
I suspect hypnotism is a load of male bovine manure and every time I see a show on TV I am firmly convinced the players are faking it.
...likely to be American, and be conservative, so not be in favor of unliimited free medical treatment at need.I think most Americans would be all for unlimited free medical care. Trouble is, basically 100% of people are opposed to providing unlimited medical care with no compensation.
When people defend the hijab as an expression of culture, it is the same as people defending the confederate flag as a cultural symbol and I disagree with both.
the two honestly aren't even close to comparable. keep in mind too that hijab is not interchangeable with burqa or niqab†, which i think are what people generally think of those poor oppressed muslim women. similarly, there's a fundamental difference between a nation enforcing antiquated religious laws in order to oppress a populace, and someone consciously choosing to engage in their religion. there is zero practical difference between a hijab and a dastar, habit, kippah, or any other piece of religious clothing. arguing against one but not any other is plain and simple hypocrisy. more than anything else, it shows a complete and total lack of understanding of what islam is, complete with misogynistic undertones, when people single out hijabis. what this does, effectively, is push blame off of the corrupt governments that follow fundamentalist interpretations of religious lawsSpoiler: † (click to show/hide)
-snip-
similarly, there's a fundamental difference between a nation enforcing antiquated religious laws in order to oppress a populace, and someone consciously choosing to engage in their religion.
Hitler didn't make the trousers, he wore themHitler didn't make those ideas, he adopted themYou know what that's begging for, LW.
-snip-
I suspect hypnotism is a load of male bovine manure and every time I see a show on TV I am firmly convinced the players are faking it.
Depends what you refers to by hypnosis, but at least the medical kind is fairly established now.
I'm pretty sure hypnotism is real. They used to hire a guy to do school functions in my home town, so i've seen it first hand. Groups of about 10 high school students at a time. High School students, who would love nothing more that to mess up the guys performance and be "That kid" but none of them ever did.
Mesmeric and other stage performances changed their names to "stage hypnotist" in the 19th century. They had originally claimed to produce the same effects by means of telepathy and animal magnetism, and only later began to explain their shows in terms of hypnotic trance and suggestion. Hence, many of the precursors of stage hypnosis did not employ hypnotic induction techniques. Moreover, several modern stage performers have themselves published criticisms which suggest that stage hypnosis is largely the result of sleight of hand, ordinary suggestion, and social compliance, etc., rather than hypnotic trance. Most notably, the well-known American magician and performer, Kreskin, has frequently carried out typical stage hypnosis demonstrations without using any hypnotic induction. After working as a stage hypnotist and magician for nearly two decades, Kreskin became a skeptic and a whistleblower from within the stage hypnosis field.
An outspoken skeptic regarding stage hypnosis, Kreskin not only actively debunked stage hypnotists' claims, but went so far as to offer a substantial monetary reward, $25,000, to anyone who could prove the existence of hypnotic trance. The reward has been unsuccessfully challenged three times.
I've seen an entertainer-hypnotist, not a supposed therapeutic hypnotist. I was extremely tired, it was part of a post-graduation celebration so I honestly have no idea how much of it was "real hypnosis" and how much of it was just me subconsciously wanting to be part of the show.
I've seen an entertainer-hypnotist, not a supposed therapeutic hypnotist. I was extremely tired, it was part of a post-graduation celebration so I honestly have no idea how much of it was "real hypnosis" and how much of it was just me subconsciously wanting to be part of the show.
spoiler
Meanwhile, our overzealous use of multivitamins is doing absolutely jack shit to help us health-wise.regardless milk is delicious and i will never stop drinking it.
Hell, here's a good one: milk making your bones strong is a myth. It is fortified with vitamin D, which prevents rickets (at least in the US). Great if you live in Alaska. Otherwise, doesn't really help that much at all. Though I will admit, the commercial motivation to keep that myth around is probably part of the reason why it is still around.
I believe that gender is something determined by a person's genetic programming, not by their choice of lifestyle.
That being said, if a chick really wants to pee standing up at a urinal next to me in the men's bathroom, I'm probably just gonna file that one under 'Cool' and move on with my life.
That being said, if a chick really wants to pee standing up at a urinal next to me in the men's bathroom, I'm probably just gonna file that one under 'Cool' and move on with my life.
Having seen this a fair few times at festivals I file it under gross but understandable. Sometimes you've just got to go & urinal queues are a heap quicker.
too many guys who stink up the place because they can't aim for shit.Oh, they definitely should be sitting down for that... ;)
Yeah like Covenant said not the greatest look. I don't know, I guess I switch pretty quickly into not pay attention mode same as with guys after the initial surprise.That being said, if a chick really wants to pee standing up at a urinal next to me in the men's bathroom, I'm probably just gonna file that one under 'Cool' and move on with my life.
Having seen this a fair few times at festivals I file it under gross but understandable. Sometimes you've just got to go & urinal queues are a heap quicker.
What's so gross?
easy there john calvin, it ain't that weirdFor what it's worth, folks both male and female have been leaving the seat up where I'm living. It's not a time thing, it's the fact that if you leave it down one of those folks that have occasional trouble aiming will get the seat instead of the bowl, when they're in too much of a hurry or just forget to lift it when they go themselves. It may not save time so far as pissing goes, but it definitely saves time from not having to clean the toilet seat.
edit: tangentially related controversial opinion, but most dudes should pee sitting down too anyway. i don't really give a shit about dudes leaving the seat up (tho i am of the opinion that you should always put the seat and cover down, it really doesn't save you any time to skip this step, don't be lazy), but i've known too many guys who stink up the place because they can't aim for shit. if you can't get your piss in the water like a civilised person, sit your ass down and take a moment to think about what a failure you are
I think it's odd that people have conflated masculine / feminine gender roles with sexuality. I put them on orthogonal axes.
What is the toilet seat debate? Hole in ground or toilet?No. Toolet seat up or down.
What is the toilet seat debate? Hole in ground or toilet?No. Toolet seat up or down.
I've never liked holes in the ground...
I find the lack of bidets in the US and UK disturbing btw.
People wear modern safety gear because, quite honestly, they dont want to get hurt, medieval armor is heavier and can be expensive as all hell, and the organisations dont want to have any form of legal trouble if someone's subpar ringmail tears and they get the pointy bit where the blood's supposed to be. You can strike real armor a lot harder and faster than safety gear, and that means that if something goes wrong, it's going to go wrong a lot more seriously.Edit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
while i haven't really seen any hema sparring done with traditional armour as opposed to modern safety gear, i'm sure it's a thing some people do. people honestly underestimate the efficacy of medieval armour, especially against medieval armaments. between video games being video games and the ubiquity of morons performing weapon tests against completely ahistorical butted mail, there's a lot of misinformation out there about how effective armour actually is, especially mail, and to a lesser degree padded cloth armours
Maybe we should discuss the use of martial arts and armor in the toilet.
Maybe we should discuss the use of martial arts and armor in the toilet.
This is why chainmail is superior to plate, as it's easier to take off and to go bathroom.
Eat a dick plate lovers, in your search to protect your life, you've ruined the very thing you're trying to save.
I believe that gender is something determined by a person's genetic programming, not by their choice of lifestyle.
That being said, if a chick really wants to pee standing up at a urinal next to me in the men's bathroom, I'm probably just gonna file that one under 'Cool' and move on with my life.
I'll see your journal article and raise you a researchers fail (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778) article.
Well, there's this (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083947) going against you.
That's a nonsequiturI'll see your journal article and raise you a researchers fail (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778) article.
Well, there's this (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083947) going against you.
Science is great, unless it isn't.
I believe that automation of many life-critical industries (mostly food production and distribution) is totally possible within our lifetime, and the only thing preventing it is human shortsightedness and corporate interest.
Note I say "believe," not know for a fact. :(
But seriously, the Cambodian genocide shows that continuing the Vietnam war wasn't such a despicable choice after all.
The genocide of more than 2 million people could have been prevented by not giving in to anti-war protests.
In March 1969, President Richard Nixon authorized secret bombing raids in Cambodia, a move that escalated opposition to the Vietnam War in Ohio and across the United States.
Nixon believed North Vietnam was transporting troops and supplies through neighboring Cambodia into South Vietnam. He hoped that bombing supply routes in Cambodia would weaken the United States' enemies.
The bombing of Cambodia lasted until August 1973. While the exact number of Cambodian casualties remains unknown, most experts estimate that 100,000 Cambodians lost their lives, with an additional two million people becoming homeless. Enhancing the destruction, in April 1970, President Nixon ordered United States troops to occupy parts of Cambodia. Nixon claimed that the soldiers were protecting the United States' withdrawal from South Vietnam. American soldiers quickly withdrew, but their presence, along with the air strikes, convinced many Cambodians to overthrow their government, leading to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, a communist and despotic government.
The US began bombing Cambodia in 1965. From that year until 1973, the US Air Force dropped bombs from more than 230,000 sorties on over 113,000 sites. The exact tonnage of bombs dropped is in dispute, but a conservative estimate of 500,000 tons (almost equal to what the United States dropped in the entire Pacific theater of World War II) is unquestionable.
...
Pol Pot’s insurgency was indigenous, but as Kiernan argues, his “revolution would not have won power without U.S. economic and military destabilization of Cambodia.” Previously apolitical peasants were motivated to join the revolution to avenge the deaths of their family members. As a 1973 Intelligence Information Cable from the CIA’s Directorate of Operations explained:
"Khmer insurgent (KI) [Khmer Rouge] cadre have begun an intensified proselyting campaign among ethnic Cambodian residents . . . in an effort to recruit young men and women for KI military organizations. They are using damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda."
The US-backed coup that removed Sihanouk from power in 1970 was another factor that dramatically strengthened the KR insurgency. (Direct US complicity in the coup remains unproven, but as William Blum amply documents in his book Killing Hope, there is enough evidence to warrant the possibility).
But seriously, the Cambodian genocide shows that continuing the Vietnam war wasn't such a despicable choice after all.
The genocide of more than 2 million people could have been prevented by not giving in to anti-war protests.
Hell no. It was Nixon who dragged Cambodia into the war. They were peaceful and stable before he messed it up. The US bombing is actually what devastated most of the farm lands, that was the ultimate cause of the famine, the complete collapse of farming due to the bombing of all the country areas.
Nixon was elected on an ending the war platform, and instead launched a full-scale war in Cambodia to wipe out a small number of rebels. But they used aerial bombing of farmlands to achieve that, because they knew they couldn't send US ground troops. They killed so many Cambodians and destroyed so many villages with the bombing that everyone flocked to join the rebels, which was the ultimate reason that Cambodia fell to the communists.
It's corporate interest that's driving the trend, not putting the brakes on it, and I don't think it's shortsighted for the people who'll lose their livelihoods over it to not want that to happen. If it ever gets to the point where people in the service industry can be economically replaced on any kind of scale, it's going to result in ‼problems‼.Nonetheless I look forward to it. There will be a rough transition period, but the closer we get to something like The Culture, the happier I am.
There's ample evidence from numerous sources that the KR were a very small force before the bombing, they managed to recruited 20 times as many people as they originally had in just in the three years the bombing campaign continued, and that was their main selling point: that if you follow us, we'll stop the bombs. 2 million people were rendered homeless (i.e. 10% of the nation had their villages destroyed) by the bombing, 200,000 of those went and joined the Khmer Rouge, who had numbered only 10,000 previously.
Between the bombing and backing a military coup against a neutral government who was already recognized by all the regional nations (which did include Vietnam), it's ALL on Nixon, this one. e.g. Vietnam already supported the existing Sihanouk government as the rightful rulers of Cambodia, NOT the Khmer Rouge, and it's actually the Vietnamese who defeated the Khmer Rouge and removed them from power.
One thing I don't understand: Why didn't the US just straight-up invade and occupy North Vietnam and cut off the snake's head?
Japanese style squat toilets. Western toilets cause more back problems, as well as hernias, since you need to push harder when not in squatting position:I rigged up one of these, it's not as high as it could be, but seriously the difference between feet on the floor and feet 7 or 8 inches off the floor is HUGE when it comes to how difficult it is to crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYcv6odWfTM
Plus they end the debate about seat up/down forever.
Indeed, and now I think I will post what may be the most unpopular and controversial idea in the thread to date: Star Trek is a horrific setting.It's corporate interest that's driving the trend, not putting the brakes on it, and I don't think it's shortsighted for the people who'll lose their livelihoods over it to not want that to happen. If it ever gets to the point where people in the service industry can be economically replaced on any kind of scale, it's going to result in ‼problems‼.Nonetheless I look forward to it. There will be a rough transition period, but the closer we get to something like The Culture, the happier I am.
A big part of what you're describing is just 'The Amish have a point', no?
One thing I don't understand: Why didn't the US just straight-up invade and occupy North Vietnam and cut off the snake's head?We tried this in Korea.
The problem with "Invade north Vietnam" is exactly who are you going to put in there to run it?Ahh but see this isn't answering the question. It's a moral answer to a practical question, which is to say that its an answer stemming from false premises. You have to take "we are at war with Vietnam and want to win" for granted, because you aren't answering "Was it a good idea?" but "Why did the people who did think the Vietnam War was a good idea not want to invade with a land invasion?" If you take for granted that the war is stupid, that solves a question that wasn't asked. How are we to "fuck [that logic] with a stick" if we don't know what that logic is in the first place?
A big part of what you're describing is just 'The Amish have a point', no?I'm super confused, I'm a fan of transhumanism, and looking back at episodes of TNG and TOS now vs watching them when I was 9 it's just hard to not take all the sci fi and such I've read and look at Trek through those lenses.
Don't forget the 'problem' of transhumans like Khan Noonien Singh posed to the pre-Federation (and not exactly unproblematic to the UFP). And Dr Bashir had to keep a secret...Oh god, yeah, I'm like straight up, more Montalbans/Cumberbatches running around isn't a problem... wait, you meant the character part didn't you? The Monalban Khan was charming and admirable even as he was casually discussing why it is in your best interest to just get it over with and submit to his whims, he'll treat you like a beloved pet, and it's easy to believe. The Cumberbatch one was angrier, but still had that rich rolling delivery and sense that he's already figured out which cards you're holding and knows you're trying hard not to kiss him, I mean not that I'd kiss him, I'd give him a hug though.
There are "token cyborgs" in Trek, we're getting to the point today where an artificial heart is boring, lord knows they have the technology to put all the shit in that visor Geordi wears into a package that could fit on the head of a pin and just implant it into the replacement biological or cybernetic eyes which they could easily make for him
More that the Eugenics Wars appear to have dissuaded humanity from such 'self'-improvement. (Or at least of improving the next generation.) Hence why Julian is in a fix, if his secret is discovered.Don't forget the 'problem' of transhumans like Khan Noonien Singh posed to the pre-Federation (and not exactly unproblematic to the UFP). And Dr Bashir had to keep a secret...Oh god, yeah, I'm like straight up, more Montalbans/Cumberbatches running around isn't a problem... wait, you meant the character part didn't you? The Monalban Khan was charming and admirable even as he was casually discussing why it is in your best interest to just get it over with and submit to his whims, he'll treat you like a beloved pet, and it's easy to believe. The Cumberbatch one was angrier, but still had that rich rolling delivery and sense that he's already figured out which cards you're holding and knows you're trying hard not to kiss him, I mean not that I'd kiss him, I'd give him a hug though.
Sadly that's the only way transhumans get presented: sexy and scary bad boys like Khan or ultracompetent and powerful but utterly meek and emotionless dolls like Data. Can't have a normal transhuman, can't have someone who is just an ordinary dude that replaced 90% of their body with artificial parts, he's gotta be a battle scarred warrior left behind by his comrades out for vengeance, it's just weird and unsettling seeing people talk about it like it's a future to strive for.I see the Trek future as more 'expanded minds' rather than 'improved bodies', in philosophy. Or at least 'peace of mind' and an absolute minimum of bodily interference (c.f. Christopher Pike). But you can also blame that on the writers and the eras they were writing in.
The big issue with transhumanism is that it does force a societal divide between those that are augmented and those that aren'tYou have a massive external memory and recall faculty available at all times if you want it, you have the ability to record and replay video of absurdly high resolution at will, you can access the minds of a vast segment of all humans alive, see them if you want, talk to them, you can determine your location at any point without the slightest bit of effort, perform all sorts of calculations ridiculously quickly, obtain definitions and spelling and pronunciations as needed, and even speak to someone in a language you don't actually understand, plus many more things, just by pulling the fondleslab out of your pocket.
]You have a massive external memory and recall faculty available at all times if you want it, you have the ability to record and replay video of absurdly high resolution at will, you can access the minds of a vast segment of all humans alive, see them if you want, talk to them, you can determine your location at any point without the slightest bit of effort, perform all sorts of calculations ridiculously quickly, obtain definitions and spelling and pronunciations as needed, and even speak to someone in a language you don't actually understand, plus many more things, just by pulling the fondleslab out of your pocket.Well, I'm that much of a luddite that I don't have a smartphone, but still :P
That thing went from being a unique gadget made by a mad scientist, to a complex gadget which took at least a feat and some wealth, to a high end but still common piece of equipment, to a standard issue sort of thing (rope, two torches, three sacks, two weeks rations, smartphone, waterskin, flint, etc), and now it's over in "assume everyone has this equipment because I don't feel like having to specify that all of you aren't naked" territory.
You may have glasses, filled teeth, repaired bones or joints, corrected lenses so you don't need glasses, artificial limbs of ever increasing capability, and so forth.
Arguably transhumans are here, who said it has to be "full conversion cyborgs" or "genetically engineered superbeings" when "surpassing the limitations of unaugmented humanity" suffices perfectly well?
Sunshine and warm weather are fucking bullshit. It should be overcast and breezy all day, every day, until the end of time.Good for the Wind Turbine industry. PV-cells would be less useful, but not completely and (day by day) they'd at least be consistent, so you could re-engineer to that spec.
If you are going to water down transhumanism in that way, of course it's already here! It's been here since at least the 11th century when glasses were invented. And "unaugmented humanity"? We've had glass eyes since the 15th century if that's what you mean, but if you are going to water it down that much we may as well cease to discuss transhumanism at all, since it is obvious that it is a very uninteresting topic. Come now! And fake teeth even? Romans had fake teeth! To speak of "ancestors" and "predecessors" would do you much more good than looking at a Venetian who is contemporary with the Byzantine-damn-empire and calling him an early transhumanist.The big issue with transhumanism is that it does force a societal divide between those that are augmented and those that aren'tYou have a massive external memory and recall faculty available at all times if you want it, you have the ability to record and replay video of absurdly high resolution at will, you can access the minds of a vast segment of all humans alive, see them if you want, talk to them, you can determine your location at any point without the slightest bit of effort, perform all sorts of calculations ridiculously quickly, obtain definitions and spelling and pronunciations as needed, and even speak to someone in a language you don't actually understand, plus many more things, just by pulling the fondleslab out of your pocket.
