Slashdot Mirror

Avatar was enjoyable enough as optical stimuli but its simplistic moral landscape limited it to not much more than that.

I would have been more compelling if there had been more moral complexity than white Earth men come and abuse gentle and innocent indigenous people in order to extract their minerals.

It reduced both sides to a ridiculous caricature of good versus evil and drained it of any interest.

More compelling would have been some kind of desperate reason for Earth men to be there (some kind of end-of-civilization crisis on Earth) and if the indigenous people had been more complex than they are.

I'm not sure any population ever has been all good, shiny and happy like those blue people. How about internal factions with their own vicious conflict?

You're familiar with the caricature of what a Libertarian is. Most of us aren't Ayn Rand fans, I certainly don't believe in mandatory collectives, and most of know government is a necessary evil. At some point, I'll write out my position - I've done it many times. Next time, I'll make sure to bring it to your attention. Read the link the guy gave you below, just the first four paragraphs. (I think they linked to the Libertarian article.)

Oh, I've already listed the best way that I can think of to get their attention and it's a bit long to write it out again. However, it's easy enough to do. What we need, in order to do it, is solidarity. That's what we, the citizens, lack. We're too busy fighting over who is what color, who is getting what for privilege, who has what politics, who has sex with who, who believes in this, and who believes in that. We call each other hillbillies, rednecks, fagots, and thugs. We berate someone for wearing a Confederate Flag or for wearing a Rainbow Flag. We're rooting for Trump and Clinton.

In other words, they've happily sat back and watched us squabble over the scraps while they continue eating their 12 course meal at the adult table. What we lack is the ability to stop pissing and moaning about the differences between us. What we lack is the motivation to pay attention to the many things we all have in common. We have no solidarity.

We have no unity (unless we have Ubuntu). We argue over operating systems, programming languages, politically correct pronouns, text editors, who shot first, grammar, and more. We hate anyone who has more than us and are sure they stole it, else they wouldn't have it. Either way, they don't deserve it. The people below us, financially, you either view them as incompetent and needing to be carried or needing to be left behind.

You don't see a human when you read my posts. You see an idea, you see a picture, you see a caricature. You either hate it or you like it but you don't bother to think about the things you and I have in common. You want to be right. You want to win, win what? You want to win the internet points? You want the last word? You want to be the King Shit on Turd Island? Well, that's what you've got.

And it might not even be your fault. You might be just peachy and perfect and willing to sacrifice for the greater good. That's quite possible but, really, if you are then you're no in the majority. The majority wants more and mine. The majority wants control and only views things in their own binary fashion. The majority isn't concerned about your problems because your problems aren't their problems. They don't even notice the disconnect when they finally have their problems and not a hand is raised to help them.

Then, accountability? We can not have that. Make a post suggesting someone have some personal accountability. Suggest that people be responsible. Note the remarks you get - just here, on this site, a site full of some of the smartest people on the 'net. You don't get solidarity without accountability. You don't get accountability without compassion. You don't get compassion without unity (unless you install it with apt-get).

No, we need solidarity. If you can tell me how to get solidarity, I will tell you how to rule the world.

The inner thoughts of one AI robot-citizen, with a brain based on cold superconductors... (Emphasis added):

The director felt warm. He knew that it was partly subjective-resentment of this invasion of his domain by a ridiculous sentimentalist. Most of all, the director resented the feelings he felt boiling within himself.

Why, why do we modern forms have to be cursed with this burden of emotionalism and uncertainty! I hate it!

Of course he knew the reasons. Back in ancient times, fictional "robots" had been depicted as caricatures of jerky motion and rigid, formal thinking. The writers of those precryo days had not realized that complexity commanded flexibility even fallibility. The laws of physics were adamant on this. Uncertainty accompanied subtlety. An advanced mind had to have the ability to question itself, or creativity was lost.

The director loathed the fact, but he understood it.

Still, he suspected that the biologists had played a trick on his kind, long ago. He and other Utilitarians had an idea that there had been some deep programming, below anything nowadays accessed, to make mechano-people as much like the old style as possible.

If I ever had proof it was true he thought, gloweringly, threateningly.

