Slashdot Mirror

from Episode I is clearly mocking every horrible child stereotype. It is because of these kinds of caricatures that birth rates have been dropping.

see, this is the problem. I am sitting here not insulting you, trying to understand your side while offering my side of things.

No you're not. If you can't understand that, this is not going to be productive.

yet your side seems unable to do so without resorting to smugness.

I asked you to defend any of your outlandish claims with evidence, and you continued posting more outlandish claims and refused to provide any evidence. I'm not being smug, I'm being efficient with my use of Internet Debate Time.

What I said was in simple terms, "dont hurt people for...reasons" I dont care black white gay straight, you shouldnt be attacking someone for no reason.

I'm not attacking anyone at all. I came in here to defend.

As for the baker, you didnt hear about the baker being forced to pay over 100 grand to a lesbian couple because they refused to bake them a custom cake???? google is your friend, and for someone who is caught up on LGBTQDFHSDTHUA++ you should be well aware of that case

1. I'm aware of a number of contrived cases about "cakes". Please specify one, with a link to something anything. Your claim was not that someone was sued, but that someone was charged with a hate crime. This might be news to you, but some things are not the same as other things.
2. LGBTQDFHSDTHUA++ - Oh yeah, you don't want people to attack each other. You just literally mashed your keyboard because you couldn't be bothered to understand what the acronym is that represents several sub-sections of society whose concerns you can't stop taking time out of your day to dismiss. The amount of defensive disdain is palpable.

Look, do you want to have an honest, compassionate discussion about things you are actually self-aware enough to admit you don't understand? Stop acting like you're an equal in that discussion. I am not an authority on queer issues in Seattle, but I'm a queer in Seattle. I have more experience than you do as a not-queer in not-Seattle. If you want to understand my "side" of a discussion, stop putting straw men in front of me that queers are getting innocent bigots charged with hate crimes over cakes. It's not real, it's not true, it's a caricature, it's insulting, and it's not in the spirit of honest discussion.

The Ferengi were the leftist writers' ridiculous caricature of capitalism. They didn't even bother to come up with a culture for them, all they knew is that capitalism was BAD, and they needed to display their political biases on the show. The writers were prudes as well, like most leftists, TNG hardly ever touched on sexuality. If it was me I'd be on the holodeck covered in girls but the only ones who ever said anything about females were those icky Ferengi. Those barbarian, sexist bastards with the big ears who only want to capture and enslave human women...mmmm....forbidden fantasy....

You should stop and think about what you're saying. You created a straw man caricature of my views, tore it down, then told me you know that the straw man is not representative of my views.

i did no such thing, you accused me of living in fear and other junk and i simply was making an argument based on my experiences

Well at least your made up bullshit is an anecdote this time.

I made up nothing. I stand by my statement. and the fact that you are as defensive as you are when i said nothing remotely offensive, and at the same time continue to talk down to me and anyone else who disagrees with you in the slightest, it adds to my data points that those who scream for tolerance are equally intolerant of others.

Have a nice day

Oh I thought I was having this conversation, not one deliberately designed to caricature it.

there is no fear on my side, but we do see the idea of diversity differently. I dont believe there is a need for it. I enjoy it, i like learning about other cultures and being a part of them. However I disagree that it is something that should be forced onto people (not saying that you feel that way just explaining myself)

You should stop and think about what you're saying. You created a straw man caricature of my views, tore it down, then told me you know that the straw man is not representative of my views.

I see alot of people who as you said distort their motives, perhaps its a new york thing but the people who want the most diversity in NY, also seem to be the least tolerant people I personally know. i understand my anecdote does not mean that all people who are pro diversity are evil intolerant people, just that is what it seems like here in NY these days.

Well at least your made up bullshit is an anecdote this time.

im not sure ive ever seen that as what diversity was all about

I do. So we see it differently. That's probably why I value it more than you do.

you dont need to be diverse to not hate others

Of course not. It just tends to have that effect.

while one can want diversity SOOO bad, that one turns into one of the hateful people that you are speaking of

Lots of people can distort motives in lots of ways. What you're describing is not typical, it's a caricature of a stereotype. You've seen an article bemoaning the loss of Seattle diversity, taken it as a threat, and proceeded to post scattershot about how the problem is actually the opposite of what people's experiences are.

I realize it's pointless to argue with you, but your points are not based in fact, they're based in fear.

There is an artist in Vermont, a real estate person in Texas, and a guy in Britain who all routinely give my email address thinking it's their own.

It happens constantly. I've stopped being nice.

For the guy in Vermont, he signed up for voicemail. So I password-recovered his account, got his phone number, and gave him a call. Bastard got upset at me thinking it was a scam. Later... I got a request for a caricature for the police chief. So I drew one, MS paint style and sent a $300 invoice.