That thing went from being a unique gadget made by a mad scientist, to a complex gadget which took at least a feat and some wealth, to a high end but still common piece of equipment, to a standard issue sort of thing (rope, two torches, three sacks, two weeks rations, smartphone, waterskin, flint, etc), and now it's over in "assume everyone has this equipment because I don't feel like having to specify that all of you aren't naked" territory.
You may have glasses, filled teeth, repaired bones or joints, corrected lenses so you don't need glasses, artificial limbs of ever increasing capability, and so forth.
Arguably transhumans are here, who said it has to be "full conversion cyborgs" or "genetically engineered superbeings" when "surpassing the limitations of unaugmented humanity" suffices perfectly well?
What the smartphone is a good example of, is how quickly even incredibly advanced technology can become available to nearly everyone, not just the ultra-rich. So I don't buy the idea that transhumanisim would lead to an underclass of the unaugmented.Ugh, the smartphone analogy is fundamentally dependent on the specifics on a single technology; namely, the shrinking size of chips and the general dropping price of processing speed and memory. Rich people always have better phones than poorer ones, but technology evolved such that the difference doesn't matter. But if that is only a specific situation and not generally applicable, there is still a problem. If, for example, the technology is more medical in nature, then there is the potential for a great divergence: the only reason poor people haven't fallen behind in medical tech is insurance. But insurance only covers the fixing of things that are broken, not making things better than they were before. So there's a potential gap right there. Will any charity build augmentation clinics in the third world like they do regular clinics? I think not.
Also, I believe that we have a transhumanisim thread somewhere.
Well, I'm that much of a luddite that I don't have a smartphone, but still :PMe either, real computers have big chunky cases, real keyboards have number pads, and real monitors have real estate dammit! Get back to me when the smartphone VR thing is full blown and omnipresent.
As for what is transhuman, while I do agree the latter definition is it, what defines is augmentative rather than corrective. Things like prosthetics, glasses, dentures and so forth aren't transhumanism per-se, as they're corrective device to bring an individual up to the 'baseline' of a healthy, unhindered human rather than surpassing it.Some of them are merely correcting damage or errors, but in the process it raises the whole definition of what baseline itself is. We're getting closer and closer every day to seeing people deliberately removing limbs for better ones, especially with dudes like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDsNZJTWw0w) doing their thing. I loved being the fastest kid in my group of friends, loved being a powerful and healthy teenage male crashing through the woods because fuck it, I don't see why a fucking hill should get to decide which way I go, I don't care how tall it is!
What the smartphone is a good example of, is how quickly even incredibly advanced technology can become available to nearly everyone, not just the ultra-rich. So I don't buy the idea that transhumanisim would lead to an underclass of the unaugmented.
Also, I believe that we have a transhumanisim thread somewhere.
I've also never heard it as "it only counts if they're ahead when nude with nothing else" and I'd have to wonder, do prosthetics count? What if they're more like the powerbocking things I linked down below? Neural interfaced bionics? They could probably be removed, but I don't agree on the "has to be at our most base state" bit at all.Then how is it transcending human? It's not. It's entirely social and cultural and all those other things; if augmentation is external to the human being, then it is not a change in human beings, it is a change in society. Short version: nurture.
I miss playing games on my dad's old palm pilot.Hmmm. I had a palm-pilot. (Three, actually. One was lost in '99, another was handed back in to work when I quit, the third is somewhere upstairs, unfairly abandoned.)
My argument is that if you can't identify that point, or if you argue Transhumanism happened 16,000 years ago, than Transhumanism is a bankrupt word that means nothing very useful at all, and Transhumanists are just futurists by another name.I'd hardly say we're Humanity 2.0, but we've certainly increased the version number past 1.0 to some extent, and just since you implied I can't identify that point: I'd say around 1990 the counter started ticking up from like 1.00000001 or so, and over the last half of the 2000's and the 7 years since then it's been speeding up faster and faster. A connected and aware humanity composed of connected and aware humans is not the same as what came before, you can argue it's not as sexy as "we're all space cyborg wizards now, wooo" and that is totally right. What point would you insist on before it would seem like enough? Integrate the display in contacts? Implanted visuals? Cortical interfaces? These are more intimate than a fondleslab, but the important thing is that they all enable constant connectivity.
The big issue with transhumanism is that it does force a societal divide between those that are augmented and those that aren't. And given that the costs of such augmentation are going to make it impractical for most people in general to actually obtain such augments so there's effectively another layer of societal divide to deal with.
And to further add in, immortality, by it's very nature, is an immoral thing for anyone to have; between the exponential rate of population expansion and the fact that ideas that people hold aren't dying effectively proclaims a stagnation in ideas and knowledge since new ideas aren't able to gain traction, which only compounds the more generations that are born.
We had tools 2.3 million years ago,
Speaking of neural networks and networks of neurons and neurons firing as they watch cat videos on mobile networks, where is the internet going to take us that would leave us unchanged from the baseline stone age human models? Wouldn't we need to pull back and avoid doing things like trying to link it right into our brain stems, chill on the VR development, and start going to libraries to use the internet instead of wading around through it constantly like we're doing now?
I am rather pleased that this ended up being such a contentious topic btw, since it's actually on topic!
I do appreciate frustration at this not being the sexy exciting space cyborg wizard future, instead we got the weird banal drone smartphone memeninja future.
Fondleslab: a slab of glass and metal or plastic plus silicon and some other metals which people like to fondle to make it show them cat videos.Well it sounds gross and isn't actually shorter or faster than calling them tablets. Stop trying to make "fondleslabs" happen, it's never going to happen.
Speaking of neural networks and networks of neurons and neurons firing as they watch cat videos on mobile networks, where is the internet going to take us that would leave us unchanged from the baseline stone age human models? Wouldn't we need to pull back and avoid doing things like trying to link it right into our brain stems, chill on the VR development, and start going to libraries to use the internet instead of wading around through it constantly like we're doing now?I'm not at all frustrated about sexy space cyborg whatevers. That spooks the shit out of me. The social implications are terrifying. But you haven't conclusively proven that what exists today (which is what you are calling Transhumanist, not me) is what exists in 20 years. To do that, you need to show that the future will be like how it is now in such a way that the lack of wealth boundaries will continue to exist.
...
I do appreciate frustration at this not being the sexy exciting space cyborg wizard future, instead we got the weird banal drone smartphone memeninja future.
blah blah blah digital revolutionTell me: is that not just merely a social change? How is that different from the Industrial Revolution? Or the rise of Colonialism and Imperialism? Surely society has changed irrevocably, but it's not irrevocable.
I'd say around 1990 the counter started ticking up from like 1.00000001 or so, and over the last half of the 2000's and the 7 years since then it's been speeding up faster and faster. A connected and aware humanity composed of connected and aware humans is not the same as what came before, you can argue it's not as sexy as "we're all space cyborg wizards now, wooo" and that is totally right. What point would you insist on before it would seem like enough? Integrate the display in contacts? Implanted visuals? Cortical interfaces? These are more intimate than a fondleslab, but the important thing is that they all enable constant connectivity.All right. 1990. Why 1990? What was different? What was qualitatively different about the year 1990 from 1989? They also had computers you know. And so did the year before that. We had computers in 1965.
The industrial revolution was a terribly chaotic thing that led to class divides and suffering and oppression and the death and birth of a number of new industries. Not to mention the prolonged damage to the environment. Even hundreds of years later we are still sorting out the effects.The industrial revolution is acceptable, because that brought our production capabilities forward and as much as it did further class divides (There were always divides prior to it), it also ended up spawning methods to reduce those class divides. Furthermore, it meant that we, as a collective whole, had to adapt socially and mentally to it.
Despite all that I am damn glad we went through the industrial revolution, and if sent back in time and given the choice I would have us do it all over again.
Likewise, I am in favor of a transhuman revolution. We are already poised for it with crispr tech and designer babies, to super advanced prosthetics and full body transplants, to advances in neural networks and advanced AI.
I say, bring it on!
The industrial revolution is acceptable, because that brought our production capabilities forward and as much as it did further class divides (There were always divides prior to it), it also ended up spawning methods to reduce those class divides. Furthermore, it meant that we, as a collective whole, had to adapt socially and mentally to it.
With a transhuman revolution, we change out bodies to sidestep the necessity to change socially and mentally, and to sidestep those is to lead straight into stagnancy in ideas and philosophy. To embrace the transhuman revolution is to fundamentally forget what it is to be human
To even accept transhumanism in the first place would be a huge social/mental change.
I don't think you understand me Max. Or you are talking past me, or me you, or something.We're both talking past each other, the internet is an enabler of human development in a new way, along a path which there is no reason to think won't end up square in transhuman territory, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't try to make things happen and lack the ability to begin trying to care if they do, just can't do it, but it is what I call them, and you asked for clarification.Fondleslab: a slab of glass and metal or plastic plus silicon and some other metals which people like to fondle to make it show them cat videos.Well it sounds gross and isn't actually shorter or faster than calling them tablets. Stop trying to make "fondleslabs" happen, it's never going to happen.
One thing that can't be avoided is that technology substitites for our evolved characteristics. And when that happens, there's no natural selection pressure on tht specific trait, so the species changes. One aspect of transhumanism can be that: becoming symbiotically dependent on technology to the point we lose the evolved ability that would have done that job (although not as well). That happens with physical skills, and there's no reason to think it won't also happen with mental skills. The types of cognition abilities which are selected for will be the ones that make a difference in reproduction. If we offload tasks to computers then those will do things we used to do, and there will be less selection pressure in that direction. In that sense we are in fact in a symbiotic relationship with technology.This is what I'm saying is happening with so much of our cognitive resources and interactions moving out into the internet, which was technically open to the public in 89, with the web starting in 90, hence those dates, while the smartphone thing started to really pick up around 2007.
We have this notion that we're outside evolution, it comes from the same place as all those old charts with Man at the top of creation. But that comes from the same place as e.g. the aristotlean world view with Earth at the center, then we moved to our sun as the center of the solar system. Then when we realized there was a galaxy, we decided that our sun was the center of the galaxy, and that there was only one galaxy. It was only fairly recently (post hubble) we realized that this pattern of "but surely we're at/near the center?" was itself bullshit on every level.
There are still just as many selection pressures as ever. That is where we get smug, get it wrong. We like to tell ourselves we've transcended evolution, that we're the pinnacle of creation. How could you even imagine something better than us? Clearly evolution plateaued when it thought of us, it found the "ideal form" that will last forever. But really ... this is just a projection of Christianity's "Humans = God's Image" into the science era. It's bullshit, "Emperor's New Clothes" type bullshit.
People in the third world have high infant mortality, they have high selection pressure in childhood. People in the first world have low infant mortality, but very low birth rates, they have high selection pressure for a mate and to procreate. You don't have / don't want to have kids? You're part of the selection pressure. Any genes that you have that correlated at all with your lack of kids are the ones being selected against.
"No selection pressure" would be a world where everyone has a high chance of reaching adulthood and then went on to create large families. No such world exists.
Well that's just, uninteresting. That's not controversial at all! Begone!I don't think you understand me Max. Or you are talking past me, or me you, or something.We're both talking past each other, the internet is an enabler of human development in a new way, along a path which there is no reason to think won't end up square in transhuman territory, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't try to make things happen and lack the ability to begin trying to care if they do, just can't do it, but it is what I call them, and you asked for clarification.You know, they have a pill for that now.
- Speaking of politics, I'll just go ahead and steal LW's point about yesterday's irony being tomorrow's truth and say that the next wave of politics needs to be of those who abandon pragmatism and cynical dealing for straightforwardness and utter integrity. Playing Game of Thrones with the government used to work, but now people are aware of that and have no confidence at all in anything because of it. What would have once been naivety holds a hidden power, and the mere perception of this was what allowed Trump to get powerful.Perhaps its only the perception that matters.
- Morality is as much subject to the progression of knowledge as anything else in philosophy, and is in most cases not timeless. We should be open to new discoveries on this front and should also not bother with judging those in history by our standards. Their acceptance of what is to us is obviously evil is the same kind of thing as their ignorance of electricity.True enough, but I'll ask ya straight: what exactly is the nature of morality? Not necessarily what is moral, but what is its nature? Because you seem to know quite a bit about it, and I want to hear your thoughts.
- Even taking mental illness into account, people have an inherent right to self-harm and suicide.Well fucking hey! Here is something I should have said earlier in the controversy thread.
If a person is doing so publicly it's alright to intervene because we reasonably know that when people do it publicly it's sourced in a desire to be helped, but the actions of law enforcement and medical personal towards the (typically post-attempt) suicidal while well-meaning are often stepford-esq and are a violation of their personhood. The Baker Act in particular goes even further beyond this and should be repealed or strictly amended as it is frequently used to abuse people not in an active crisis state and even maliciously against those who are under no mental stress at all. A society that cares about freedom must, to be consistent with its own values, accept that the right to life comes paired with the right to refuse that life.If I could make gifs work, I'd have the one of Citizen Kane applauding.
- In order to solve our endemic economic problems, we're going to need a new order of economic thought on the level of Wealth of Nations or Das Kapital to deal with the stockholder system, new monopolies, and automation. If you thought communism was a radical proposal...Is this supposed to be controversial? If it wasn't for the last line you could insert this into most online discussions without getting more than a raised eyebrow.
social darwinism is a bunch of crap.
-snip snoop-a +1 to most of this in general, and the pineapple pizza topping thing in particular.
Quotesocial darwinism is a bunch of crap.
It's a good thing then that nothing I wrote has any connection to social darwinism.
The idea of competing for a mate and limited resources meaning you have to decide whether to have kids or not : that's normal Darwinism.
Circumcision of male babies is as much child abuse as it is with female babies even if the latter has more severe consequences, and the procedure should only be available to adults or if medically necessary. Also, people's reactions to the thought of trying to convince 18-year olds to get their dicks chopped prove they already know it's inappropriate.
Quotesocial darwinism is a bunch of crap.
It's a good thing then that nothing I wrote has any connection to social darwinism.
The idea of competing for a mate and limited resources meaning you have to decide whether to have kids or not : that's normal Darwinism.
ok, sorry. I guess i misinterpreted that.
Still, the existence or lack thereof of selective pressures is irrelevant to the initial argument.
Perhaps its only the perception that matters.I guess we'll see. If Trump keeps up the song and dance for four years successfully, than yes. If he's forced into substance or everybody realizes he's a terrible person, than no. Regardless, actually reliable people in government will always be better than those who just look reliable, so seek that no matter what.
True enough, but I'll ask ya straight: what exactly is the nature of morality? Not necessarily what is moral, but what is its nature? Because you seem to know quite a bit about it, and I want to hear your thoughts.Morality is the definition of when and why some actions should be accepted or not, and is inherently subjective in nature (to the extent that even should an objective moral standard exist in the universe, all actual standards set by human beings will be subjective, including those that claim objectivity). As a concept it's really not more than that, and to say more would be to delve into actual discussions of the morality of certain actions. Morality is inherently linked to actions by (for now) humans, however. An orphanage of children burning to death in an accident is wrong, but it's wrong in the sense that it's an undesirable occurrence because it was accidental. The moral dimension would only come in if, say, you had people opposed to righting the fault in electrical wiring that makes such fires likely. Of course, if the likelihood of the fault causing a fire is so low that using the money for fault correcting for it instead of other things causes even further deaths and saves none, yadda yadda and now we're down the rabbit hole of magnitude and probability.
Is this supposed to be controversial? If it wasn't for the last line you could insert this into most online discussions without getting more than a raised eyebrow.It's only not controversial because I didn't start laying into my proto-first draft of how I'll become the next Marx. Once you get to proposal level people start freaking out, or perhaps nodding in rapturous agreement. One of the two.
I thought saying that pineapple is a pizza topping was the controversial one?I'm generally against genocide, but you pineapple folk are starting to get at my utility function.
It is, by the way. Hawaiian pizza is delicious, and some day I'll experiment with other combinations. One day pineapple will be in all foods. You can't stop progress.
I've never seen this opinion as controversial. I haven't asked everybody I know "Hey how do you feel about circumcision," but everybody I have asked has an opinion much like yours.It depends on a lot. It's not controversial among young Americans or most Europeans, but outside of that group you start to encounter resistance, some hysterical in nature. Also, people who circumcised their children because a doctor told them to and always secretly questioned if it was alright, they tend to panic when these things are discussed.
In short form, gun ownership in the United States (that distinction will be important) should be subject to reasonable restrictions on things like straw purchases and military equipment, but otherwise permitted. It is my almost one and only shamefully center-right opinion, though I don't see it that way and would probably clash with those sorts in spite of alleged agreement. Strict scrutiny should be applied to measures that seek to disarm particular elements of the population due to, in particular, a history of arming whites and disarming blacks. Any further on this line and I'll run straight into my controversial policing opinions, but the thread is young. I also think that this is an issue that it is alright to have different standards on for different societies, because it is in many ways based upon the historical ethos of different nations. It's like how South Africa has a long, long amount of law that pertains to the protection of the unique post-apartheid stability attained there, it's a necessity for them but not for anywhere else.Anti-vaxxers are a threat to public safety and there should be no exemption to vaccination except medical necessity.
Out of curiosity related to this point, what are your views on gun ownership?
The rest of the points were in regards to crispr technology being a viable alternative to natural evolutionary process, which I still think is very relevant to your argument for resisting transhumanism.
One aspect of transhumanism can be that: becoming symbiotically dependent on technology to the point we lose the evolved ability that would have done that job (although not as well). That happens with physical skills, and there's no reason to think it won't also happen with mental skills. The types of cognition abilities which are selected for will be the ones that make a difference in reproduction. If we offload tasks to computers then those will do things we used to do, and there will be less selection pressure in that direction. In that sense we are in fact in a symbiotic relationship with technology.
except for the bit where you "contradicted" me by agreeing with the point I was trying to make.This isn't the type of debate where we are arbitrarily relegated to opposition. We are allowed to agree on things.
Well sure, but I mean that much is obvious. Obviously you want to always pick people who will do good things for the country regardless of other factors. But perhaps it is only the perception of how it gets done that matters. Or?Perhaps its only the perception that matters.I guess we'll see. If Trump keeps up the song and dance for four years successfully, than yes. If he's forced into substance or everybody realizes he's a terrible person, than no. Regardless, actually reliable people in government will always be better than those who just look reliable, so seek that no matter what.
Oh? Accepted you say? So morality is proscriptive in nature? Can it also be prescriptive in nature? That is to say, can it also say "Thou shalt" instead of "Thou shalt not?" If it requires acceptance, does that mean it needs more than one individual? Can a person alone in nature be moral or immoral?QuoteTrue enough, but I'll ask ya straight: what exactly is the nature of morality? Not necessarily what is moral, but what is its nature? Because you seem to know quite a bit about it, and I want to hear your thoughts.Morality is the definition of when and why some actions should be accepted or not,
and is inherently subjective in nature (to the extent that even should an objective moral standard exist in the universe, all actual standards set by human beings will be subjective, including those that claim objectivity).Isn't "all morality is subjective" an objective statement? It certainly doesn't leave mcuh room for other interpretation, so it certainly seems objective. But you can tell me.