Ah, but it doesn't matter. The biologicals will be extinct in a few generations, anyway. They're dying of a sense of their own uselessness.

-- "The Warm Space" (1985)

All respect dude and I hope things work out for you. It certainly sounds like your situation is what the benefit is intended for.

He has made numerous denigrating remarks over entire groups of people. That is racism, exclusion and neo-nazi hatred -

A group of people is not a race. He has made denigrating remarks about illegal aliens (Trespassers who are breaking the law), and violent people who practice Islam. Islam/Muslim is not a race. Illegal aliens from Mexico are not a race, as Mexican isn't a race.

He proposed a ban on Muslim immigration. Religious tests for imigration was one of the very first policies the NAZIs promoted as well. Right there is your first one.

He proposed a /temporary/ ban on Muslim immigration.

So Obama is a Nazi then? After all, he banned Muslim immigration in 2011 for six months.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/...

Hitler never did that either. Not once. He called for EMIGRATION. The final solution was kept secret from pretty much the entire civilian population even while it was happening. What he actually said was "prevent imigration", "forced emigration" and other "acceptable" ways to achieve cultural and racial purity. Just like Trump.

He isn't proposing kicking out current citizens, he is proposing kicking out people who are not citizens and are breaking the law by trespassing here illegally, like many other countries do. This isn't unique to trump at all.

Tell me, how many vague similarities does it require before you are considered literally Hitler? We both breath air. I'm sure I've worn the same color clothing once before. I am also against animal cruelty and am anti-smoking, just like Hitler.

Aawww you are so naive. Besides which - he is trying to be a politician. His job is NOT enforcement of the law, it's to propose BETTER laws.

Actually, that is wrong. He is trying to be president.

The president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

He also enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.

His job is not to "propose better laws".

Excuse me ? Where have the opposition been violent ? If anything there's been way too much appeasement. Hell even protesters at his rallys have by and large been victims of violence, not perpetrators.

Well, off the top of my head there were the protests in Arizona that blocked a highway, where protesters kicked and jumped on a car trying to get by them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There is the woman who punched a man in the face (But all you hear is that she got maced by evil trump supporters):

https://youtu.be/TA1S0KQD2W8?t...

And, as long as we are considering speech violent, scary, triggering actions, there are the several protestors who dressed up as the KKK, hoods and all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Though I guess I can't really count that one, as a black trump supporter attacked them. But since they were parading around as symbols of hate, it was okay, right? Just like the students getting triggered by chalk, right?

Actually - the entire basis on which that claim is made has shown that you KNOW nothing about Hitler. You don't see that they are identical - simply because you are looking for the post-war Hitler caricature that you heard about in school - and know nothing of the actual man, how he actually got elected, what his speeches actually SAID and how he went about achieving his nefarious ends.

If they are identical, wake me up when Trump loses

>How is his entire platform racism, exclusion and "NEO-NAZI HATRED"?

He has made numerous denigrating remarks over entire groups of people. That is racism, exclusion and neo-nazi hatred - it's how it *always* sounds *before* they get into power. They always tone down to *exactly* his level while trying to gain power. Consider where some pretty racist republicans are in what they say... and they already HAVE power. Now consider what Trump is saying BEFORE he has it. This is what he is saying when he still hasn't won an election - when he still needs to tone it down.
And read the speeches that Verwoerd, Hitler or even Milosovich gave when they were NOT yet in power - it's exactly the same.

>Where has he specifically stated that one race is superior to the other?
Nobody ever SAYS that. Hell the appartheid government ruled for 50 years oppressing all but one race without *ever* actually, specifically stating that ! Instead they said "different races cannot live in peace unless they are kept separate. They are just too different". Hell the entire lifetime of apparthied we were told we were supporting seperate-but-equal and defending the right of black people to self-governance ! You can't look for explicitely said - you have to look for what people who used those same guarded terms actually DID.
The ones who explicitely say the stuff are not a problem - they hardly ever get into power. It's the ones who say stuff that sounds nice, but nevertheless exagerates differences - they are the ones who actually DO horrible things because they get the MEANS to do them.