For the guy in Texas, I got some poor schmo's mortgage app sent to me from another real estate agent. I mean, full financial details. I replied letting them know they were probably breaking the law by sending it to me. I still get shit.

The guy in Britain has signed up for:
1. Online bill pay for his gas bill
2. Multiple online betting websites
3. A "find a naughty-housewife" website
I've password-recovered and closed all those accounts.

When the paedophile prophet's caricature were published, million of muslim where enraged by the blaspheme. We all saw the protest, the burning flags and the death threats. But when Theo van Gogh was murder, not a single muslim had anything negative to say. They all supported the terrorist with their silence.

Murder should be one of, if not the most, horrible blaspheme for a 'religion of peace'. The fact are, there is no moderate muslim and Islam is a religion of submission. The part about 'submission' was lost in the translation by Islam apologist and 'peace' was used instead. But all arabs speaker know that it is about submission to the cult, not peace to the world.

Stop being a islam apologies. Nobody care about Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism because it is Islam that is a threat right now. We dealt with previous religion abuse before, we will deal with the future one. Let us deal with Islam now. TD;DR Fuck you, you are not helping anybody.

"No... down with the people appropriating people that don't share their ideology or way of thinking as members of their group."

In your opinion. It's up for interpretation, and anyway there's a lot more to the Guardian than some caricature of brain-dead leftism, and there's a lot more to Dune than a one sentence quote from Paul Atreides.

That depends on where you sit.

Sure, if you're sitting in a 4th grade classroom, it's probably gut-busting.

Righteousness does not excuse extremism.

True, but neither does it make "hurrr, this iz yoo"-type caricature "clever satire."

Not if there's no law against it. What do you do for recreation? How would you feel if I declared it as criminal just because I didn't agree with it?

Oh, it's becoming increasingly easy to make illegal activities that are perceived as out of place, potentially dangerous or simply weird. You can, of course try to have my pastimes declared criminal, you're welcome to make an attempt, but you will fail. You see, what I do for recreation is considered socially acceptable - and positive - by the vast majority of the population. My activities are shared by a lot and looked up to as normal and desirable by everyone except lowlife geeks. So, any attempt by you weirdo nerdo to touch them would be seen as out of place and would mark you for attention. Deal with it, nerdoid: nobody likes you lot. Nobody. We can make TV series and whatever to make fun of "nerds" but we cast attractive actors to play endearing caricatures that make us laugh. Successful entrepreneurs like Bill Gates may enjoy picturing themselves as "nerds" but they most certainly are not. The real nerd is a social abomination, a weirdo, possibly a pedophile. When you crawl out of your holes everybody looks at you and thinks "stranger danger". Nobody is interested in your shit. The sooner we legislate you out of existence, the better.

It might help your quality of comments if you had some remote idea as to what the fuck you're talking about. You can't just believe a caricature of a profession you saw on television, or hacking involves sweaty, intense coding sessions five minutes long against 'another hacker in the system'

What I call one-dimensional is not a matter of consistent principles. It's a matter of not-so-good writing. Atticus Finch had consistent principles, too, but was not a cartoon caricature. Rand could have made Atlas Shrugged tell the same story with the same principled characters and without sacrificing the ideals she was trying to convey without 1000 pages of stilted prose. Alas, she didn't.

If A is like B, then B is like A.

My point is about which is the caricature and which is the object being caricatured.

notice dbiii's obsessive focus

I don't see obsession. I see passion. Everybody has different things they're passionate about. I wouldn't call him obsessive anymore than I would you on the things that rile you up.

If your beliefs are so immature, silly, and ancient that a hack writer like Rand can accurately portray them 50 years ago, then maybe you need to up your game.

Except, of course, when it isn't accurate.

Rand's characters are caricatures. They're about as accurate to real people as caricatures of libertarians that you may found around stories like these.

I think it's the other way around. Rand probably based her antagonists on people against her or she is against philosophically (i.e people like GP). So it's not that GP sounds like a Rand antagonist, but Rand antagonists sound like people like GP.

If A is like B, then B is like A.

Dagney meanwhile is Rand's author insert. Atlas Shrugged is basically Rand's fantasy of defeating her ideological opponents.

I quite agree. But I think the book serves a purpose past just expressing Ayn Rand's fantasies. For example, notice dbiii's obsessive focus on nobility despite obvious problems with the assertion. Ayn Rand caricatures such beliefs intentionally and unintentionally in Atlas Shrugged.

It's not the French Revolution any more. If your beliefs are so immature, silly, and ancient that a hack writer like Rand can accurately portray them 50 years ago, then maybe you need to up your game.

All this misleading and conclusory claim (on what basis do you deem any particular number "high," by the way?) demonstrates is your own lack of attention to this issue.