As a concept it's really not more than that, and to say more would be to delve into actual discussions of the morality of certain actions.We'll see.
Morality is inherently linked to actions by (for now) humans, however. An orphanage of children burning to death in an accident is wrong, but it's wrong in the sense that it's an undesirable occurrence because it was accidental. The moral dimension would only come in if, say, you had people opposed to righting the fault in electrical wiring that makes such fires likely.Ahh! So then, what is "undesirable" is not a part of morality? So then, what is the difference between "undesirable" and "immoral"? You are stating - if I understand you - that bad things are not necessarily morally bad; so what is the difference? Does it depend on the morality in question, or are there some things which are beyond the question of morals? I don't quite understand your example which, I think, is intended to explain the difference: is an action immoral only if people are deciding or choosing things? Does that mean that only actions are immoral, or can there be immoral situations and objects?
Of course, if the likelihood of the fault causing a fire is so low that using the money for fault correcting for it instead of other things causes even further deaths and saves none, yadda yadda and now we're down the rabbit hole of magnitude and probability.So then morality, if I understand you, is decision-making controlled by what is socially accepted? Or have I managed to misunderstand you?
It's only not controversial because I didn't start laying into my proto-first draft of how I'll become the next Marx.And I thank you for that.
Unless you're talking about a full gene drive (which basically edits the genome every single generation), anything you make with CRISPR is still subject to selection pressures.
Mutations = change in genes
Selection = culling of genes
Mutations add variety, and selection takes it away, until the gene pool hits equilibrium around some "ideal point". The further you are from this equilibrium point, the higher the selection pressure that you face.
CRISPR is a type of mutation basically. And there are two outcomes:
#1 - small change: the equilibrium point is still where it was. The CRISPR mutant will therefore face stronger selection pressures which drive it back towards the old equilibrium point
#2 - large change: the genome is changed enough that it's in the realm of an entirely different equilibrium point. This is what you need to happen if you want some edit to remain stable. But the problem here is that many (vast numbers of) possible genomes will be in the "catchment" area that would get driven to the same equilibrium point. So the chance that changing one gene that made a new equilibrium point is actually on the equilibrium point is basically zero chance. So the organism will face increased selection pressures on all other genes to optimize itself for the new equilibrium point.
e.g. mutations do not reduce selection pressures, they increase them in almost all cases, because existing organisms have already reached an equilibrium point that minimizes selection pressure. Any mutation disrupts that equilibrium.
The further you are from this equilibrium point, the higher the selection pressure that you face.That's just plain wrong. Selection pressure has to do with how fit an organism is for the environment it is in. It has nothing to do with how similar an organism is to others of the same species.
But ... if you force something away from equilibrium, e.g. mutations which includes CRISPR, then it's now out of equilbrium. When something is out of equilibrium then selection pressures are going to very rapidly get the fuck rid of your added mutation, the same as it does for naturally occuring mutations.Ok, look. Natural selection is only going to get rid of a mutation if it is actively detrimental to an organism's survival in some way. In nature, that is 99% of the (non silent) mutations that occur, because they are relatively random. They are suppressed because they hurt the chances of survival, not because it makes them different from the rest of the given species. Silent mutations (the majority of mutations) are rarely purged from the genome at all. Only about 5% of human DNA actualy codes for anything, the rest is just random crap that has accumulated.
Natural Selection is actually a very rapid processNo. It is not fast by any measurement. Even when you were talking about it here you were talking about a generational timescale. A (given, extremely rudimentary) crispr treatment can be designed and implemented in a matter of months. The pace of natural evolution is glacial in comparison to this.
No you're not really up on the theory then.Don't do this. I really really really do understand what i'm talking about.
Ok, look. Natural selection is only going to get rid of a mutation if it is actively detrimental to an organism's survival in some way. In nature, that is 99% of the (non silent) mutations that occur, because they are relatively random. They are suppressed because they hurt the chances of survival, not because it makes them different from the rest of the given species. Silent mutations (the majority of mutations) are rarely purged from the genome at all. Only about 5% of human DNA actualy codes for anything, the rest is just random crap that has accumulated.
If we make changes with crispr you can bet your ass they are going to be beneficial, because we are going to know exactly what we are doing before we do it. We would only do the beneficial ones.
I can feel myself getting a little heated here, and i'm sure you feel somewhat the same so i'm going to invoke rule 1 in the OP. This will be my last argument post on this topic, and you may have the last post to respond to anything i've said and recap your argument.I feel a bit bad for wading in at all, then, but a couple of teensy-weensy things...
Only about 5% of human DNA actualy codes for anything, the rest is just random crap that has accumulated.Nobody really knows what the <insert latest interpretation here>% of the DNA (called 'junk') is in the grand scheme of things. Between bits suspected to be 'ionisation sinks', to give protective effects to the rest, and other less directly tested and more esoteric estimations of the utility, there's obviously some usefulness to the 'junk', or else selection would not have maintained a system that requires twenty times more DNA to be replicated at every cell division (not just at conception and in gestation but, for many differentiated adult cells, throughout a person's life) - a huge resource-gobbler. Even if only the gamete-to gamete production of cell lines directly carries the junk between generations, they only do that because the rest of the organism transports them through time and space towards the opportunity to participate in creating the next generation, and that's a lot of so-called-junk being replicated along the way.
If we make changes with crispr you can bet your ass they are going to be beneficial, because we are going to know exactly what we are doing before we do it.Much as generating a 'slimline' genome (in this instance (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2082278-artificial-cell-designed-in-lab-reveals-genes-essential-to-life/), it was a count of the number of genes, rather than base-pairs, that was the aim, and "junk" isn't mentioned, so I'm not sure how much they messed with that) may ruin some heretofore useful junkDNA/proteome interaction, saying that we will not break things badly at some level by doing anything but the simplest of substitutions. Correcting a known disabling base-flip is going to be 'simple', anything leading to transhumanism of any significant worth, less so.
We would only do with the beneficial ones.We would only try the beneficial ones.
Don't do this. I really really really do understand what i'm talking about.Perhaps more than me (I'm sure Reelya knows more than I do about the current state of research, so why not you, also?) but I do see some room for improvement, or at least cautious conservatism, in your more wildly optimistic predictions.
Morals are statements about how you think the world should behave; I think people shouldn't be allowed to murder babies because some vapid bimbo can't shut her trap about it, so I think going against vaccination is morally wrong.Morals are how the world should behave? Interesting, interesting. So more. You say "should". But this implies a great deal, doesn't it? It implies that there are many possible states the world (or some subset of the world, like a situation) could be in, and only one of those states are moral; do I understand you properly? But here is a question: let us say that I believe that orange is the best color (obviously blue is the best color, but for the purposes of this thought let's pretend I thought otherwise). And let's say that I believed that walls should be orange. Is that a moral judgement, or not? If it can be a moral judgement, are there moralities where it is possible for me to both believe that walls should be orange, but not believe that that is a moral judgment? If it is possible, then there is some issue with "should" isn't there? The word might be too broad. I might suggest - and call me out if I say differently than what you believe - that not every "should" is necessarily about morality. But if it isn't, then what seperates a moral "should" from a non-moral "should"?
Rights are statements about how you think people (and society) should treat you and how you should treat them ... If someone is aware enough to express a right, they damn well fucking have it, but if they're not able to dismiss one, it should not be assumed that they lack it.Also interesting. Tell me, was your repeated use of the word "you" in the first sentence deliberate? If so, than that seems to imply that the people can simply decide they have certain rights; is that what you meant? Wouldn't that mean that, say, people can decide that they have the right to not vaccinate? And regardless, I need you to explain everything after "but if they're not able to dismiss". I don't understand this, so please help me out a bit. Rights exist only if people imagine they do, right? Then that means that rights must not exist until people imagine them, surely? The former part of your paragraph seems to discuss rights as something anyone could imagine, while the latter seems to insist that there are certain rights that exist whether or not someone is aware of the. But which is it? If I've at all misunderstood something you've written, please explain further so I can understand you better.
Freedoms are similar to rights, in that there is often overlap, but the distinction of positive and negative freedoms doesn't fit into the previous definition I gave of rights. I have the freedom to go down the street and watch birds, this is a positive freedom as it expresses a lack of limitations on certain behaviors or actions; I have the freedom to expect others to not try to punch me in the nose while I do this, which is a negative freedom as it expresses limitations on certain behaviors or actions in the context of others.When you say freedom, do you mean freedom in the physical sense? Freedom being "I have unlocked doors and am able to walk on my two-feet, therefore I can walk outside if I so choose" and "I am not in any immediate danger, therefore I am free from immediate danger", or does freedom mean something else as well? If freedom is about more than literal physical circumstance, what defines that sort of freedom? How might I know that this is a freedom I have? Your definition of freedom fits quite well with the literal, but, unless I've missed something, you didn't really define freedom in the same way you defined rights?
I'm pretty sure those are nonstandard usage (I think freedoms are often defined the opposite way as negative and positive liberties actually), it's just what the words seem like they should mean, but as they're probably not terribly controversial, I'll add this one:Is this the same moral-defining "should" from before? :)
Beliefs are not required for a human to function, you do not need to hold things to be true if you lack certainty in their truth, but that lack of confidence in something does not require one to hold them to be false either, degrees of confidence between true and false are quite possible.Interesting. You say beliefs are not required for function? Then I will ask something by way of example: Imagine that we had a man with no beliefs at all. He had certain things which, as you say, he held some degree of confidence in, but he believed in absolutely nothing! When he went to sleep at night, he believed there was a non-zero chance that he would wake up naked in a field, his house having disappeared as an illusion. Certainly, not a very large chance at all, but it was there. The proper scientific gentlemen! But having constructed this fellow (whom I will name Jeremy for no reason at all), I find myself wondering a few questions about him. First, how does he decide? He believes in nothing at all, after all, only realms of probability. But in order to make a decision, mustn't Jeremy, like a quantum particle, collapse from a realm of possible beliefs into a single, concrete position? Does he disbelieve himself even during the act and moment of making a choice or decision? How is that possible? Forgive me for not being able to understand, but to disbelieve your decisions during the actual decision, isn't that equivalent to doubting your own thoughts? How is that even possible? Doesn't such a doubter at least believe in himself as a mind which doubts? I mean, I'm sure it's possible that he believes he disbelieves in his own thoughts; but then, he has to believe that he is disbelieving something.
So why is preserving the human race a desirable goal anyway? That is - why should we care about the future generations? What's wrong with just using all the resources we can to live the most luxurious life we can, the future be damned?The negentropy score for our universe won't be as high as possible, duh.
I kinda hate things entire "YOU MUST LOVE OR HATE A BAND" thing. There are boatloads of bands that have a just couple of songs that I like and many others songs that I don't.
Ok, i'll bite.I kinda hate things entire "YOU MUST LOVE OR HATE A BAND" thing. There are boatloads of bands that have a just couple of songs that I like and many others songs that I don't.
Almost all the music I like is like that. I like a few by this band, a few by that band, but never more than a few songs.
There's only three groups in all my listening that I can conclusively say "I like almost everything by these people."
@misko...quoth the Raven "Nevermore"
I've been sick and in bed off and on most of the last day, or two, not sure, much as I am not sure about many things. I didn't like not knowing what things were as early as I can remember, and as I learned how much of what was thought to be fact is closer to an approximation I found myself going back through what I thought was true that was actually just possibly true or even probably true. When I encountered church as a thing and religion as a concept I started reading about that and it bugged the shit out of me that this word "belief" keeps cropping up, and that the definition seems to be "something held to be true" so I started going back through other books and investigating it, trying to find the "under these conditions" extension of that statement. Held to be true if what, or when this, or as long as that, something like that. Later I learned this isn't actually a problem for most people, but when you suggest that it is a problem for you they kinda seem shocked at the whole idea that if I express a belief I am lying to myself and others. No I don't need to take it to that point, but it feels wrong to do so without a viable "under these conditions" qualifier, but that means it isn't really a belief anymore doesn't it? Varying levels of doubt and confidence suffice for me and are far more comfortable than unwarranted certainty.
Now the comfort of my pillow is calling me back, stupendous and unheard of slumbers await me there, and I shall seek them soon.
So why is preserving the human race a desirable goal anyway? That is - why should we care about the future generations? What's wrong with just using all the resources we can to live the most luxurious life we can, the future be damned?
If you complain that a game's "only good with mods" and completely tear out the guts until it doesn't even resemble what you bought, you should probably just spend your money on the game that you would rather be playing in the first place.what if it doesnt exist or you cant get it?
I have terrible performance problems.Looking at your current avatar, this is either understandable or not at all understandable, depending on how far out of context you take this... ;)
I'm hard-pressed to think of a game that doesn't exist.
Here is one: Saudia Arabia's regime is worse than the Taliban.
he wasn't all that successful at that anyways.
Simeon Weisz: I don't think you and I are in the same business. You think I just sell guns, don't you? I don't. I take sides.
Yuri: But in the Iran-Iraq War, you sold guns to both sides.
Simeon Weisz: Did you ever consider that I wanted both sides to lose?
The PDPA came to power through a coup known as the Saur Revolution, which ousted the government of Mohammad Daoud Khan. Daoud was succeeded by Nur Muhammad Taraki as head of state and government on 30 April 1978. Taraki and Hafizullah Amin, the organiser of the Saur Revolution, introduced several contentious reforms during their rule, the most notable being equal rights to women, universal education and land reform.
Najibullah pursued a policy of National Reconciliation with the opposition, a new Afghan constitution was introduced in 1987 and democratic elections were held in 1988 (which were boycotted by the mujahideen).
when someone says "country X is known for Y" then that's only a valid observation if it's specific to that country.N... no, that's not correct. Like, at all. Something being known for something does not necessitate or even particularly insinuate exclusivity. You can apply it to something more innocuous to make that obvious; there's a handful of countries in the world all known for their lumber industries, ferex. That any particular one is known for that, is an entirely valid observation.
there's a handful of countries in the world all known for their lumber industries, ferex. That any particular one is known for that, is an entirely valid observation.
Also, only Poo did that, Reels, and that was a tangent. Countering noise with noise doesn't really work...Not sure why that matters. I made it clear in my statement that I was directly addressing the specific statement made by 'Poo
All 5 of them. China, France, England, USA and Russia all have a strong history of meddling.
Do you have an example of such an anti-Powell intervention working out?
My unpopular idea regarding that is that people are really eager to equate the mujahdeen to the Taliban because it helps the "dae AmeriKKKa?" line and fail to recognize that the mujahdeen were a generalized group of resistance fighters who aren't all the same, and while they contained the proto-Talibs they also contained what would go on to become the Northern Alliance/United Islamic Front who were against the Taliban.
The NA also was partially lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was probably the single greatest hope for Afghanistan. Well-respected and wanted to bring the country closer to modern standards. He was assassinated two days before 9/11 and attempted to warn the US that it was being planned, though he did not know the details. Incidentally, Osama bin Laden said of him that "as long as this man lives, we will never be victorious".
So by "idea" I more mean something along the lines of "fact".
Smash what we don't like, grab what we do, tip our fedoras to the locals and leave them in the shattered remains of their lives as we go home to loving families. It's the american way.
I believe that racism is rational.*Anthropologist twitches
I fully understand that many horrible actions have been, and continue to be, motivated by racism. And I appreciate the importance of ensuring that these crimes are not repeated. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Different races have verifiable physical and psychological differences and we are fools to pretend that those do not exist. We can teach our children how to be accepting and fair to those who are different without deceiving them with lies that we are all exactly the same.
I'm not suggesting that people should be granted different human rights based on the color of their skin. I'm just saying that it's rational to approach strangers with measured expectations based on the sociological trends that their collective race have established as commonplace.
The idea that we are physically and psychologically different on any meaningful level is kinda bullshit though.
First, Lynn was hardly unique among leading IQ experts in characterizing the Irish as being low IQ. For example, Hans Eysenck, one of the foremost IQ researchers of the 20th century said exactly the same thing in his 1971 book “Race, Intelligence, & Education,” claiming that the Irish IQ was very close to that of American blacks, and that the Irish/English IQ gap was almost exactly the same size as the black/white gap in the U.S., being roughly a full standard deviation. Eysenck’s stated position unsurprisingly caused a considerable furor in the British media, including all sorts of angry responses and even (facetious) threats of violence. So the huge and apparently well-designed 1972 study of 3,466 Irish schoolchildren which placed the mean Irish IQ at just 87 hardly seems an absurd outlier.
I mean... culture tends to often divide down racial lines (unfortunately), and different cultures present different social challenges and risks. Being aware of the culture you are interacting with is the solution to that. Avoid ethnocentrism and all that.not directed at you directly.
The idea that we are physically and psychologically different on any meaningful level is kinda bullshit though.
This is...
I would just urge everyone to tread carefully here and remember the rules in the OP.
In addition, height is genetic but it isn't racial: race doesn't exist on the genetic level in any rigorous manner...
The reason basketball teams are predominantly black is also cultural.
not directed at you directly.
it doesn't though most of the time. culture divides along many lines and is tied in with geography, shared history, language, traditions exc.
-snip snoop-
it's right above if you want it.
There are correlations between genes and enjoying watching baseball however (since specific races/cultures like baseball).
You can also probably prove some level of genetic correlation as to whether people call soda "soda" "pop" or "coke" in the USA.
That doesn't mean the correlations are meaningful.
In addition, height is genetic but it isn't racial: race doesn't exist on the genetic level in any rigorous manner...
The reason basketball teams are predominantly black is also cultural.
I did not mean to imply that all differences between peoples were caused by race. However, it must be acknowledged that a correlation exists between race, genes, and culture, even if the three are not directly linked. And of those things, race is the most immediately identifiable, and therefore the most effective means of forming initial expectations when encountering someone for the first time.
In relation to what Reelya mentioned, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study) may be of interest to you, along with the interpretations. It's a difficult topic to discuss, but it's worth scientific examination to try find out just what exactly is going on and the various possible causes, whether they be cultural, environmental, or whatever.
(I was actually looking for a different study I recall reading about, done in Maryland I believe, but I can't find it, so I suppose the possibility exists that I confused two 'M' states.)
For my part, I think it's good to read a wide variety of opinions and research, but I'd be very wary of taking small studies as proof of anything.
The American gestalt guarantees that we're incapable of fighting a long war to a satisfactory result, with the possible exception of the Indian Wars, and calling the various Indian wars a cohesive thing is pretty problematic.
The American gestalt guarantees that we're incapable of fighting a long war to a satisfactory result, with the possible exception of the Indian Wars, and calling the various Indian wars a cohesive thing is pretty problematic.