>Where has he proposed Nazi ideals?
He proposed a ban on Muslim immigration. Religious tests for imigration was one of the very first policies the NAZIs promoted as well. Right there is your first one. He has subtly blamed an entire ethno-religous group for the actions of a few assholes who *claim* to be members of it (and are disavowed by everybody else) - that's NAZI 101 right there. For Hitler it was "Jews control the banks" - and though many banks were owned by Jewish families, they were a tiny minority of Jews - and all of them were Sephardic while German Jews were Ashkanazi, they had nothing in common. But the fear achieved it's goals anyway. Replace "Jew" with "Muslim" and "Bankers" with "Terrorists" and you got Trump. He has even ALREADY proposed putting Muslims in holding camps. That's exactly what Hitler called them.

>Calls for extermination? Really? Where? Again,
Hitler never did that either. Not once. He called for EMIGRATION. The final solution was kept secret from pretty much the entire civilian population even while it was happening. What he actually said was "prevent imigration", "forced emigration" and other "acceptable" ways to achieve cultural and racial purity. Just like Trump.

>All he has called for is enforcement of the law and to ensure that we are not allowing people that intend to harm us in this country.
Aawww you are so naive. Besides which - he is trying to be a politician. His job is NOT enforcement of the law, it's to propose BETTER laws.

> it shows how crazy the people that violently oppose him are.
Excuse me ? Where have the opposition been violent ? If anything there's been way too much appeasement. Hell even protesters at his rallys have by and large been victims of violence, not perpetrators.

>He is nothing like Hitler and it is hilarious that people would compare the two of them.
Actually - the entire basis on which that claim is made has shown that you KNOW nothing about Hitler. You don't see that they are identical - simply because you are looking for the post-war Hitler caricature that you heard about in school - and know nothing of the actual man, how he actually got elected, what his speeches actually SAID and how he went about achieving his nefarious ends.
The single most enlightening source you can find on who Hitler was is actually Hermann Goring, specifically his defense at Nuremberg. Even there - when the death camps had been found, the bodies dug up - he maintained the lie that Hitler told the people all along: "I had no knowledge of this, ours was a policy of emigration not extermination".
What is Trump's key issue again ?

First, check your pomposity.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're projecting a tone onto what I'm saying.

Don't want to be called a bank robber? Don't rob a bank.

The trouble is the term "bank robber" possibly carries some unsubstantiated implications, and is a placeholder for subconscious caricatures. For example it conjures up an image of someone who habitually robs banks. If you're an accomplice in a bank robbery when you're 18, but you get caught, reform your character and never rob a bank again, being referred to as "a bank robber" gives an unwarranted impression that you're a career criminal.

On the other hand "man who robbed a bank in his youth" is more factual and precise and carries no inherent implication, other than those that stem from the facts, as would "man who has a history of regularly robbing banks" if that was true.

In both cases, the consideration of this person is contextualised as a human being that should be dealt with appropriately, and not a cartoon villain that can comfortably be disregarded as deserving no opportunity for redemption.

sockpuppet all you want.
you will not bury it when someone calls out your BS.

So first you falsely state that they hate the people, then based on that false assumption you the assume (again) that these strawmen (re: ignorant caricatures mentioned previously) are bigots.

Do you ever get anything correct, or make any logically accurate statements?

PS: PBS/NPR aren't public funded in the first place.
It's a mix of private and public, with the overwhelming majority being privately sourced, either from donations or from operating within the marketplace.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. It's imperative to know the names and usage of the tools you use. That includes hammers, firearms, computers, and even pencils.

That and the rest of what you describe is some strange, misguided, caricature of your own inventing - we call that a straw man, but you can call it what you will. However, if you're going to present an argument for or against something, which they're attempting to envision with their "I wonder," it behooves you to know what you speak of to the point where you're accurately conversant - as a minimal level of capacity.

When trying to discuss things more complicated than a crayon, it's important to know what you're discussing like so that you don't look like the drooling kid in the corner who's only opinion on them is that green ones taste best. Or, of course, you can pick whichever linguistic styling you feel most comfortable with and accept that you're limited in scope to discussing the flavor of crayons.

The choice is yours but at least be intellectually honest about it.