I consider about half to be high. It's definitely not a super majority but I suppose that could be reached if the income constraints were altered. I don't consider $20,000/year a very comfortable living, not to mention $10,000 but that depends on the area.

Half ... of what, exactly? Are you saying that the breakdown of poor to not-poor women should be some percentage other than what it is? As in, you believe that poor women should not be the ones getting abortions? Why would you believe that? Or do you mean simply that the number of women getting abortions itself is "too high" (and it isn't half of women btw; the Guttmacher link estimates that by age 45, about one-third of all women will have had an abortion)? Again, "too high" based on what? And what does the cost of living have to do with your assessment? If anything, that would seem to explain why "such" a "high" percentage of poor women have abortions: because while an abortion may be cost-prohibitive, it's nothing compared to the price of pregnancy, childbirth and raising a kid.

And save your moralizing about diverse perspectives (omg some women want to give birth and others don't? WHAAAT?!) for your weekly anti-choice circlejerk. That "women," just like regular people(!), are not some kind of emotional monolith surprises no actual grown-ups.

What are you going on about? I don't have any dogs in this race.

That's self-evidently disingenuous. The words you are typing are not the words of people who mind their own business and don't give a lick what other people do with their own bodies.

Besides your selective quotes and emotional language you also curiously use counties instead of states so you can get a sensational figure, with emphasis added no less.

Cute. If sarcasm is "emotional language" in your world, you must find the internet a scary place indeed. You're the one who started in with below-the-belt accusations, implicitly accusing "women" of doublespeak because you've heard the term "clump of cells" used in reference to abortion (that phrase is is pretty much a strawman caricature used by anti-choicers, btw -- seriously, google the phrase and tell me how many actual pro-choicers you're able to dig up who actually use it) and yet you're aware of the fact that many women (and men, but why target men when targeting women is so much more fun, right?) feel the pain of loss after a miscarriage. If you genuinely don't understand how ignorant and manipulative your sentiment was, then I apologize for wrongly misjudging you as someone with an ounce of basic understanding regarding emotional context.

As to counties versus states, I was just citing one of the numbers from the link you supplied. I guess you like some of the numbers and not others? I don't deny that counties aren't the only relevant number, although your reference to Texas is hilarious for at least two reasons, both of which tend to underscore my point: Texas is a huge land mass. To say it has "at least" one abortion clinic in the entire state is about as meaningful as saying that England and France have at least one abortion clinic between them. And, unless you live under a rock, you're surely aware that Texas is one of the least friendly states for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy. In fact, if a recent law passed in Texas is upheld, there will be fewer than ten abortion clinics remaining in the entire state; as it is currently, many women already have to drive more than a hundred miles to the nearest provider.

This issue overwhelmingly involves young women and poverty.

I guess you're so unwilling to understand the opposing view point that you're perfectly ready to believe in a caricature of it. The person you responded to is an AC, clearly setting up a strawman, and has baited several of you into attacking it.

Congrats to the AC, you've successfully trolled several people in this thread.

saw it, as a mad max movie it sucked IMO.

max had almost no dialog, no character development.
almost his sole dialog was a monologue to himself/audience
at the start essentially saying "I'm crazy because I failed to save some people after the world went to shit"

He was essentially a cardboard caricature put there to sell a movie with mad max in the title.

If you expect to see a "Roadwarrior" movie with Max as an actual self-sacrificing hero type, skip this movie....

Had some cool visuals for the vehicles though.

Spoilers -
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

What sucked -

He starts off looking like a hobo, gets captured right at the beginning and cleaned up by the bad guys.
His biggest action sequence is right here when he tries to escape and fails.
You really don't see him go "bad ass" on anyone - although it is implied in one "after action" scene.
He doesn't kill the villain, and never really has any sort of "hey e - do I survive or try to help out" forced on him.

His only real contribution is towards the end when he convinces the escapees that they should head back and take over the place they left.

The movie had some cool visuals, but I think they spent too much time on some scenery shots at the expense of characters.

I'd say the best performance was probably Nicholas Hoult as a "war boy" - essentially he ended up in the mad max role almost.

The only negative I can say is the conversion of his character seemed a little too easy
- from "I'm a bad guy who REALLY believes in what I'm doing" - to -
"Hey, you mean all those fanatical beliefs I held all my life are wrong?"
"Okay I'll do a 180 and now I'm a good guy"

It was an action movie where essentially all the good characters were female, and all the bad ones were male. But they were almost ALL throwaway parts IMO.

Charlize Theron was okay but she did not seem to fit IMO as an action hero. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bad ass females action movies - Underworld and Resident Evil, but this was supposed to be Mad Max.

Ironic you bring up Godwin's Law while using a slur that copycats neonazi caricatures.