I disagree. We tend to forget them, but the US spent much of the early 20th century fighting counter-insurgencies in places like Haiti.
unless they own the entire website themselves in which case their house, their rules
??? The entire thing I said is that that should not be the case. The idea is that an administrator with no personal stake can decide if something is truly damaging and needs to be removed, or if the person is just trying to frivolously delete something that they regret posting.But the thing is, it's not deleted.
??? The entire thing I said is that that should not be the case.
Sometimes anonymous internet arguments involve very public figures with lots of money, products to offer and/or political power. I know Trump has deleted at least one or two tweets or edited them. I can't remember any specific examples, but I'm sure brands have regretted social media posts and deleted them after negative backlash. That is information that a consumer or voter could use to make a decision, and therefore removing that content is an anti-consumer action.
I will admit, I thought of that only briefly. I was mainly annoyed by Internet arguments and people washing their hands of unpopular statements by deleting them.
This is a thing... (https://twitter.com/deletedbymps?lang=en) (It overlays an unremovable "login or register" popover frame, but I assume it behaves well for others not as disadvantaged as me.)
I heard about it in an interview with a somewhat wildcard Member of Parliament who says he often tweets things just to soon delete them for posterity via this 'bot...
It seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Anything high-profile or high-controversy gets screenshotted or even Waybacked. I can't even remember an instance of "this authority figure posted something horrible but it wasn't recorded, you have to believe me".That's because when they delete it you never hear about it.
Time to be the Devil's Advocate: On the other hand, if everything you said was there forever, we'd might do the impossible and force people to actually think before talking. You take for granted reasons to delete, but if there was no delete there would be fewer reasons to.That flies completely in the face of reality, heh. Everything you say is already close enough to forever it only barely makes a difference, and that doesn't stop many people. Even folks that get burned for saying stupid shit only occasionally actually edit or delete what they said, and/or keep themselves under control in the future.
Two weeks ago, NRKbeta, the tech vertical of the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK, published an explainer about a proposed new digital surveillance law in the country. Digital security is a controversial topic, and the conversation around security issues can become heated. But the conversation in the comments of the article was respectful and productive: Commenters shared links to books and other research, asked clarifying questions, and offered constructive feedback. The team at NRKbeta attributes the civil tenor of its comments to a feature it introduced last month. On some stories, potential commenters are now required to answer three basic multiple-choice questions about the article before they're allowed to post a comment. The goal is to ensure that the commenters have actually read the story before they discuss it.
I imagine if posts were no longer able to be edited or deleted, it'd be quite an effective deterrent against PC culture. Once it's more unavoidable, people would quickly grow sick and tired of the outrage brigade manufacturing a shitfit over their every poorly-worded remark. Spurious accusations of racism, sexism and misogyny would probably recede somewhat from the political/cultural landscape as those who scream the loudest are quickly proven to be hypocrites and swiftly cannibalized by their own.Tbh I'd just use sock puppets to call you racist with accusations that would remain standing for all time
Sounds good to me, let's do it.
Time to be the Devil's Advocate: On the other hand, if everything you said was there forever, we'd might do the impossible and force people to actually think before talking. You take for granted reasons to delete, but if there was no delete there would be fewer reasons to.I like the sentiment of this, however it becomes China in short time. There is wonderful frankness involved in anonymous internet discussion where one can speak freely, speak honestly and speak plainly, without fear of repercussion for displaying ignorance or controversy. In real life, displaying that you do not know something or think differently from everyone else can be very dangerous to your livelihood, whereas on the internet you can formulate arguments by sharpening them with honest discussion - thus starting from a position of ignorance, moving to a position of thought. This breaks manufactured consensus and ideological restrictions on what can be discussed, ensuring the free flow of information and the continual testing of the validity of arguments. I argue that everything said is already present 'forever' (on the human timescale of things) and evidently it matters little to what is being thought. Yet because anonymity and the appearance of impermanence is available, one can speak freely and test their arguments to the world, something that is simply unavailable in any world analogue. To strictly enforce this proposal would mean that all debate would have to continue under a veneer of neutrality and suggestion, inferences instead of statements. Inferences are not as clear as statements.
And all the time I spend double-checking my posts would be justified, because then I would seem so much more eloquent by comparison. Yes, this is a good plan. I support this.
Apologizing is the dumbest thing you can do on social media and guarantees you will be slaughtered.That's a problem with Social Media. I do try to apologise whenever I think I ought to (may be either more or less than I should, probably a mixture, probably also subjectively judged differently by different people), but just going There Is Something Wrong On The Internet (https://xkcd.com/386/) without the possibility of de-escalating the resulting slanging match just ramps everything up to no benefit to any reasonable person.
This argument is not helpful. If the koolaid is qualitatively different from the poison (reasonable, given that the centrifuge can separate them), then why expect the koolaid to be happy about the poison? If someone made the same argument about police and said all police should be put in their own country, while the rest of the world did without law enforcement you'd think they were being moronic. Let's focus on getting the poison out, or neutralized or whatever.*There are correlations between genes and enjoying watching baseball however (since specific races/cultures like baseball).
You can also probably prove some level of genetic correlation as to whether people call soda "soda" "pop" or "coke" in the USA.
That doesn't mean the correlations are meaningful.
Of course correlations are meaningful, they're just not causal.
If you test the Koolaid and find that it's poisonous, that doesn't mean that all Koolaid is inherently poisonous. So you stick a sample in a centrifuge and seperate the Koolaid from the poison, and the Koolaid part tests as harmless. You've proven that Koolaid is not intrinsically linked to poison. But that doesn't mean you go back and drink from the pitcher.
I have waited years to post this with no opportunity until nowApologizing is the dumbest thing you can do on social media and guarantees you will be slaughtered.That's a problem with Social Media. I do try to apologise whenever I think I ought to (may be either more or less than I should, probably a mixture, probably also subjectively judged differently by different people), but just going There Is Something Wrong On The Internet (https://xkcd.com/386/) without the possibility of de-escalating the resulting slanging match just ramps everything up to no benefit to any reasonable person.
(Yes, there are plenty of unreasonable people. The rest of your post highlights a possible set of crowds for such a label. But please don't take this comment as an attempt to be Voice Of Authority on this issue..)
I spent a couple years in a debate sport. One of the first skills (and it is a skill) you have to acquire is the ability to basically drive yourself insane on the spot and believe whatever argument you're running. The alternative is to become really comfortable with lying, but believing is more effective. Do neither and you're sure to lose. Even after a lot of experience there was only one argument I could not mindfuck myself enough to believe or even lie convincingly about, that being contemporary panpsychism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) I had no problem arguing in favor of human extinction or galactic conquest right after one another, though. Among some crazier things.
Anyway, doing this for a while definitely has side-effects. I spent about a year or so believing all beliefs are arbitrarily selected bullshit and that logic doesn't exist because it works just as well for supporting things literally nobody thinks is true as it does the empirically verifiable. I would literally get angry at people for clinging to their beliefs, because like we all know that your principles are just for style, why are you being so difficult with me?
So yeah, too much devil's advocacy is bad for you, no joke.
I think what we need is partly being able to agree that if someone said something racist/stupid years ago, at some point if that person apologize and stop saying such thing we should stop giving a fuck. Maybe it's my inner crypto-Catholic speaking, but basically more forgiveness.
Like there was one stupid "controversy" recently about Oulaya Amamra, a French actress who won the Césars (France's attempt at copying the Oscars so their movies win something) as "Best Rising Actress". People dug out stupid, homophobic shit she said when she was 14. I mean, she says she changed her mind and apologized, what's the point of beating the drum of war or something.
Gotta agree with LW here. If you apologize, you're basically telling people that if they pile enough pressure on, you'll back down. It won't end with 'Oops, I phrased something poorly/said something I genuinely don't believe out of anger, sorry guys', it'll quickly grow to include any and all perceived sins like 'You didn't acknowledge your privilege!' or 'You said 'normal' people, omg!'.
Apologizing (or even arguing that no, what you said wasn't 'toxic' or 'problematic', because xyz) just gives power to people trying to censor you.
I'm not familiar with Oulaya Amamra, but I can guarantee that whatever she said, I'd have more respect for her if her response was 'You're dragging up shit I said when I was 14? Haha, eat a bag of dicks.'
I've certainly argued shit I didn't personally believe, because I believed that people *should* be able to argue the thing in question, and we're in danger of losing that 'ground' to people who want to make more and more opinions unacceptable to hold. I mean, I wouldn't choose flat Earthism as my yardstick there, but plenty of other things spring to mind.I tend to argue stuff out of boredom if I see too many people agreeing with the position, like a reflexive contrarian. The more controversial the topic the more thought I put into it, the more consensus the topic the more I test the consensus because it's fun
The truth is, despite all my anti-EU polemic, I am actually Jean-Claude Juncker.
I spent a couple years in a debate sport. One of the first skills (and it is a skill) you have to acquire is the ability to basically drive yourself insane on the spot and believe whatever argument you're running. The alternative is to become really comfortable with lying, but believing is more effective. Do neither and you're sure to lose. Even after a lot of experience there was only one argument I could not mindfuck myself enough to believe or even lie convincingly about, that being contemporary panpsychism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) I had no problem arguing in favor of human extinction or galactic conquest right after one another, though. Among some crazier things.I don't think it's insanity if done right, more like method acting, self-deception and hyper-empathy, where you can argue fervently as if you were a zealot born to the cause - of a cause you care nothing about, or perhaps are even entirely antithetical too. I've never had to argue in favour of human extinction or galactic conquest, however I have had to argue such things as total warfare being beneficial for humanity and on a day to day basis am usually formulating the best arguments I can think of in opposition to everything I consider good in this world.
1) My point was that we should be more forgiving and not hold people accountable for views they held years ago if they have changed their views. I don't think we disagree on this. But I'm not surprised that you seems to believe that acknowledging that you were wrong when you were and or/apologizing for past mistakes is a show of weakness or something. Fits right in that conservative/reactionnary stick you got going.My point is that by establishing acceptable criteria based upon viewpoints, with which to destroy people's lives, there is nothing moral inherent in that. Such a system merely enforces a rolling agenda that ruins the lives of people the collective mass of internetizens decides is appropriate, with their definitions being entirely subjective and of ill-judgement. Why should you have to seek forgiveness on the internet for believing in something someone else doesn't like at all? Why do you have to change your views simply because someone on the internet is threatening to ruin your life?
I've experienced the same thing, and it's definitely really, really creepy when one thinks about it.I dunno, I think it's a natural consequence of all argumentation being explicitly or implicitly based on axioms that are defined quite arbitrarily. It's why "pure rationalism" is not as good as some people try to portray.
My point was that we should be more forgiving and not hold people accountable for views they held years ago if they have changed their views.
Taking responsibility for your wrongs is one of the highest most admirable virtues that all must learn in life.
Hm, isn't the rabid internet outrage mob a right wing phenomenon?It's extremist phenomenon. Extremists can be right wing, they can be left wing, they can be flying above and below, or suspended in vacuum.
More powerful people have been killed by "sorry" (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403) without regard to how much you've done for humankind (http://nypost.com/2014/11/17/the-outrage-machine-insande-ado-about-sexist-shirt/)
I spent a couple years in a debate sport. One of the first skills (and it is a skill) you have to acquire is the ability to basically drive yourself insane on the spot and believe whatever argument you're running. The alternative is to become really comfortable with lying, but believing is more effective. Do neither and you're sure to lose. Even after a lot of experience there was only one argument I could not mindfuck myself enough to believe or even lie convincingly about, that being contemporary panpsychism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) I had no problem arguing in favor of human extinction or galactic conquest right after one another, though. Among some crazier things.
Hm, isn't the rabid internet outrage mob a right wing phenomenon?
Yeah, that's not my experience at all. The archetypal example that always springs to my mind is that young girl who attempted suicide (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/zamii070-harassment-controversy) over the outrage about her Steven Universe/MLP fanart.
I mean, her attackers didn't explicitly state their voting intentions, true, but I don't think the 'right wing' give a shit about supposed whitewashing, ableism or transmisogyny in the fanart for children's cartoons. God knows I don't.
One's ability to genuinely understand the perspective of another is limited by the conviction of their own beliefs. For debate as a sport, it's necessary to go beyond the logical extrapolation of another position for the sake of the performance. I can understand the logos of, for example, the anti-abortion position just fine. And I even already agree with the ethos, as I imagine most people who are against murder in general do. But without internalizing the outrage at baby genocide it isn't a complete painting, it is missing pathos (so many years, and finally a chance to use that outside of a forum joke).I spent a couple years in a debate sport. One of the first skills (and it is a skill) you have to acquire is the ability to basically drive yourself insane on the spot and believe whatever argument you're running. The alternative is to become really comfortable with lying, but believing is more effective. Do neither and you're sure to lose. Even after a lot of experience there was only one argument I could not mindfuck myself enough to believe or even lie convincingly about, that being contemporary panpsychism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) I had no problem arguing in favor of human extinction or galactic conquest right after one another, though. Among some crazier things.
Or just genuinely understand the perspectives of people who actually believe those things and steer away from the counter-arguments that you would normally make yourself. It doesn't even have to be lying. Just being selective about what thoughts you choose to express.
The problem with people isn't stupidity or insanity or anything. It's that they usually think rather reasonably about things up to a certain point, and then they just STOP. Like "Whelp, that's good enough. I going to just deny that there's anything worth thinking about on this subject beyond this point and be comfortable here." This is my eternal frustration with humanity. The thing I can't understand. Why most people just seem to pick an arbitrary point and stop.
Of course, I won't deny that from most people's perspectives, I am probably seen as doing the same thing on my own convictions, so...
I mean, her attackers didn't explicitly state their voting intentions, true, but I don't think the 'right wing' give a shit about supposed whitewashing, ableism or transmisogyny in the fanart for children's cartoons. God knows I don't.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/an-attempted-suicide-forced-a-tumblr-community-to-open-its-eyes-about-bullying (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/an-attempted-suicide-forced-a-tumblr-community-to-open-its-eyes-about-bullying)
The fallout split members of the Steven Universe fandom on Tumblr in two: those who claimed that Paz's artwork was regressive/problematic and believe that she deserves to be continuously policed, and those who support her brand of artistic freedom and believe that the community's aggressive brand political correction is shutting out potential and important voices in the community.
http://fusion.net/story/223425/zamii-steven-universe-fandom/ (http://fusion.net/story/223425/zamii-steven-universe-fandom/)
In the words of Tumblr user Stephan K
“You can say “hey, that made me uncomfortable” in a way that’s reasonable or, better yet, just don’t follow them. Abuse en masse is not the correct response. That’s the response of a bunch of over-reactionary assholes.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/04/04/mozillas-brendan-eich-persecutor-or-persecuted/#70a4a5ea35cd (https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/04/04/mozillas-brendan-eich-persecutor-or-persecuted/#70a4a5ea35cd)
...Andrew Sullivan, the popular writer of the Daily Dish blog who is openly gay and an early supporter of gay marriage. “The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society,” he wrote. “If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich)
Conor Friedersdorf argued in The Atlantic that "the general practice of punishing people in business for bygone political donations is most likely to entrench powerful interests and weaken the ability of the powerless to challenge the status quo".
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2014/nov/17/comet-scientist-matt-taylor-shirt-awful-what-should-wear-instead-rosetta
As generally happens when a subject takes a feminist turn on the internet, the idiots then turned up, with various lowlifes telling the women who expressed displeasure at the shirt to go kill themselves. (This is not an exaggeration, and there is no need to give these toerags further attention in today’s discussion.)
Boris Johnson http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11234620/Dr-Matt-Taylors-shirt-made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11234620/Dr-Matt-Taylors-shirt-made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html)
I watched that clip of Dr Taylor’s apology – at the moment of his supreme professional triumph – and I felt the red mist come down.
He wasn’t weeping with sheer excitement at this interstellar rendezvous. I am afraid he was crying because he felt he had sinned. He was overcome with guilt and shame for wearing what some people decided was an “inappropriate” shirt on television. “I have made a big mistake,” he said brokenly. “I have offended people and I am sorry about this.”
Continuous policing plus shutting down dissent vs artistic freedom and diverse voices, reminds me of right vs. left. And a diversity of voices means all the voices. Shutting down those you don't like is business as usual for reactionaries.
I think that the real problem here is the Phillips Head side of the Phillips Head vs Hex screws debate. I mean there was that Hex enthusiast and collector whose life they just totally ruined for posting photos of his old-fashioned vintage hex screw heads in the Phillips pinterest, there was constant hate mail and shit. I'm pretty sure the guy took his own life after that.
Also, liek, Danial Radcliffe just said one thing for Hex as a joke, in some tweet, when he was thirteen and barely famous, and he got death threats in the mail from the Phillips Head people. It's little known, and has been covered up wuite a bit by the Phillips Head media, but they ruined his life for a few years, you know? It's scary shit, could happen to anyone brave enough to raise their head and challenge the Phillips Head consensus.
There was also this tech guy on Vimeo who did reviews and shit like that of hardware stuff, and he mostly just talked about power drills and especially DeWalt lines and stuff. But then he's also got massively into the whole Hex thing, and next thing you know the Phillips head guys were like, calling operation Yewtree on him and stuff like that, and mailbombs and shit, not that a Phillips head user could assemble a working mail bomb :o
Anyway, I totally agree with everything you guys are saying. But three's a lotta people out there who wouldn't, so keep it real.
So, it could be said that the Internet hate machine got its start as the Muslim hate machine, though with different tactics (fewer firebombings).... it could be said, it would just be freakishly, massively wrong, to the point of probably needing to be considered as an intentional and blatant lie intended to be supporting some issue that had little to nothing to do with the mentioned internet hate machine. Net's shit has pretty much fuck all to do with the stuff surrounding rushdie, and even less specifically to do with muslims. Could make the argument about religion in general, but you'd still be on hella' sketchy grounds. Largely different demographics, significantly different motivations, massively different degrees of actual offline power. The centuries of hatred religions have been peddling may be a related phenomenon, but that's the closest it gets.
Hm, isn't the rabid internet outrage mob a right wing phenomenon?Others before me have responded to this better and I've nothing more to add except where I've already given proven examples where this is false
And isn't it also true that many (most?) conservatives/reactionnaries are decidedly lacking in moral courage...I imagine the importance of perspective is critical here, as the moralities of conservatives is different to reactionaries is different to progressives etc., and I've never met a reactionary before. The stereotype for conservatives I've never heard have lacked moral courage, given that the whole alignment only exists because there are millions of people who refuse to back down when threatened over their beliefs, which I don't think is unique to conservatives in this modern world. Moving back from the political, where opinions come easy and decisions are cheap, and the difficult moral decisions? The personal ones, where there is no easy answer, only difficult choices? When it comes to moral courage, conservatives' propensity for living by principles gives them an advantage. Neocons are exactly as you stereotype, being the worst fusion of con and neolib. If anything, the negative stereotype for a conservative is not for a lack of moral courage, but for a presence of moral hypocrisy - not living by the principles one preaches.