Oh, and have a nice day. ;-)

They did have ample evidence indicating his guilt. It has always fallen to the defendant to provide a defense, and counter / refute the state's (otherwise-compelling) incriminating evidence.

Apparently it wasn't enough since we know he is not guilty. In fact, the standard IS that a defendant should be able to sit silently and find himself acquitted is he didn't do it. The defendant DOES have the right to speak in his defense, of course.

This being a really ancient crime, the prosecutor really did owe a very high duty to be sure since after 50 years the those witnesses who aren't deceased probably only remember the events in caricature.

In this case, In a sane world, there would be a good case for prosecutorial misconduct. Starting with the prosecutor charging him with being a fugitive from justice planning to drop that charge at trial with the explicit purpose of making sure the bail was beyond the defendant's means. That is, he knowingly charged a defendant with a crime he knew him to be innocent of.

Of course, that is easily topped by the prosecutor's office having sufficient exculpatory evidence on hand that they should never have charged him. That evidence is what was re-examined as part of a review process (not an appeal) that has overturned his conviction.

they told me that I couldn't bring guns into the visitors' gallery, they were violating the Constitution?

They absolutely were. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the limit on government. They're ignoring the limit. It couldn't be any more obvious. You right to carry was infringed by coercive action of the federal government. How hard is that to figure out, really?

If they wanted to do this legitimately, they need to bring article V into action; that's why article V is there in the first place.

I am not particularly pro-gun (I honestly think most people are too dimwitted to carry dull sticks safely.) But in my view this "do anything we bloody want whenever we want to" game the feds constantly play is exactly the wrong way to go about anything.

That constitutionally-blind approach has bought us the inversion of the commerce clause, squashed the 4th amendment into an unrecognizable caricature of itself, engendered "free speech zones" and commercial monopoly on the airwaves, allowed blatantly ex post facto laws to be crafted and pass through SCOTUS with ease, enabled government confiscation of property for commercial purposes, engendered comprehensive infringement of the 2nd amendment, resulted in deep government involvement in the promotion of Christianity, brought us de facto double jeopardy, torture, detainment without representation, massively excessive bail, federal intrusion on rights clearly belonging to the states, and federal denial of many rights that it was commanded to understand that were retained by the people. Then there's this corporations buying politicians thing which is a product of many laws on many levels, not to mention some extreme SCOTUS sophist malfuckery. And so on.

There are days I can't decide if we're an oligarchy or a banana dictatorship with rule spread across 500 or so petty dictators. One thing I *am* sure of is that we are not a constitutional republic. That ship sailed, disappeared over the horizon, capsized, sunk, and rotted into unrecognizability on the bottom of a sea of discarded public official's oaths.

So first you falsely state that they hate the people, then based on that false assumption you the assume (again) that these strawmen (re: ignorant caricatures mentioned previously) are bigots.

Do you ever get anything correct, or make any logically accurate statements?

PS: PBS/NPR aren't public funded in the first place.
It's a mix of private and public, with the overwhelming majority being privately sourced, either from donations or from operating within the marketplace.

You really need to stop confusing the ignorant caricatures in your head with reality.
In fact, a return to reality in general would do you good.

Can you think of anyone on the Left who supports Americans having jobs?

Seriously?
Fucking moron.

It was a dumb comment for sure, but turning this into a matter of class warfare or social justice is orders of magnitude dumber.

What's dumb is ignoring class warfare as the elite drop bombs on your head, and decrying social justice when you're having injustice inflicted upon you every day.

But maybe you're more comfortable in the role of useful idiot. You wouldn't be the first.

You are the tool for the upper classes. You freely pursue their interests to the detriment of your own - note that you no longer even pretend to be egalitarian. Support some special group (chosen by you or chosen for you? Did you ever stop to think about who did the choosing? Yeah, I thought so).

The 1%, or the ruling class... whatever you want to call them, the worst thing for them is a society in which all individuals are equal. Why would they want an equal society? That would just drag them down. Hence the recent war on egalitarians...

Just look at who is behind the vocal movement for Social Justice; not grassroots support, never grassroots support, only all the really big, and really wealthy ruling class interests. The message is consistent - "Fight these people over here - they are oppressing you!", "Oh, fight those people over there - they are oppressing you too!". In a somewhat twisted caricature of unrecognised irony, you are congratulated for "fighting the good fight", for "bullying the bullies."