These are so much better.The way I see it, one cannot disarm the mob without ruining what makes the internet such a unique medium for discussion. However, one can attempt to limit the ammunition given to the internet hate machine by practicing careful control over one's personal information and remaining absolutely, resolutely adamant that you will never kowtow to angry mobs.
Rather than playing by the rules of mob stupidity perhaps we should be thinking of ways to dismantle the apparatus and its weapons. ;)
So, it could be said that the Internet hate machine got its start as the Muslim hate machine, though with different tactics (fewer firebombings).Nah I reckon it's just a very human thing. Any consensus gets enforced by mobs has a tendency to get enforced in angry ways. Poor Rushdie though, dude just wanted to write a book
Since when has voting been the touchstone to right/left? More than that they are styles of behaviour, or ways to approach the world, an entire ethics...Eh...? There is great danger in simply defining all good in the world to be left and all evil in the world to be right, for starters left/right is not terribly useful and for seconds it feeds into very simple tribalism where one side defends their ills as necessary to crush the other side. We're all in this boat together, seems unnecessary to dig up genocidal leftists as representative of modern progressivism, except as top banter
Just because Joseph Stalin was a 'Communist' does not mean he was on the left any more than the KGB were radical cheerleaders. Gulags, bullying, repression, denial of self expression, an entire apparatus of authoritarianism - I'm pretty sure you're getting the picture.
Continuous policing plus shutting down dissent vs artistic freedom and diverse voices, reminds me of right vs. left. And a diversity of voices means all the voices. Shutting down those you don't like is business as usual for reactionaries.May I inquire as to what is a reactionary to you? Because I imagine people are using it to mean synonymous with far-right, instead of to mean people trying to revert to a previous system versus revolutionary movements. Otherwise I am rather confused, for example people placing conservatives beside reactionary when one tries to cultivate and order and the other tries to revert it, very confusing for me ^_^
Regardless of the flags waved, or the content of the positions (reputedly) held, there is the overarching form of expression, or way of interacting with the world. To oversimplify - is the behaviour inspired by love and a desire for sharing and improvement or by hate and a desire for confrontation and destruction. Opening things up or shutting things down. Two very different styles of behaviour.Ah! Time for a new controversial topic, on the axis of love and hate. I stand in opposition to the rhetoric my local MPs often find themselves speaking, namely that they are motivated by love and their enemies are motivated by hate. It is interesting, I like the approach to try and categorize political leanings by psychological motivation, however it is sadly only used to dismiss the opposing side as irrational, vile and evil. One thing I can appreciate in modern nationalists is that they now can appreciate that foreign nationalists are motivated by much the same ideals and conceived virtues as they are, even between such ones as are hostile to one another. Put another way, 'What is love? (Baby don't hurt me). What is hate?' I recommend not assuming the mantle of judgement in arbitrating what is loving and what is hateful, ergo we can destroy everyone the judge deems hateful. Most people I find are motivated by a desire to do good, yet most will likewise not understand that we do not all have the same conception of good. Makes conflict seem more tragic with this in mind - look at WWI, so many assured what they fought for was right in the world, Catholics, Sunnis, Protestants and Orthodox all waging war to protect the absolute truth, and then it turns out to be the absolutes weren't so absolute
It is one thing to be at odds with people wanting to deny the rights to same-sex marriage but quite another to want their blood for holding the contrary position. It is murkier still in the context of this thread since Eich refused to apologise and stepped down (=was forced out) as CEO of Mozilla instead and this only 11 days after the Mozilla board appointed him already knowing the full story of the political donation. Oh, and should we mention the three high profile board members (2 former CEO's) who resigned in protest at the time of his appointment... um, yeah? Still this is the world of corporations complete with image and media manipulation and all that goes with it; no sympathy for these shenanigans even or especially in an organization which prides itself on its progressive credentials.The only thing I might add is that OKCupid did not lead the assaults. They were the vanguard, but not the lead - there are some suspicions that as he refused to step down as CEO, this controversy was manufactured so as to lend public support to his forced resignation. Else wise, it would merely seem to be the company forcing the guy who invented javascript to resign.
So in all three cases there are more than enough people willing to defend these people who rightly/wrongly have been harassed by mobs, whether they have apologised or not. But honestly the mob succeeds in shutting down views that it does not like in advance if we resort to creeping around with a lack of moral fortitude. (Note that this is not an argument for painting a massive target on one's back either.) It also plays into the mobs hand if we join in their tactics of flagrant confrontation or harrassment, particularly when other avenues exist to be pursued.The three examples picked were people in the public spotlight, for better or for worse. With exception to the teenage girl, two were significant public figures, the CEO was forced to resign and the scientist reduced to a quivering wreck while the girl attempting suicide multiple times. If you look at my very first example, the man who made the poorly worded tweet condemning a veteran's widow, his life is ruined and few have noticed. In most cases involving ordinary people, no one has defended (and I am certain, could not have defended) ordinary people subjected to the mob. I suppose it's worth mentioning too that 'the mob' isn't a defined group of people, rather a phenomenon caused by loads of people - see the abuse of social media for stalking and harassment linked earlier. The number of people I've seen have their lives ruined by merely internet mobs is rather astounding, it just blurs into one continuous streak informing one why information security is so important. 4chan, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook or whatever, one thing to consider is that in real life if you want to destroy someone, that takes a lot of effort, something only the determined or psychopathic may do with ease. On the internet it is easy to muster 5,000 people from across the world, with each one putting in a few minutes or hours, they will have put in thousands of hours work on dismantling one person - for the individual within the mob, the required effort to ruin someone's life is minimal.
p.s. Staring into the well of human misery is an unpleasant experience; got to hope it never looks back at me, or at least too closely...One gets jaded very quickly
Here's one. I wish the Catholic Church and organized religion in general would stop being viewed solely through a negative light. Whenever it's brought up in debates, it always seems to be in the light of that of an unwanted step-child, which irks me. There is a reason that organized religion exists, and it's not because it's an evil hate monster.Not just because it's an evil hate monster :P If you're denying that's not a pretty significant part of it, though, you've seriously missed some parts of the history and nature of religious organizations. None of them got big and none have stayed that way without leveraging quite a bit of antipathy, towards other religions at the absolute least. Plenty of other stuff, too, but being an evil hate monster (to indulge in your hyperbole, heh, since it's not quite that extreme, usually) is absolutely one of the reasons they exist.
for starters left/right is not terribly useful and for seconds it feeds into very simple tribalism where one side defends their ills as necessary to crush the other side. We're all in this boat together, seems unnecessary to dig up genocidal leftists as representative of modern progressivism, except as top banter
May I inquire as to what is a reactionary to you? Because I imagine people are using it to mean synonymous with far-right, instead of to mean people trying to revert to a previous system versus revolutionary movements.
If anything, the negative stereotype for a conservative is not for a lack of moral courage, but for a presence of moral hypocrisy - not living by the principles one preaches.
In most cases involving ordinary people, no one has defended (and I am certain, could not have defended) ordinary people subjected to the mob.
One gets jaded very quickly
Unpopular/controversial opinion: White supremacists are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent and have a higher occurrence of obesity.what way would the correlation go?
I find it amusing that on one hand, people like to say "don't stereotype" but on the other hand, when it comes to religion and politics, people like to stereotype.Not just religion and politics, also things like clothing, culture, race and name
...
So perhaps it's "controversial", perhaps it isn't, but: instead of always assuming things about people based on the names of the organizations or philosophies with which they associate themselves, we should get to know the people on an individual basis.
Eh, if the things labeled christian diverges wildly from what you believe, what you believe probably isn't christian, though you likely shanghai'd the name. Various presbyterian denominations do indeed vary wildly, but they either share certain core concepts nevertheless or they're lying about their beliefs in one way or another by claiming the name. You do want to judge people individually, but at the same time you don't get to claim association with something and then avoid scrutiny for what your claimed group is doing. You can't claim to not be anti-LGBT and be voting republican, ferex (though you may be able to be voting conservative, so long as whatever party or individual you're voting for isn't voting lockstep with the GOP). However strongly you say the former, the latter puts it to lie. With some sorts of association, certain things stop being assumption, and denial by the person associating starts being a lie, regardless of what the individual has told others, or even themself, what they believe.
The implications of this paragraph are interesting. Am I to assume, then, since you are a Democrat and support Democrat politicians, that you're perfectly fine with Obama's policy of labeling every man killed by a drone strike, intentionally or not, a terrorist? (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/) The party was behind him on it...Sounds like a good policy to me. Can't wage an effective war against terrorism without having a few civilian casualties, and civilian casualties apparently trigger American population waaaay disproportionate to their real impact.
The implications of this paragraph are interesting. Am I to assume, then, since you are a Democrat and support Democrat politicians, that you're perfectly fine with Obama's policy of labeling every man killed by a drone strike, intentionally or not, a terrorist? (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/) The party was behind him on it...Was it? I don't recall many dems running on the platform. Or a vote on it. Do seem to recall quite a bit of condemnation for drone strikes in general and a definite call for reigning some of its excesses in, if still a fair amount of support for the practice if not all its particulars. And eventual statements by the gov't that un-ID'd folks were assumed noncombatants. Apparently executive orders and whatnot calling for greater scrutiny and clearer reporting on the subject, too, with a bit of checking, for all the stats they were using were to all appearances pretty fucked up.
-snip-
Eh, if the things labeled christian diverges wildly from what you believe, what you believe probably isn't christian, though you likely shanghai'd the name.I suppose that depends on how you interpreted 'diverges wildly'. I didn't think it was that vague... I mean, most denominations that claim to be Christian have essentially the same core faiths like the Trinity and Jesus is divine (although you can't assume this - some Christian seminaries don't actually teach this). But beyond that, things can be pretty different in terms of what even that 'core' faith means in terms of how your life might be affected. I mean, people tend to have this view that "Evangelical Christian" in the US means Dispensationalism and hypocrisy, heavy personal salvation but don't have to change behavior, your neighbor be damned, etc. Some denominations are heavily works based, some are all about only "personal" salvation, your neighbor be damed to fire and brimstone, others are about loving your neighbors and enemies (though not necessarily supporting their behaviors), etc. etc. And that's not even getting into stuff like church governance (hierarchical? congregational?), is wearing (or not) a hat a sin, and are guitars the work of the devil (forgetting that David worshipped so freely he got criticized for not dressing properly while doing so)?
Quotidian amusement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy)
The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑυπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "jealous", "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)Spoiler: Loud Whispers (click to show/hide)
Hypocrisy:Your definition is out of date by a mere few thousand years
The practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
‘his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life’
‘she was irritated to be accused of hypocrisy’
‘spokesmen unversed in the smoother hypocrisies of diplomacy’
Origin
Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part’, from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend’, from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge’.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypocrisy
Incredibly unpopular (at least where I live): I believe Trump is probably better for this country than Hillary, solely due to the fact that while he's a shit-eating asshole, he is a competent shit eating asshole.
I think that the real problem here is the Phillips Head side of the Phillips Head vs Hex screws debate. I mean there was that Hex enthusiast and collector whose life they just totally ruined for posting photos of his old-fashioned vintage hex screw heads in the Phillips pinterest, there was constant hate mail and shit. I'm pretty sure the guy took his own life after that.Look, whether you're a phillipsian or a hexonite, I think we can all agree on one thing: those filthy h-type loving spannerslotocrats need to be fed to hungry pigs...
Also, liek, Danial Radcliffe just said one thing for Hex as a joke, in some tweet, when he was thirteen and barely famous, and he got death threats in the mail from the Phillips Head people. It's little known, and has been covered up wuite a bit by the Phillips Head media, but they ruined his life for a few years, you know? It's scary shit, could happen to anyone brave enough to raise their head and challenge the Phillips Head consensus.
There was also this tech guy on Vimeo who did reviews and shit like that of hardware stuff, and he mostly just talked about power drills and especially DeWalt lines and stuff. But then he's also got massively into the whole Hex thing, and next thing you know the Phillips head guys were like, calling operation Yewtree on him and stuff like that, and mailbombs and shit, not that a Phillips head user could assemble a working mail bomb :o
Anyway, I totally agree with everything you guys are saying. But three's a lotta people out there who wouldn't, so keep it real.
Ok, unpopular opinion time!
Picard > Kirk because Stewart > Shatner.
Well, I'm of the opinion that TNG > TOS in almost every way, although individual episodes are of course debatable.
Well, I'm of the opinion that TNG > TOS in almost every way, although individual episodes are of course debatable.
True.
Star Trek as a whole is extremely inconsistent in it's quality. And TnG and ESPECIALLY voyager suffer deeply from never having had the balls to introduce long term story arcs.
therefore:
Babylon 5 (season 2 to 4) > all of Star Trek
Seriously Babylon 5 is so underrated it isn't even funny. I can't think of a better scifi series right now, especially not from that period.
although individual episodes are of course debatable.
While we are talking Scifi:AND slave Leia, thus inspiring lots of enjoyable cosplay... though that is rather effectively negated by... ewok cosplay, which nobody needed even before furries were a thing.
Star Wars episode 6 is worse than 1 and 2 combined.
Why? It throws away basically everything Empire Strikes back build up. The central theme of Star Wars is the light vs dark side of the force. In Episode 5 Luke is deeply troubled and his time with Yoda has lots of foreshadowing such as Yoda saying Luke will throw everything away if he confronts Vader now. Or Luke seeing himself when he strikes down the fake Vader in the cave.
In part 6 it just goes: Emperor: "join the dark side" Luke: "lolno" Vader: "I am going to dump down a shaft now"
And Ewoks
I never understood why people hate on Voyager so much. I only watched TNG, DS9, and Voyager, and I thought that they were all on about the same level.
Quotidian amusement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy)
The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑυπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "jealous", "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)Spoiler: Loud Whispers (click to show/hide)QuoteHypocrisy:Your definition is out of date by a mere few thousand years
The practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
‘his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life’
‘she was irritated to be accused of hypocrisy’
‘spokesmen unversed in the smoother hypocrisies of diplomacy’
Origin
Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part’, from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend’, from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge’.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypocrisySpoiler: feelotraveller (click to show/hide)
The status quo point, while true, is also endemic to all of Star Trek. The opportunity to deviate existed for Voyager, but TV shows that allowed permanent changes to the plot weren't kosher until just a few years ago.I never understood why people hate on Voyager so much. I only watched TNG, DS9, and Voyager, and I thought that they were all on about the same level.
It throws away it's premise of a federation ship lost far from home and instead tries to be TNG again. Basically every episode ends with a reset to the status quo. Also I personally think voyager has more weaker episodes and there is definitely rehashing of TNG episodes.
and just started doing it like nature intended and throwing shit against a (conditionally) metaphorical wall until things stuck.Atomic Gardening (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening)! (Maybe on an unintentionally global scale?)
Closer to atomic husbandry, and probably with less cobalt and more retroviruses or somethin', but you're getting the right idea.Am I? Oh good. All the other scientists said I was crazy and that I could proceed with my so-called-'diabolical' plans only over their dead bodies. So now it appears that I was completely justified and they were only half right.
yeah take samples of every bee species remaining and genetically modify them to be immune to our pesticides and presto issue about pollination is solved!Don't think we isolated colony collapse disorder to be pesticide-related, yet.
Sudden loss of a colony’s worker bee population with very few dead bees found near the colony.
like a jumping spider I brought inside to show the missus who rode along happily and then when they noticed we were back outside they comically pointed their whole body up at the sky and fell back onto my palmThat must've been a great experience.
Not really no, being domesticated generally implies a greater degree of human involvement in the rearing and breeding of the animal than mere proximity, otherwise house mice would count as domesticated by that logic.Yeah, and they're so adorable with the big anime eyes, though the hyllus diardi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oRRBPdM6Wc) can get pretty damn big, but I also learned a while back as I was getting the missus comfortable with various spiders that the euathalus sp. red (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-cn4VuDlW8)/orange/yellow is an extremely chill and easily socialized/handled little tarantula, not like some of the big beautiful and bitchy ones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcRT-AgW7cI) that'll just sit there hanging out, casually stabbing your finger (it's like a bee sting at most) while they chillax.
That said, if you could domesticate spiders the jumping spiders would be the place to start. Despite their small size they're quite smart and very docile. I actually consider it a shame there's no species of them the size of tarantulas.
Fortunately not for very long after you set them on fire.You monster.
... though only do that if they're alone or in small numbers. If they've rolled up into the spider orgy ball the fire will only make things worse.
I love spiders. My phobia is of snakes, so I never understood why people freaked out around spiders or other insects. Some of the snake-like ones make me uneasy, but that's about it.
I don't dislike spiders but I vastly prefer snakes. I was even given a certificate of "snake friendliness" as a young child for handling one at a zoo, and I was too young to remember it.Lord knows I don't have a phobia about them, and like anyone who has seen one, I want one of those crazy black and white storm trooper ball python morphs (https://youtu.be/7wAlV0D9Yg4?t=482), but I can remember a couple of times when we'd be cooling off with a rope swing over a deep part of the creek in Texas and even though we didn't take into account situations where you don't let go (it kinda smacks you into the bank) I decided to take my chance with the dirt because of:
I really don't understand what the deal is with snakes for people. Most of them literally can't hurt you and if you're handling a domestic snake then it almost certainly can't hurt you. I was even chased by an angry and wild cottonmouth as a slightly older child and did not develop any snake phobia.
-snip
At the height of the Satanic panic (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satanic_panic) in the late 1980s, PETA's newsletter reported (as fact) rumors that pets were being stolen by Satanists (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satanist) for animal sacrifice (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sacrifice) and "crucifixion (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crucifixion)" at Halloween (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Halloween). PETA suggested that people keep their black cats inside around Halloween to protect them from Satanists.[34] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETA#cite_note-33) They still maintain a "Halloween advisory" on their website, omitting any mention of Satanism or animal sacrifice, yet noting with approval that many shelters refuse to adopt out black cats during October.[35] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETA#cite_note-34)
wow neo, standing up to PETA. what an unpopular stand. i'm suprised people haven't already burned you at the stake.
I think that was sarcasm. :Pwow neo, standing up to PETA. what an unpopular stand. i'm suprised people haven't already burned you at the stake.[...]
Literally the only thing most people know about PETA is their extremism. Hell, the only thing I know about them is their extremism.
Thats's not PETA. That's MAVAVLiterally the only thing most people know about PETA is their extremism. Hell, the only thing I know about them is their extremism.
Usually all I know about them is that they make sure no animals were harmed in the making of this film.
They also gas kittens and puppies after promising to give them a good home. Because they hate pet owners more than they hate actually killing animals. I wish I was kidding.They kill like 96% of the animals they "rescue" and they've shared members, goals, and helped with funding things like legal defenses for the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front who are actual homegrown terrorists, they should all make like their whackjob founder and sterilize themselves.
Unpopular opinion: Celebrities are normal people too, living to the best of their abilities in a life incredibly far removed from anything any of us have known or are likely to know. But nobody buys "Celebrity walks puppy, tries to live up to spouse's expectations, has children to raise while living under 24/7 intense media scrutiny" so we manufacture controversy and make mountains out of molehills regarding people that ultimately aren't important.*looks at the Kardashians*
Though I will say that it is funny that in many ways the "Celebrities are people too!" kind of BOTH ways huh?
I mean... it isn't like Celebrities try to use the fact that they are celebrities to their advantage huh?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETAQuoteAt the height of the Satanic panic (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satanic_panic) in the late 1980s, PETA's newsletter reported (as fact) rumors that pets were being stolen by Satanists (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satanist) for animal sacrifice (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sacrifice) and "crucifixion (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crucifixion)" at Halloween (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Halloween). PETA suggested that people keep their black cats inside around Halloween to protect them from Satanists.[34] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETA#cite_note-33) They still maintain a "Halloween advisory" on their website, omitting any mention of Satanism or animal sacrifice, yet noting with approval that many shelters refuse to adopt out black cats during October.[35] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETA#cite_note-34)
You cannot use that clout and then disown it at the same time.
That is why it doesn't apply when you do it, because you are at such a lesser scale that it doesn't affect your standing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5lUeIDNfXI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5lUeIDNfXI)
This is everything you need to know about "Celebrities are people too" as a counter argument.
It's not about celebrities disowning their own status. It's about feeling like you have a right to pass personal judgments on somebody who's done nothing wrong besides have more money than you, or at worst be kind of annoying WHILE having more money than you.
Unpopular opinion: Celebrities are normal people too, living to the best of their abilities in a life incredibly far removed from anything any of us have known or are likely to know. But nobody buys "Celebrity walks puppy, tries to live up to spouse's expectations, has children to raise while living under 24/7 intense media scrutiny" so we manufacture controversy and make mountains out of molehills regarding people that ultimately aren't important.They can definitely be normal people. On the other hand, the stresses and advantages given by that sort of attention push pretty strongly towards various sorts of rather messed up behavior. Add on that they're surrounded by similar people and all the sorts seeking to take advantage of such folks, and you have a recipe for very notable inclination towards all sorts of mess.
Well, there goes things in my childhood I found more amusing than the shows of today. :Phttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5lUeIDNfXI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5lUeIDNfXI)
This is everything you need to know about "Celebrities are people too" as a counter argument.
Ohhhhh! A scene depicting a charicature of a charicature on a comedy show on Disney Channel. NOW I get you. Hang on, I'll have to go to my Brandy & Mr. Whiskers box set to cite some more humanizing counter-examples.
The unpopular/controversial idea that posting on Bay12 for the first time just to promote your game is a bad thing.Hear, hear. It's worth pointing out that advertising is against the forum guidelines. I don't know quite how heavily Toady enforces that against crowdfunding spammers, but I report them all the same.
I get shit from other forum regulars all the time about it but honestly? I don't care. Bay12 is special to me because it's full of real people talkin about games as fans talk about them, and it drives me a little nuts in this day and age of self-promotion when people come here explicitly because they know it's a big site. I'm actually ok with people posting their games here, but not when OG is treated like a place to advertise. I know people think I'm being incredibly discourteous when I say something about it, but I wouldn't view it any different than if someone walked up on the street to me and, without introducing themselves, started trying to sell me something. Shotgun marketing has never sat well with me.
There is a right and a wrong way to promote your new game in a community. To me the right way is to prove it's not a copy/pasted advertisement. Introduce yourself. Show you understand the community enough to actually craft a post instead of just building a set of hyperlinks. That shows some basic respect for the fact we are not just potential consumers, and the forum is not just a place to help you build up your Kickstarter. We can be and the forum can do that for you, if your game looks rad and you seem cool.
I really debated whether to post this at all but it fits firmly in the thread and is meta.
Beyond Good and Evil (2003 game) is "just ok".
Half-Life 2 is overrated.
Gundam Zeta is crap.
Star Wars The Force Awakens is such a pile of steaming shit even The Phantom Menace is better. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK8IC-bGnU)
Hmm. Interesting.
As a question, would you feel the same way about Civ V? Not a loaded question mind, legitimately curious, because I haven't heard similar criticism about them but the situations feel fairly similar. It had (has) over $100 dollars in DLC, and some of the expansions feel like they are completely mandatory to play the game (the first time I played Civ with BNW I swore to never go back). If there is a difference, can you explain it a bit?
Really? What do you call the Gestapo in German?Probably a joke that there was no "a" Starver's version.
To be honest I've never heard of the Gestpo. And that's coming from a guy who just last Saturday tried to nickname a girl 'Stasi'.Precisely what circumstances led you to think that nicknaming a girl 'Stasi' was a good idea? And did she slap you or something :P
Just wanted to annoy her a bit. We ended up settling on 'Stas'.
Controversial idea: The US government should cut it's discretionary military spending by half and instead distribute that money to all it's residents (including children with their share being allocated to their parents until they're adults) each year, turning the average American into an economic powerhouse by literally dumping millions of dollars into their budget each year.
Military spending would still be 3 times that of Russia by the way.
Controversial idea: The US government should cut it's discretionary military spending by half and instead distribute that money to all it's residents (including children with their share being allocated to their parents until they're adults) each year, turning the average American into an economic powerhouse by literally dumping millions of dollars into their budget each year.This smells like a confusion between million = 10^6 and million = 10^9. There are only about 330x10^6 people in the US. The entire annual US government spending is "only" $3.8 x 10^12. That is on the order of $1 x 10^4 per person. I'm not sure how you'd consider this dumping "millions" into the average American's budget each year.
Military spending would still be 3 times that of Russia by the way.
I've been wondering about jobs having a wage maximum and minimum according to the social value they created.My "controversial" response: society, in aggregate, already sets wages in proportion to the value they provide.
So hospital cleaners would earn a lot more, but advertising consultants might earn very little.
Very nebuous concept to measure, but an interesting thought.
Ah, yeah, I forgot just how ridiculous the long scale was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scalesFTFY.
Controversial idea: billion/quadrillion/sextillion is obviously less nonsensical sounding than milliard/billiard/trilliard.
Bi: 10003
Tri: 10004
Quad: 10005
Ah, yeah, I forgot just how ridiculous the long scale was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scalesBillion being million*million (which it is, long-scale), Trillion should be billion*billion (even long scale is just million*billion), quadrillion therefore trillion*trillion and each Xillion being (X-1)illion-squared.
Controversial idea: billion/quadrillion/sextillion is obviously less nonsensical sounding than milliard/billiard/trilliard.
Bi: 1000x10002
Tri: 1000x10003
Quad: 1000x10004
Controversial idea: The US government should cut it's discretionary military spending by half and instead distribute that money to all it's residents (including children with their share being allocated to their parents until they're adults) each year, turning the average American into an economic powerhouse by literally dumping millions of dollars into their budget each year.This smells like a confusion between million = 10^6 and million = 10^9. There are only about 330x10^6 people in the US. The entire annual US government spending is "only" $3.8 x 10^12. That is on the order of $1 x 10^4 per person. I'm not sure how you'd consider this dumping "millions" into the average American's budget each year.
Military spending would still be 3 times that of Russia by the way.
I've been wondering about jobs having a wage maximum and minimum according to the social value they created.
So hospital cleaners would earn a lot more, but advertising consultants might earn very little.
Very nebuous concept to measure, but an interesting thought.
More like this:Ah, yeah, I forgot just how ridiculous the long scale was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scalesBillion being million*million (which it is, long-scale), Trillion should be billion*billion (even long scale is just million*billion), quadrillion therefore trillion*trillion and each Xillion being (X-1)illion-squared.
Controversial idea: billion/quadrillion/sextillion is obviously less nonsensical sounding than milliard/billiard/trilliard.
Bi: 1000x10002
Tri: 1000x10003
Quad: 1000x10004
(Short Xillions are 1x103(X+1) or 1000X+1; Long Xillions are (simpler?) 1x106X or 10002X or 1,000,000X;these New Xillions would be 1x103.(2X) or 10002X... E&OE, of course...)
Except there is nothing nonsensical about bi/tri/quad/quint/sex/sept/oct/non, same with giga/tera/peta/exa which have defined values, 1x109/1x1012/1x1015/1x1018, but would be "thousand billion bytes" or "thousand trillion meters" unless you use the silly "billiard bytes" and "trilliard meters" words. What does a pub game have to do with computers?More like this:Ah, yeah, I forgot just how ridiculous the long scale was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scalesBillion being million*million (which it is, long-scale), Trillion should be billion*billion (even long scale is just million*billion), quadrillion therefore trillion*trillion and each Xillion being (X-1)illion-squared.
Controversial idea: billion/quadrillion/sextillion is obviously less nonsensical sounding than milliard/billiard/trilliard.
Bi: 1000x10002
Tri: 1000x10003
Quad: 1000x10004
(Short Xillions are 1x103(X+1) or 1000X+1; Long Xillions are (simpler?) 1x106X or 10002X or 1,000,000X;these New Xillions would be 1x103.(2X) or 10002X... E&OE, of course...)
Million == Million1
Billion == Million2
Trillion == Million3
On the long scale, of course. From an aesthetic perspective I prefer the short one, but the long scale does make more sense intrinsically...
None of that, now.Bi: 1000x10002
Tri: 1000x10003
Quad: 1000x10004FTFY.
Oh yes, Long Scale is absolutely more sensible. (And more aesthetic, I'd say! No X+1 stuff!)(Short Xillions are 1x103(X+1) or 1000X+1; Long Xillions are (simpler?) 1x106X or 10002X or 1,000,000X;these New Xillions would be 1x103.(2X) or 10002X... E&OE, of course...)More like this:
Million == Million1
Billion == Million2
Trillion == Million3
On the long scale, of course. From an aesthetic perspective I prefer the short one, but the long scale does make more sense intrinsically...
@Sinistar I don't care about 3/4 of your post, but you'd better explain the Star Wars one.
Not as bad as Return of the Jedi though.
Don't have a horse in the race on Beyond Good and Evil and Gundam Zeta, and agreed with Star Wars, but how do you figure with Half-Life?A HF2 rant was in the works, but my doctor tells me only one rant per day, sorry. Tomorrow maybe.
Unpopular opinion: Sinistar is a heretic and should be burnt.For this to be unpopular opinion there must first be people who would like to see me NOT being burnt.
Chickens already eat meat.Precisely. I stand by my comment.
Except there is nothing nonsensical about bi/tri/quad/quint/sex/sept/oct/non, same with giga/tera/peta/exa which have defined values...The nonsensical part is how the short system includes a thousands category, then throws it away. Mi ≈ mono = 1, so that should logically be the main unit.
Million = 1000^1 = 10^3
Billion = 1000^2 = 10^6
Trillion = 1000^3 = 10^9
...
Xillion = 1000^X = 10^(3*X)
It just makes sense.
I think discussions like this are how we ended up with "men in black" as a measurement for computer memory storage.But we have so many different standards! To which, the only answer, obviously, is to sit down and sensibly define a single umbrella (https://xkcd.com/927/) standard to cover every case!!
Sometimes just leave convention alone - changing it for "the sake of correctness" is...[adjective].
Hex>Philips HeadFlathead>Hex(and everything else honestly)
Spoiler: mfw people say communism was the best thing ever (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: mfw people say communism was the best thing ever (click to show/hide)
It's honestly baffling that the well isn't completely poisoned on communism by now, considering how it's turned out for everyone everywhere it's been done.
I mostly just wanted an excuse to post the gif, but ye, its pretty surprising that people give communism such a pass while at the same time going full ham against fascism and etc, specially when you actualy give a good look at history and realize that, at the end of things, fascism and communism really weren't that different in practice. Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting.As a German person, I take offense to that.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgustingA lot of social media progressives seem to defend ideologies with disgusting views, as long as they can claim oppression points or whatever. They defend Islam despite its horrifying practices, they defend communism and anarchism despite their violence and mass murder.
Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting (IE homosexuals are mentally ill capitalist dogs, jews are fascist bastards because they don't conform to our ideas, ukranians are disposable, black people are inferior and immoral, etc).I disagree, but only because Fascism clearly led to the Second World War (you might argue that hitler himself didn't cause all these deaths, but fascism is indisputably the case and reason for the war), and by that token Fascism has a death toll of around eighty-four million people; whereas by contrast capitalism and communism have both, thus far, resisted the urge to plunge the world into everlasting night, which is a point in their favor.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
Hex>Philips HeadFlathead>Hex(and everything else honestly)
Good, lets have a beer together sometime.Sounds good.
But only if its west german.
Can we not make this the "act snide about liberals" thread? I know a couple people have been using it for that occasionally, but it's going to ignite an argument. You can phrase these criticisms without sounding like you just got out of a fight on another site and are trying to bring it here.I'm not acting snide about liberals. I lean left myself, in many respects. But it's undeniable that some on the far-left defend deplorable practices, as long as it is a practice from a group they identify with (communists, anarchists) or are deemed "oppressed" (Islam).
Good, lets have a beer together sometime.Sounds good.
But only if its west german.
There's a couple more folks here from the Netherlands and Belgium - maybe we should organize a regional meetup sometime. Whaddya think?
Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting (IE homosexuals are mentally ill capitalist dogs, jews are fascist bastards because they don't conform to our ideas, ukranians are disposable, black people are inferior and immoral, etc).I disagree, but only because Fascism clearly led to the Second World War (you might argue that hitler himself didn't cause all these deaths, but fascism is indisputably the case and reason for the war), and by that token Fascism has a death toll of around eighty-four million people; whereas by contrast capitalism and communism have both, thus far, resisted the urge to plunge the world into everlasting night, which is a point in their favor.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting (IE homosexuals are mentally ill capitalist dogs, jews are fascist bastards because they don't conform to our ideas, ukranians are disposable, black people are inferior and immoral, etc).I disagree, but only because Fascism clearly led to the Second World War (you might argue that hitler himself didn't cause all these deaths, but fascism is indisputably the case and reason for the war), and by that token Fascism has a death toll of around eighty-four million people; whereas by contrast capitalism and communism have both, thus far, resisted the urge to plunge the world into everlasting night, which is a point in their favor.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
Disclaimer: i do not endorse fascism in any way.Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting (IE homosexuals are mentally ill capitalist dogs, jews are fascist bastards because they don't conform to our ideas, ukranians are disposable, black people are inferior and immoral, etc).I disagree, but only because Fascism clearly led to the Second World War (you might argue that hitler himself didn't cause all these deaths, but fascism is indisputably the case and reason for the war), and by that token Fascism has a death toll of around eighty-four million people; whereas by contrast capitalism and communism have both, thus far, resisted the urge to plunge the world into everlasting night, which is a point in their favor.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
Hex>Philips HeadNow now, we agree to hate the real enemy: split slotted or H-type heretics!
Nope. In fact Marx would've hated your guts.Why's that? Not contesting your statement, just curious.
I'm pretty sure Marx just couldn't have conceived of that.Sure he could. The left-wing intellectuals back then were about as concerned with post-scarcity as this board is these days. And Marx was heavily, heavily opposed to the so-called utopian variant of socialist thought. He considered himself a /scientific/ socialist, with a proper understanding of materialist dialectics and historical inevitability.
The utopian socialists were concerned with separatist commune living, not computerized automation. What with the lack of computers outside the difference engine. At his time, humans were still the world's widest-utility machines and could not be replaced, only consolidated. The only aspect of automation he'd get is the loss of labor to efficiency, but even that is incomparable as demonstrated by his assignment of blame in that regard to the managerial class' task of control over labor.I'm pretty sure Marx just couldn't have conceived of that.Sure he could. The left-wing intellectuals back then were about as concerned with post-scarcity as this board is these days. And Marx was heavily, heavily opposed to the so-called utopian variant of socialist thought. He considered himself a /scientific/ socialist, with a proper understanding of materialist dialectics and historical inevitability.
Fuck, if all the folks who spent their time whining about how unfair Sanders was being treated by everybody had instead started reading up about the roots of Leftist thought, the American Left might actually have started going places again. Instead they're calling him a socialist. Jesus Christ.Holy hostile non-sequitur, Batman!
The utopian socialists were concerned with separatist commune living, not computerized automation. What with the lack of computers outside the difference engine. At his time, humans were still the world's widest-utility machines and could not be replaced, only consolidated. The only aspect of automation he'd get is the loss of labor to efficiency, but even that is incomparable as demonstrated by his assignment of blame in that regard to the managerial class' task of control over labor.He didn't blame that on the managerial class - quite the opposite, actually. He considered capitalism - and its increases in productivity - a necessary historical step towards full Communism, which to him meant the state becoming superfluous and man only working out of his own free accord, dissolving the division of labor.
[In full Communism I shall be able to] hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, breed cattle in the evening, critique after dinner as I please, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, cattle herder, or critic by trade.After you've found a proper translation of this and read it, you'll note that he is indeed imagining a state without work not motivated by pleasure, ie what today we would call a post-scarcity society. The presence or absence of computers is a triviality.
Non-sequitur? Hardly. 95% of what's floating around today as political and economical thought on the left is either not thought at all, or of a highly utopian type. Prove me wrong: Show me one alternative economic system for a full-blown industrial society - and yes, that's what Marxian Socialism and Communism were supposed to be - that isn't passé or just composed of wishful thinking. That's where the Left's weakness is coming from: No ideological backbone! No framework to work in! No vigorous new concepts that want to meet their baptism of fire! Instead there's a cult of personality, ideas that in Europe were implemented around the time my parents were born or even earlier, and millions of bright folks lapping this up as 'a revolution'. And they're abusing the word 'socialist', to boot! That's an attack on the clarity of language - and clarity of language is one of the very few things that are holy* to me, right up there with my family, beer, good food, and being able to talk shit about whatever I like, as long as I've got a point. It's disgusting to me on a very fundamental level. If they all got off their asses and dug into their philosophy and econ and sociology and history textbooks, I probably still wouldn't agree with them - but hell, at least there'd be something to talk - and think! - about!QuoteFuck, if all the folks who spent their time whining about how unfair Sanders was being treated by everybody had instead started reading up about the roots of Leftist thought, the American Left might actually have started going places again. Instead they're calling him a socialist. Jesus Christ.Holy hostile non-sequitur, Batman!
As long as the means of labour remains a means of labour in the proper sense of the term, such as it is directly, historically, adopted by capital and included in its realization process, it undergoes a merely formal modification, by appearing now as a means of labour not only in regard to its material side, but also at the same time as a particular mode of the presence of capital, determined by its total process--as fixed capital.Seems like there's some weird translation gaps in there (http://thenewobjectivity.com/pdf/marx.pdf), but you get the idea.
But, once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery (system of machinery: the automatic one is merely its most complete, most adequate form, and alone transforms machinery into a system), set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.