You're their tool, chasing their paper tigers. Of course, you claim that the ruling class supports your cause, not realising that you are instead supporting theirs. Their interests do not lie in an egalitarian society; quite the opposite in fact. Ever wonder why, when all the large and powerful institutions are egging you on, could they not do anything about the alleged threats going to Anita Seekasian? After all, I can guarantee that these powerful media groups could make a single phone-call to ensure that a cop took her statement, and an investigation actually commenced, if nothing else. You ever wonder why they did not use their power and influence to help her? She complained that no cop even wanted to help her - and yet you never wondered why the powerful groups you were fighting for also did not help her.

They didn't, not because much of what she said later turned out to be untrue, but because she was useful to them by providing people like you with a reason to fight for their cause.

Ever stop to think why you have such an adverse knee-jerk reaction to any egalitarian outlook? You come out foaming at the mouth, blasting insults and internet-big-man threats to anyone who dare question the status quo. It's because you're a good little tool. You can be counted on to bully, to threaten and to fight with nobodies purely to advance a non-egalitarian society. Any time someone objects, a tool like you rushes out the shaming language - shame 'em into submission... "What a crybaby!", "Awwww? Is Poor Widdle You Missing His Privilege?", nevermind the fact that you think you are addressing the least powerful social grouping. When you think you're talking to people who have been picked on their entire lives, you pick on them some more?

At the end of it all, you see, an egalitarian society is no threat to me, nor to you. It is a threat to those who we laughingly refer to as the ruling class, but in reality are more like the slave-owner class. It's better, for them anyway, that your energies and outrage be directed away from them. You even miss the irony that your outrage is directed at the group of people who are at the lowest point of the social totem pole - the introverted nerds. You appear to miss the fact that you're stepping on the bottom of the social class in your eagerness to display solidarity with the ruling classes.

And yet, you blither on mindlessly a

Trump would beat any U.S. politician.

He's inclined to beat immigrants, Muslims, and Mexicans, too.

But not to worry. He is the perfect assurance we're going to have a Democrat in the white house this next time around. He's doing a wonderful job of divorcing the low-functioning and cognitively crippled from the traditional Republican voting block; no actual sane conservative who has looked even moderately closely at his rhetoric and history would vote for him. The Democrats, in contrast, will have the usual platitude-spouter, having rejected Bernie, plus will by and large look at Trump as the insane reality-show caricature he actually is and will handily swamp the damaged Republican brand in "oh no you don't" votes. Thinking swing voters likewise.

I'm hugely looking forward to watching all this come down. Hilarious to watch the garbage the Republicans a have been spewing for years at the Fox News demographic come back and bite a huge chunk out of their collective buttocks.

Trump has never met a stupid remark that can't get out of his mouth. What a clown.

If we are, as you say, the point where the government "clearly needs to be taken down" then why are you not doing so with you and your like-minded people?

What you have there is a non-sequitur. Your belief of when it needs to be taken down does not match the majority opinion. The militia you decry seems to have more intelligence than you do. If, as you claim, it were time to be taken down then you'd clearly be doing so. I notice that you're not.

The rest of us speak out, work in peaceful ways, and will rely on a firearm as the last choice. A firearm is a tool. It is not yet time to use one. When it is time to use one, in my views, then I will use one. I am disgusted but I am not without hope. When I am without hope, I will resort to a firearm. Until then, I will use all lawful means to accomplish my goals.

Your presumptions are based on stupid things and things you've assumed as opposed to actually heard. You argue against a strawman, you argue against a caricature. You feel just for you have beaten that which doesn't exist. You're a coward and a hypocrite. If, as you describe, it's clearly needed then you'd be doing it. Yet, here you sit...

I should also add, it is not when you feel it is clearly needed. It is when we feel it is clearly needed. Why you'd think you have any other option is beyond me. Why you think your opinion matters is beyond me. You, and what you think is clear, is of no importance to anyone but you and those you can convince to feel the same. You're lazy, a coward, and are far more egotistical than you rate.