In the machine, and even more in machinery as an automatic system, the use value, i.e. the material quality of the means of labour, is transformed into an existence adequate to fixed capital and to capital as such; and the form in which it was adopted into the production process of capital, the direct means of labour, is superseded by a form posited by capital itself and corresponding to it.
In no way does the machine appear as the individual worker's means of labour. Its distinguishing characteristic is not in the least, as with the means of labour, to transmit the worker's activity to the object; this activity, rather, is posited in such a way that it merely transmits the machine's work, the machine's action, on to the raw material-- supervises it and guards against interruptions.
He didn't blame that on the managerial class - quite the opposite, actually. He considered capitalism - and its increases in productivity - a necessary historical step towards full Communism, which to him meant the state becoming superfluous and man only working out of his own free accord, dissolving the division of labor.I am well aware of Marx's theory of historical progression, but that's not what we were discussing. The question was whether or not Marx could meaningfully conceive of automation post-scarcity, at this point being compared with both the utopian socialist communes and Marx's own "scientific" views of what life would be like once the state has withered away.
The core bit translated to English:Quote[In full Communism I shall be able to] hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, breed cattle in the evening, critique after dinner as I please, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, cattle herder, or critic by trade.After you've found a proper translation of this and read it, you'll note that he is indeed imagining a state without work not motivated by pleasure, ie what today we would call a post-scarcity society. The presence or absence of computers is a triviality.
Non-sequitur? Hardly. 95% of what's floating around today as political and economical thought on the left is either not thought at all, or of a highly utopian type. Prove me wrong: Show me one alternative economic system for a full-blown industrial society - and yes, that's what Marxian Socialism and Communism were supposed to be - that isn't passé or just composed of wishful thinking.It's still a non-sequitur because that's not what we were talking about. And given what you said up above about "no work not motivated by pleasure" in Communism, I don't see how that isn't wishful thinking either.
That's where the Left's weakness is coming from: No ideological backbone! No framework to work in! No vigorous new concepts that want to meet their baptism of fire! Instead there's a cult of personality, ideas that in Europe were implemented around the time my parents were born or even earlier, and millions of bright folks lapping this up as 'a revolution'. And they're abusing the word 'socialist', to boot! That's an attack on the clarity of language - and clarity of language is one of the very few things that are holy* to me, right up there with my family, beer, good food, and being able to talk shit about whatever I like, as long as I've got a point. It's disgusting to me on a very fundamental level. If they all got off their asses and dug into their philosophy and econ and sociology and history textbooks, I probably still wouldn't agree with them - but hell, at least there'd be something to talk - and think! - about!Since you mentioned the American left in the ramp-up to this, I assume that's what you're talking about. I also wish it to be recognized that this is a new discussion and has nothing to do with what we were talking about re:could Marx think of modern automation.
*I'm completely serious about this, by the way. An attack on the clarity of language is an attack on communication itself, and thus on the existence of mankind as anything more than a mass of lumps of flesh.
East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
In all this discussion on Marxist theories, you forget the most important one:QuoteEast is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Unpopular opinion: Taking children from candy can be better than taking candy from children.... You're not Bozo the Clown are you? (https://cdn4.iconfinder.com/data/icons/aami-flat-smileys/64/smile-50-128.png)
Personally I blame protestantsCan we not make this the "act snide about liberals" thread? I know a couple people have been using it for that occasionally, but it's going to ignite an argument. You can phrase these criticisms without sounding like you just got out of a fight on another site and are trying to bring it here.I'm not acting snide about liberals. I lean left myself, in many respects. But it's undeniable that some on the far-left defend deplorable practices, as long as it is a practice from a group they identify with (communists, anarchists) or are deemed "oppressed" (Islam).
Though he has cited Lovecraft as a major influence, the trick H.P. pulled off was one of meticulously assaulting the perceptive faculties of inquisitive personages with unnecessarily embellished draughts of fossilized thesaurus extracts, whereupon even the most exceedingly loquacious amongst us would find the authorial perspective proffered somewhat supercilious and seek respite elsewhere as they find it difficult to remain perpendicular in the face of somnolescent beckonings, and then whilst in this pseudodreamlike embrace the gibbering madness lurking in the deepest corners of ones awareness is suddenly able to seize hold of the slightest insinuation of detail and thrust it mightily to the forefront of the imagination and force one to confront that which is both within and without!
Stephen King is about 1% horror, 99% small American town soap opera.This is controversial? I'm pretty sure he'd agree with you.
(Basically, yes, but it seems like King just took the "use more words" part and ran with it.)QuoteThough he has cited Lovecraft as a major influence, the trick H.P. pulled off was one of meticulously assaulting the perceptive faculties of inquisitive personages with unnecessarily embellished draughts of fossilized thesaurus extracts, whereupon even the most exceedingly loquacious amongst us would find the authorial perspective proffered somewhat supercilious and seek respite elsewhere as they find it difficult to remain perpendicular in the face of somnolescent beckonings, and then whilst in this pseudodreamlike embrace the gibbering madness lurking in the deepest corners of ones awareness is suddenly able to seize hold of the slightest insinuation of detail and thrust it mightily to the forefront of the imagination and force one to confront that which is both within and without!
Translation if you need it: He distracted you with fancy words so that your subconscious can run away with the details.
The counter argument here is that language changes, and his work has just become dated. Not just from a syntactical standpoint either, but the actual fears that his work played to are no longer founded or relevant in society today. A prime example would be "Cool Air" if you've ever read it.
Personally, I've never found the language to be much of a barrier. His work just isn't as relative as it used to be.
There is no greater horror than small-town America.Stephen King is about 1% horror, 99% small American town soap opera.This is controversial? I'm pretty sure he'd agree with you.
Everything went wrong when the papists broke from the true church. Return and all shall be forgiven.Personally I blame protestantsCan we not make this the "act snide about liberals" thread? I know a couple people have been using it for that occasionally, but it's going to ignite an argument. You can phrase these criticisms without sounding like you just got out of a fight on another site and are trying to bring it here.I'm not acting snide about liberals. I lean left myself, in many respects. But it's undeniable that some on the far-left defend deplorable practices, as long as it is a practice from a group they identify with (communists, anarchists) or are deemed "oppressed" (Islam).
Everything went wrong when the papists broke from the true church. Return and all shall be forgiven.Personally I blame protestantsCan we not make this the "act snide about liberals" thread? I know a couple people have been using it for that occasionally, but it's going to ignite an argument. You can phrase these criticisms without sounding like you just got out of a fight on another site and are trying to bring it here.I'm not acting snide about liberals. I lean left myself, in many respects. But it's undeniable that some on the far-left defend deplorable practices, as long as it is a practice from a group they identify with (communists, anarchists) or are deemed "oppressed" (Islam).
Stephen King is about 1% horror, 99% small American town soap opera.This is controversial? I'm pretty sure he'd agree with you.
(Basically, yes, but it seems like King just took the "use more words" part and ran with it.)
The Colour Out of Space creeps me right the fuck out and back in and out once again for good measure.+ motherfucking 1
My favorite Lovecraft story isn't even really horror, The Nameless City. It's so amazingly atmospheric and really gets the whole emotion of archeology. For cosmic horror I go with The Shunned House, and for madness The Rats In The Walls. Of all the famous stories At The Mountains of Madness is the best written.my near eastern archeology professor literally showed the first bit of the exorcist in class. not sure its a great advertisement for the profession. :P
Ironically, I disliked Call of Cthulhu.
Kadath is weird but doesn't really feel like a proper Lovecraft story until it gets to the part where he notices some of the mountains seem to be moving.
Most 2D Disney is severely overrated. Lion King, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, etc. were all good movies. They are good for kids. But Disney + Pixar has tackled much more adult stuff, leaving in the things that 2D Disney didn't have the balls to tackle, while still creating movies that small children can comprehend and enjoy.
And yet some of Disney's earliest work is still hailed as the Second Coming. ::)
I have to give credit where it's due though, milking Snow White for eighty years via generic princess merchandise (and the odd item related to the seven dwarves) is pretty impressive.
Most 2D Disney is severely overrated. Lion King, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, etc. were all good movies.Unacceptable. Aladdin is terrible. Ja'far true hero of story. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77cUxba-aA)
Fun Fact: I read Rage while in high school. Not concurrent with going to high school, while I was physically in my high school. That probably could have gone over badly, in retrospect.Given I read that one person on reddit is under investigation after his school found the text of "Meet the Sniper" on his calculator, yes it could have gone terribly. Like as bad as you can possibly imagine.
I mean it's just so many fucking words and for what? The only idea of his I really found interesting was the Langoliers, and I didn't even read it, just saw some of a horribly overlong movie and dug the "weird toothy maws that clean up all the moments you aren't in" concept.(Basically, yes, but it seems like King just took the "use more words" part and ran with it.)
Wait, what? Are you serious? King is incredibly colloquial. His stories are almost always more blue collar, and the characters more relatable than the elitism you get in lovecraftian stories. His stuff is about as simple as it gets!
I did an image search trying to find a drawing I saw of that moonlight train story he did and kinda regret it, even though this isn't super high budget or anything... fucking nothx. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxTywiItvOo)QuoteThe Colour Out of Space creeps me right the fuck out and back in and out once again for good measure.+ motherfucking 1
I mean it's just so many fucking words and for what? The only idea of his I really found interesting was the Langoliers, and I didn't even read it, just saw some of a horribly overlong movie and dug the "weird toothy maws that clean up all the moments you aren't in" concept.
Hell it might be a deep seated thing, because I recall all this hype over the Stand, went to the library and started going through it and gave up, I mean, I will read some boring shit, I've read multiple sets of encyclopedias for fuck's sake, but I just cannot get me eyes to stop sliding off the page when I read King... or Jordan actually, I dug the wheel of time setting and mythos but I just couldn't get into them like I did with Pratchett or Baxter or Stross or Banks and goddammit two of them are dead now!
Here's my unpopular Stephen King opinion:
You may or may not have heard of Rage, which was published under the Richard Bachman pseudonym. The reason you might not have heard of it is that King pulled it from publication. The reason you probably have heard of it is the reason he pulled it -- the book is not about King's usual fare but is in fact entirely about a school shooting. Unlike most such pulls, there is even semi-good reason to believe that a specific shooting was inspired by the book.
The problem here is that, in my opinion, this is the best thing King has ever written. It is a perfect book about the failures of society towards teenagers as well as an amazingly tense hostage drama. You know how people repeat the nonsense they were told in English class about Catcher In The Rye and how it's a breakdown of all society's bullshit? Rage is actually that book. I'd assign it as standard reading if I had the power to do so.
Fun Fact: I read Rage while in high school. Not concurrent with going to high school, while I was physically in my high school. That probably could have gone over badly, in retrospect.
Unpopular idea: Treating human corpses like anything other than Meat,Fertilizer, or Health Hazards is absurd and a waste of time and reasources, with the possible exception of murder victims.good meat https://youtu.be/t37KyWUZFPo
Unpopular idea: Treating human corpses like anything other than Meat,Fertilizer, or Health Hazards is absurd and a waste of time and reasources, with the possible exception of murder victims.
I mean it's just so many fucking words and for what? The only idea of his I really found interesting was the Langoliers, and I didn't even read it, just saw some of a horribly overlong movie and dug the "weird toothy maws that clean up all the moments you aren't in" concept.(Basically, yes, but it seems like King just took the "use more words" part and ran with it.)
Wait, what? Are you serious? King is incredibly colloquial. His stories are almost always more blue collar, and the characters more relatable than the elitism you get in lovecraftian stories. His stuff is about as simple as it gets!
I have always felt the taboo on cannibalism is rather overrated.
It was always my impression that the tribes doing it ate the dead with great dignity and respect. It was a way of passing on the strength of the deceased person unto yourself.
If you count brains as flesh sure. I don't, I only count skin muscle and fat as "flesh" or at least that's how I've usually used the term. *shrugs*.
If you count brains as flesh sure. I don't, I only count skin muscle and fat as "flesh" or at least that's how I've usually used the term. *shrugs*.
I have always felt the taboo on cannibalism is rather overrated.Someone has spent some time in a tanning salon, methinks.
It was always my impression that the tribes doing it ate the dead with great dignity and respect. It was a way of passing on the strength of the deceased person unto yourself.
I have always felt the taboo on cannibalism is rather overrated.
It was always my impression that the tribes doing it ate the dead with great dignity and respect. It was a way of passing on the strength of the deceased person unto yourself.
Perhaps, but there's a number of serious health hazards equated with humans consuming human flesh iirc, including a particularly nasty prion.
Usually if someone dies "naturally", as in not violently or in an accident, they were NOT healthy. The way you get large amounts of healthy human meat is by murder.Hey, you're the one who wants to eat other people. I'm just advising as to how to obtain the best cuts. What you do with this info is your responsability.
I believe the standard way to avoid committing murder is to become the warlord or dictator of your own country and designate an ethnical, political, or religious minority that you're not particularily fond of as "food". It kind of works itself out after that
Also I wasn't the one who wanted to eat humans. Other meats are tastier.
Government-recogized gay marriage makes no sense.
Government-recogized gay marriage makes no sense.
I get the impression it isn't supposed to make sense. It is an appeal to emotion, but I think that... is the point?
It is like a Trophy. We already know you are the best, why do you need a trophy for it?
Two people...er mounting each other and sharing property doesn't sound like it's just "symbolic".
What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.
Not just adoption. Hereditary rights in case one of the partners dies is another reason for gay marriage to be legally possible.
And then there's just plain basic non-discrimination.
What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.This. Interestingly both the far-left and (relatively) far-right portions of my friends at university emphatically agree with this: The latter because they don't like gay marriage, and the former because they don't want discrimination against poly people.
What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.This. Interestingly both the far-left and (relatively) far-right portions of my friends at university emphatically agree with this: The latter because they don't like gay marriage, and the former because they don't want discrimination against poly people.
I have long said: plants are what food eats, so I see no ethical problem with eating anyone who advertises that they are herbivorous.I believe the standard way to avoid committing murder is to become the warlord or dictator of your own country and designate an ethnical, political, or religious minority that you're not particularily fond of as "food". It kind of works itself out after that
Not that I'm advocating this, but designating vegetarians/vegans as food would significantly mitigate the risk of transmitting increasingly pathogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease by having cannibals eat cannibals who ate cannibals and so forth.
Vajrayana Buddhists, for example, would canonically agree that there's no need to preserve a person's corpse, for which reason they practice sky burial (among other things) to make best use of it.I'd like to think that involves a powerful catapult.
While controversial, common law marriage does state that all you have to be, in order to be married, is live together.Controversial because some people live with family?
While controversial, common law marriage does state that all you have to be, in order to be married, is live together.Controversial because some people live with family?
Unpopular idea: Treating human corpses like anything other than Meat,Fertilizer, or Health Hazards is absurd and a waste of time and reasources, with the possible exception of murder victims.Obligatory:
What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.Also bad idea, there is a reason they do in the first place. marriages are economic contracts and so need legal enforcement in a materialistic society. not to mention thousands of years of society and culture being built upon the idea. oh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy. monogamy is a fundamental human social structure literally in our DNA so most people are naturally drawn to it and we naturally develop systems and cultures around it. not that we aren't wildly divergent but even in society's that possess a socially acceptable option outside of monogamy the vast majority of people are monogamous or effectively monogamous. you might note for instance that their is usually a first wife that has way more status and the others are subservient to her in polygamist societies often legally as well. please don't get on the discard culture train that is really stupid. it does a ton of damage. i may be liberal in outlook but its backed by science and i fully understand how fundamental this stuff is to functioning human societies. do not break them, bad things happen.
oh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy
Fun fact, 50% of the offspring of socialy monogamous species are not with the partner. Lession, nature sleeps around alot but still works togheather.Quoteoh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy
Good catch. The writing on the wall SEEEEEEEEMS to suggest humans are not naturally sexually monogamous.
There is even strong suggestion that humans aren't monogamous species.
But the creepy thing? In the future they might have a drug that makes you monogamous.
Why does this male Hillary's "Men are like dogs" quote somehow accurate in retrospect... (well ignoring the male aspect)
Fun fact, 50% of the offspring of socialy monogamous species are not with the partner. Lession, nature sleeps around alot but still works togheather.Quoteoh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy
Good catch. The writing on the wall SEEEEEEEEMS to suggest humans are not naturally sexually monogamous.
There is even strong suggestion that humans aren't monogamous species.
But the creepy thing? In the future they might have a drug that makes you monogamous.
Why does this male Hillary's "Men are like dogs" quote somehow accurate in retrospect... (well ignoring the male aspect)
Rephrase that question to make sense please.
Are you saying, "Why does Hillary's male-related "Men are like dogs" quote seem accurate?"
Or... Something else that I can't parse because you cannot into English?
the statue controversy:
Statues are and have always been primary a tool of propaganda and are used to shape peoples fictionalized views of history know as cultural imaginarys. as such the systematic destruction of the imaginary requires the removal of all propaganda related to it by a moment that seeks to destroy it. followed by the education of children in the academic history of the civil war in great detail and depth. no perpetuating propaganda, no fantasy narrative, no imaginary, no nostalgia, no power in its symbols. that is how you destroy a cultural imaginary and kill a history. remove the romanticism and you kill the source of histories power. boring history, the great killer of interest.
Slavery is despicable, and the fact that people could get behind it at one point in our nation's history is shameful, but to say that all these people were were just misguided racists is equal to saying Hitler wasn't a person and no real human is capable of doing what he did. WE could never do that. WE would never do that. We're BETTER than they were.
I for one, don't give a fuck whether the Civil War was fought for "States Rights" or for slavery or just for power, those men were a.) Americans, and b.) Pretty fucking awesome at being generals.
...? Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died. It was a civil war, hence both sides being American while still trying to kill each other.
...? Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died. It was a civil war, hence both sides being American while still trying to kill each other.
That 620,000 includes them.
My point was that if we're going to say they were Americans (despite fighting against America for a nation explicitly formed to not be America) then the results of the war look even worse than if we just acknowledge that they were traitors in the eyes of the USA and no longer American citizens according to themselves. There's no way to look at the Civil War and say the guys leading the losing side need to be remembered by the country they tried to leave for their military skill. They could, perhaps, have statues put up in the country they fought for, had they not lost so badly it no longer exists.
I'm perhaps being too snarky to get my point across, which is this: there is no metric I can see whereby bloodily failing to leave the US should qualify someone for a statue in the US. Britain didn't put up the statue of Washington in London of their own accord; America gave it to them 148 years after the fact. When the CSA sends us a Robert E. Lee statue, then it might be worth pondering where to put it.
Let's get something straight right this damn second, by congressional act ALL soldiers who fought in the civil war are U.S. veterans, not open to debate.
So just to be absolutely factual, yes 620,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that amounted to nothing but a radical idealogical shift for an entire nation, and ended slavery as well as finally proving that Federal authority has higher priority than State authority.
Let's get something straight right this damn second, by congressional act ALL soldiers who fought in the civil war are U.S. veterans, not open to debate.
So just to be absolutely factual, yes 620,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that amounted to nothing but a radical idealogical shift for an entire nation, and ended slavery as well as finally proving that Federal authority has higher priority than State authority.
No one is arguing either of these points as far as I can see. That the subjects of the Confederate statues are veterans is beside the point; it's their being traitors and losers that kind of undermines Urist McScoopbeard's point that they deserve statues in America on the basis of their military acumen.
...if every one of those soldiers fought for their nation, and they were all Americans, how on Earth did we have a war in the first place?
Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point. As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.
Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point. As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.
Edit: It is further worth noting that there are several monuments to Robert E. Lee, including the Arlington House memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.
Okay, I can go with that. It is worth noting that while the majority of the statues in question are problematic, some are just straight up memorials to fallen soldiers, with no additional context. To my mind removing those is akin to pulling down the WWII memorial or the Vietnam Wall, in that they are intended to be a reminder of the deaths the war caused, not celebrations of the ideals.
Nonetheless, pulling down those statues without due process of law is straight up destruction of public or private property and is an actual crime.
Wife(/widow) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Janeway)!Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point. As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.
Funnily enough I read something about a women who was still getting about 70 bucks a month from the VA as the daughter of a civil war veteran.
Wife(/widow) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Janeway)!Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point. As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.
Funnily enough I read something about a women who was still getting about 70 bucks a month from the VA as the daughter of a civil war veteran.
(No pension, but see also (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maudie_Hopkins). And if you link hop to Alberta Martin's page, - who got backpay...)
How is that controversial?
How is that controversial?
I'm in the United States it seems to me that suggesting anything here that restricts anything that can be viewed as religious is controversial here. *shrugs*
Then let me propose something controversial: Faith healing, homeopathy and other stuff of that ilk are perfectly fine and nice as long as they don't interfere with real treatment. Sure, they're just glorified placebo, but placebo works (Otherwise we wouldn't need double blind trials for drugs) and if you have cancer and are goign to suffer through shitty side effects anyway, any little bit helps. Since doctors cannot lie to you (and I think that's good), it's nice to have people dedicated to giving out really nice placebo.
Of course, if they actually do anything that even hint of discouraging people from taking their real treatment, they should be jailed for manslaughter.
The only thing controversial about that is excluding the nervous system.
The only thing controversial about that is excluding the nervous system.
I think it's just not the best idea until we understand the nervous system to a point where we can make accurate predictions as to what making changes to it will actually do to a person, precisely no matter which neurons are being discussed, I personally don't think we are their yet.
That's a huge blanket statement. I assume you're not against neurosurgery for the treatment of epilepsy or brain tumors, intrathecal chemotherapy for CNS tumors, or against cell therapy clinical trials to treat central nervous system diseases or damage. And all count as modification of the cnsThe only thing controversial about that is excluding the nervous system.
I think it's just not the best idea until we understand the nervous system to a point where we can make accurate predictions as to what making changes to it will actually do to a person, precisely no matter which neurons are being discussed, I personally don't think we are their yet.
I guess what I was saying is that have little problem with say for a simple example producings someone with with filamensts other than the usual human hair growing from their skin, at least hypothetically I don't the main problem for me being that it's still fairly hard to change the biology of adult humans, at least time I checked.
Why would you call CRISPR overhyped? Sure, it's hyped, but in all fairness it was a major breakthrough with huge practical applicability, so I'd say it deserves the hype.
I mean shit, looking into it, some mouthwashes already have up to 27% alcohol by volume, more than fortified wine. Maybe you could sell the mouthwash packaged with antacid tablets that also happen to contain a chemical that neutralizes the denaturing chemicals in the mouthwash completely, so by the end you have a bottle of peppermint schnapps that's higher proof and half the cost.
The study you found involved buying a bunch of cheap mouthwash, performing NMR on it, and then looking at the reported acceptable daily intake (ADI) of whatever compounds they found; they did no actual toxicology at all. It's a stretch to say that the ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) characteristics of the denaturants aren't going to be impacted by the simultaneous alcohol consumption, particularly chronic consumption of the levels you'd need for any kind of significant profit margin, and ADIs are computed with fairly arbitrary safety factors anyway; what you want are human NOAELs, which are the actual levels at which adverse effects don't show up.
At any rate, we need not speculate about hypothetical chemical compounds. Formulating mouthwash to be sold in the US is going to involve compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Chapter I, Subchapter A, Part 21; in particular, as a Specially Denatured Alcohol it must have denaturants added per one of formulas 37, 38-B, 38-D or 38-F. If you can find something on that list that is safe to drink chronically in large quantities, cheap to buy pure, and not totally abominable-tasting, I suppose you could start competing in the mouthwash-as-gutter-booze market.
Reminds me of that case where sixty-odd Russians died of drinking "Totally just bath oil". (http://abcnews.go.com/International/62-die-siberia-drinking-counterfeit-bath-oil/story?id=44324727)
slut is a gender neutral term of endearmentAmongst equal friends perhaps, much in the same way that one could call one's best mate a fuckface but you wouldn't greet a stranger as so without expecting great insult to be incurred
It’s not really gender neutral either. Promiscuity among females is still viewed pretty universally poorly, whereas the inverse is true for promiscuous males.slut is a gender neutral term of endearmentAmongst equal friends perhaps, much in the same way that one could call one's best mate a fuckface but you wouldn't greet a stranger as so without expecting great insult to be incurred
Sounds like a good way to get sued when someone doesn't follow the exact instructions that you can't include without being classed an alcoholic beverage.My favorite is those Prohibition-era don't-brew-this-at-home kits (https://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/prohibition-potpourri/prohibition-products/). Jeez, the Budweiser Malt package has a guy literally winking.
“After dissolving the brick in a gallon of water, do not place the liquid in a jug away in the cupboard for twenty days, because then it would turn to wine.”
Context matters a lot too. It has a completely different meaning coming from a stranger on the street instead of a close "friend", or describing oneself :P
It does get a lot of gender-neutral use nowadays despite its original meaning. Words change and all!
Related unpopular opinion: I still don't really like being referred to as "queer", even in completely benign contexts. But I like that other people like it? I'm actually happy that my gut feeling is unpopular, reclaiming slurs is tricky but cool.
Remember when "nerd" was a really rude thing to call someone? And it's still possible to use it as a real insult, despite being a bit defanged these days.
Ah, "useful words and phrases in ordinary language are wrong because of these very literal and specific interpretations of them". That's not a controversial opinion, it's a quibble about semantics dressed up to look like a thesis about the real world.
Have you ever considered studying metaphysics? I think it'd be perfect for you.
Potentially controversial opinion: it would be in the best interests of almost everyone in the region for Israel to formally annex all or most of Palestine. This is the only outcome likely to offer the citizens of Palestine any measure of peace and security.
Home fries are superior to hash browns.
Yes. Is this controversial?
Yeah okay real on-topic opinion: Tipping is an awful practice. It originated as a means of hiring black people without paying them, and today it serves to divide the front workers from back workers. It's the epitome of the Karen desire for control over "lesser" people.Is this controversial? The only people I see saying anything else are a niche of "future billionare if I just work hard at McDonalds" Americans, whereas pretty much everyone else thinks the idea of tips as a wage substitute is awful.
I don't even know if my tip went to the right person there, or got shared with their boss (who probably isn't an inherently shitty person, just hard-pressed by the low margins of fast food).
Is this controversial? The only people I see saying anything else are a niche of "future billionare if I just work hard at McDonalds" Americans, whereas pretty much everyone else thinks the idea of tips as a wage substitute is awful.
I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
Yes indeed. Or as morally correct as forcing your religion on your children as a parent. IMO, religion should get a 18+ only restriction just like smoking and drinking.I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
It’s as morally correct as sending the kids to conversion therapy in the first place, as I think was martinuzz’ point.
Yes indeed. Or as morally correct as forcing your religion on your children as a parent. IMO, religion should get a 18+ only restriction just like smoking and drinking.I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
It’s as morally correct as sending the kids to conversion therapy in the first place, as I think was martinuzz’ point.
And no, I am in no way being serious about becoming a conversion therapist. Just my 2 cents for the Controversial Ideas Thread
Yes indeed. Or as morally correct as forcing your religion on your children as a parent. IMO, religion should get a 18+ only restriction just like smoking and drinking.I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
It’s as morally correct as sending the kids to conversion therapy in the first place, as I think was martinuzz’ point.
And no, I am in no way being serious about becoming a conversion therapist. Just my 2 cents for the Controversial Ideas Thread
Sorry about that i just got really concerned
I strongly support the death penalty
He means people who have relationships with opossums. ArchimedesWojak is very militant against zoophilia due to his deeply held religious beliefs.I strongly support the death penalty
That's quite vague. Would you expand on what you mean?
I strongly support the death penalty
That's quite vague. Would you expand on what you mean?
He means people who have relationships with opossums. ArchimedesWojak is very militant against zoophilia due to his deeply held religious beliefs.
Abortion can be legal, because there are situations (however few) which warrant it. But 99.9% (for however many 9s you think are appropriate) are performed for convenience or because of social stigma or some other emotionally-charged reason.Last I noticed it's closer to .9 or 9 than 99%, much less higher. Most of them aren't for convenience (unless you're wildly misusing the term, anyway) or social stigma or that kinda' stuff, it's due to major issues with carrying to term, either material or medical. It's damn rare it's anything but a last resort for the vast majority of the people that have them.
Last I noticed it's closer to .9 or 9 than 99%, much less higher. Most of them aren't for convenience (unless you're wildly misusing the term, anyway) or social stigma or that kinda' stuff, it's due to major issues with carrying to term, either material or medical. It's damn rare it's anything but a last resort for the vast majority of the people that have them.
Opinions are an illusion, there exist only various degrees of ignorance with which each and everyone of us disqualifies humanity from it's perpetuation....that’s an opinion
Only a sith deals in absolutesOpinions are an illusion, there exist only various degrees of ignorance with which each and everyone of us disqualifies humanity from it's perpetuation....that’s an opinion
Bacon is greatly overrated.I've found the witch!
Had an idea rattling around my head for an unworkable thing that I'm calling 'Hypocrisy Laws' and figured this is the best place to put it.Something like a "list-of-crimes-and-their-punishments" exists in most non-corporate organizations already, but their problem is that these organizations are usually legally bound by state, federal, or international laws, so that ostracism is the most the group can legally use against members that transgress. Ostracism can be financially and emotionally devastating, since it often involves family and/or vested assets.
Gist of it is that if you belong to an organisation, be it corporate, political, cultural or spiritual which holds certain values, or publically state certain values as a private citizen, then acting in contradiction with those values is a felony punishable by either the prescribed punishment from the source material you derive the values from, or a misdemeanour felony, punishment waived if you recant the principles you violated at trial.
Examples would be someone who is publically pro-racial equality being caught being racist in private, or an abrahamic fundamentalist man being caught with a gay prostitute. In the former case the punishment would probably be a fine and social ostracisation, because that's generally speaking the expected punishment for racism, while the latter case would be punished according to the rules layed out in the religious text they follow, which IIRC in most abrahamic texts is death. Either could get out of their punishment by admitting publically that they don't really hold to the principles they claim to.
Here's the deal---
Customers claim they wont pay the requisite higher prices, needed to meet the requisite higher demanded wages. This is untrue. They might go out to eat LESS OFTEN, but they will STILL go out to eat.
So I will refine my argument: I don't have trouble with people quitting shitty jobs - I have trouble with them quitting a shitty job and not looking for (or creating) a better one. And no, sorry, I don't believe that "but there are no good jobs" or "all owners are greedy assholes" is true.I mean, okay, then you largely don't have a problem. People aren't exactly entirely disconnecting with the labor market to any meaningful degree -- the vast majority of folks walking out of shit jobs are going on to either look for better work or train for a new field. They still have to eat, and most places in the world you can't exactly live well on the local safety nets... barring the people just dying, I guess. They don't eat 'cause their country decided them dying was better for the social good than not.
The people wanting food and other convenience services are not going to just die. They are going to still exist. That demand will be there. What will change, is the pricing curve.
To the extent complete disconnection actually is something happen, they're disconnecting from the paid labor market in order to do shit like take care of family, kids, elderly, disabled, whatever. Which says more about how fucking abysmally most countries value caretakers or domestic laborers than anything about work ethic.
People are too selfish, spoiled, and and have no work ethic on top of that.
People want a job, but they don't want to work or something. Or worse, they want to get paid and not even have a job.
But I don't know what you can even do with that money, because everything has a staff shortage.
On the whole, nobody wants to perform labor for someone else.
I will reiterate that your ability to work, your drive to work, and ultimately the amount of work you actually do is not a measure of your worth as a human being...
Sadly most jobs want to give them next to nothing, and minimum wage won't pay for rent anywhere in the US.
Cringy fanfictions are objectively superior to professional novels.
Change my mind, if you dare!
Cringy fanfictions are objectively superior to professional novels.
Change my mind, if you dare!
Cringy fanfictions are objectively superior to professional novels.I can't change the truth. Not only are bad ones way funnier to read than real bad novels, they're also better than the writing of many professional television shows now. My Immortal > Star Trek Discovery.
Change my mind, if you dare!
Or you know, there is always the choice of implementing something like voting license. Just being born in a place is not enough to trust you with such important responsibility."Service Guarantees Citizenship. Do you want to know more? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_7FaWnlhS4)"
I do know that if you ask random people in the street if they're against sufferage, they tend to say yes. That probably is meaningful. ;)
Quick starver, add some abortion and some 5g vaccines theory in your post to make it controversial before you get thrown out of the thread!Maybe throw in something about gender, just to make sure.
They are not sending their best.This. I wanted to say "that behaviour is in no way representative for the average dutch person", but heh, we seem to have sadly bred a subculture of rowdy savages.
But you were supposed to disagree according to thread etiquette bro ;)
Having not played it yet, I refuse to call Elden Ring a soulsborne game until it is confirmed that it contains a tragic fight with an old man
Twitter sucks.
Twitter sucks.I think that’s actually a pretty popular opinion, nowadays.
Do you think the hype is deserved, None?I think the hype about an open world Dark Souls is deserved.
Capitalism good. :PCommunism good xDSpoiler (click to show/hide)
ur mum goodur dad gud
Capitalism good. :PCancelled!!!Spoiler: Why would I, Rolan, even look at this (click to show/hide)
Capitalism good. :P
Communism good xD
Cancellation cancelled!Capitalism good. :PCancelled!!!Spoiler: Why would I, Rolan, even look at this (click to show/hide)
Everybody be praising Elden Ring, nobody be talking about how the online play is basically non-functional.isn't that because that's the default state for souls games and nobody wants to admit it :V
Capitalism good. :PCommunism good xD
b-but have you considered anarchism? :v
Free healthcare is good. Alternatively, if you are British: Free dental/optometrists is good.
No idea why this is still a controversial idea, but for some reason it seems to be one.
Everybody be praising Elden Ring, nobody be talking about how the online play is basically non-functional.isn't that because that's the default state for souls games and nobody wants to admit it :V
Eventually, life extension will turn the world into a sociological swamp. Putin proves that well enough.
You forgot the most important sentence:Eventually, life extension will turn the world into a sociological swamp. Putin proves that well enough.
These two sentences don’t seem to have any connection to one another.
The old gain power and lose openness to new ideas.
I mean… democracy is an old idea.
Old people in and of themselves aren’t the problem then, as you point out: lack of open-mindedness is. That can be taught, it just won’t be because it requires critical thinking, but critical thinking is a danger to people in power, who aren’t going to be adding it to the curriculum anytime soon.
I’m not bashing on democracy, I’m exploring your points :p
The people who tend to be elected in democracies are old people, particularly for leadership positions, and there are usually only a handful of parties to choose from, that usually have well-established positions, so “overthrowing” a democratic government just means replacing one set of old people with old ideas with a slightly different set of old people with slightly different old ideas.
I’m not bashing on democracy, I’m exploring your points :pI think the ideas get younger each time, though. I suppose that’s really the basis of all political fighting, the age of the ideas in question. Or it’s a nice-sounding simplification, at the least, haha.
The people who tend to be elected in democracies are old people, particularly for leadership positions, and there are usually only a handful of parties to choose from, that usually have well-established positions, so “overthrowing” a democratic government just means replacing one set of old people with old ideas with a slightly different set of old people with slightly different old ideas.
I mean… democracy is an old idea.
Old people in and of themselves aren’t the problem then, as you point out: lack of open-mindedness is. That can be taught, it just won’t be because it requires critical thinking, but critical thinking is a danger to people in power, who aren’t going to be adding it to the curriculum anytime soon.
Don't be bashing on democracy. Autocracy and communism are MORE effected by the old gaining power rule. Although Communism will purge its old once a generation, it's hardly enough.
Democracy is a horribly broken system, but its the best form of government because the Ruling Elite can be overthrown peacefully. All other forms of government required overthrowing the Ruling Elite violently.
How does representative democracy uniquely allow that? After all, if the democratically elected ruling elite really wanted to, they could use the power they were democratically granted to, fully legally, replace the constitution and be rulers for life.Not nescessarily. Over here, a change to the Constitution needs to be approved by two consecutive parliaments and two consecutive senates.
This thread seems to need a neverending stream of controversiality to keep chugging along.Sir, your comment is not controversial enough to fuel the thread.
Prominent 'latent' Force Users (escaped the tutilidge system, therefore drawn fully neither to the Dark nor Light Sides) include Han Solo and Jar Jar Binks.I honestly forgot that Jar Jar Binks's powers were never confirmed in canon, so I missed your joke and assumed that Han exhibited force powers in some EU story.
You want controversy? Star Wars can kick Start Trek ass in ALL levels.Naaaaah, Star Wars is just another single episode Star Trek anomaly
You want controversy? Star Wars can kick Start Trek ass in ALL levels.For the sake of controversy, I’m going to assume you meant ‘as a franchise and entertainment medium’, and, for the sake of controversy, I am going to whole-heartedly agree. Come at me, Star Trek lovers. Bring it on.
Paris is a properly insubordinate shit though.It's built into his character origin... First (non-space) scene of the first episode, IIRC, is that he's recruited straight out of detention for the latest low in a "promising but self-spoiled" career with first Starfleet then the Maquis.
In saying that, Neelix is one of my favourite characters.He's helpfully saved from being the "pet alien" by him, in turn, bringing Kes on-board almost as soon as he is. (A situation that continues despite all the other potential simultaneous candidates, and Seven Of Nine adopted later on, etc, even with her 'comedy naïve' moments. They did a lot to her to make her overcome her basic short-lived nature, including making her immortal, but I think she remained the pet almost all the time until then.)
Alright, fine!
Sure, Star Wars is the only series to pull off a superior prequel story until Borderlands. And maybe it's more entertaining than some of Star Trek. But nothing in the Star Wars canon can compare to Star Trek Voyager.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Legal?Yeah, it seems quite likely that grabbing tens of millions of images to use as training data is legal as long as the images are publicly available.