And no, no I do not belong to any militia but I am an armed US citizen with a history of serving my country. In short, there's your lesson and you are dismissed.

Mexico is corrupt as fuck, and Mexican people have been crying for a better wall for decades (to end the drug money flow to the cartels who destroy their nation).
Many Mexican companies are corrupt mafia-like entities and should have their assets frozen until they pay their fucking taxes in Mexico and the USA.
The Mexican government has basically declared war on its own people and sided with the cartels.
Trump performed the same mock caricature of other people, the one "journalists" who happened to have a disability played the victimhood card and got all pretend offended, like a good SJW lapdog.
Trump didn't deny he insulted the jerk, just that he didn't mean to insult him for his disabilities, just for being a corrupt SJW slanted media shill.
He proposed a ban on new Muslim immigrants because ISIS actually released a document describing how to infiltrate countries using the migrant crisis. And then Paris and California radical extremist shootings happened... He didn't even say, "I told you so", to you fools, but Trump should have.

There are plenty of things to go after Trump on, but you're just regurgitating propaganda and lies.

My favourite trump moments:
- Announcing that not only will he build a wall along the border, but he'll make Mexico pay for it.

Hmm, my understanding of why this was silly is because there already is a wall - at least along the parts of the border where it would make any difference - and Obama has dramatically raised immigration and customs fees - to the point that much of US immigration and customs is already paid for by foreigners. Once you sort through the hyperbole, Trump was basically saying that he'll continue Obama's policies - continuing to improve the wall along the border and funding much of US immigration and customs through fees levied on foreigners.

Or did you imagine that Obama and Hillary were in favor of a completely open border with Mexico where anyone was free to walk across any time?

- -Suggesting doing so by seizing assets from Mexican companies in the US.

And what do you imagine happens to Mexican companies that don't pay their customs and immigration fees in the current system under Obama?

-- Suggesting doing so by declaring war upon Mexico and just invading.

It was slightly more nuanced - that Mexico would lack the military strength to do anything to stop Trump's customs and immigration policies - which is also true now about Mexico being unable to use military threats to influence Obama's customs and immigration policies.

- Performing a mocking caricature of a reporter's disability.

Oh, the horror!

-- Outright denying he ever did any such thing, even though it was caught on video, recorded, broadcast on national TV and uploaded to youtube.

Consistent policy positions are definitely not Trumps strong point. But I'm also sick to the teeth of all this "gotcha" politics where everyone is looking for single comments that can be taken out of context to prove all on their own that some candidate is a total monster.

- Proposing that all Muslims should be forbidden from entering the country, regardless of citizenship, with the sole exception of those serving in the military.

I've had Muslim friends denied tourist visas under Obama (with Hillary as Secretary of State) - even though they were obviously not terrorists and obviously had no intention of overstaying or working illegally. But apparently the San Bernardino shooters were welcomed with open arms. While I'm not personally a fan of a temporary ban on Muslims, Trump does score some points with me for being willing to acknowledge just how horribly broken the current US immigration system is: denying tourist visas to good decent Muslims while giving citizenship to Muslim terrorists.

The key point in all of this though is that what distinguishes Trump from politicians like Obama and Hillary isn't his policies, per se, it's that he's actually willing to be honest about them. Obama and Hillary preside over a government that does terrible things - but then pretend that everything's fine. So the real question is whether you want more of the same: pretending things are fine while doing horrible things. Or do you want to roll the dice on change - most likely for the worse - but maybe just maybe for the better. I mean, who knows, Trump's mother and two of his wives were foreign immigrants. He might possibly actually reform US customs and immigration policies for the better.

My favourite trump moments:
- Announcing that not only will he build a wall along the border, but he'll make Mexico pay for it.
- -Suggesting doing so by seizing assets from Mexican companies in the US.
-- Suggesting doing so by declaring war upon Mexico and just invading.
- Performing a mocking caricature of a reporter's disability.
-- Outright denying he ever did any such thing, even though it was caught on video, recorded, broadcast on national TV and uploaded to youtube.
- Proposing that all Muslims should be forbidden from entering the country, regardless of citizenship, with the sole exception of those serving in the military.