Slashdot Mirror

Ah, I see. I wish I lived on the Jersey Shore, too. I love that show.

Caricatures make for poor statistics.

It's not a matter of love versus hate. It's much more complex. Seeing an issue or a person in such a way, and directing a glib aphorism at that caricature, is hardly insightful.

I'll be honest, I often see people doing just what I referenced - lumping together two separate people as "THE REPUBLICANS", and turning those two people into a caricature of "what conservatives think."

Yeah, it happens. But the examples I gave in my earlier post was not an issue of taking small quotes out of context. There is a lot of self-contradiction going on in the Republican party at the moment.

I would agree with just about everything you've said, though I would question further on one particular point:

I'm not talking about taking things out of context.

I'll be honest, I often see people doing just what I referenced - lumping together two separate people as "THE REPUBLICANS", and turning those two people into a caricature of "what conservatives think." (And to be fair, again, conservatives often do the same to Democrats). If single individuals are being self-inconsistent with their statements, that is certainly a cause for... concern? further questioning? even ridicule, if necessary. But as you said too, you have to consider what the issue actually is, and what's at stake.

When I said "out of context," I wasn't using the term to mean the equivalent of turning this:
"President Obama said, 'I am not a Muslim, I am a Christian.'"
Into this:
"President Obama said, 'I am [...] a Muslim.'"

What I was trying to say is, the statements are taken out of the larger "context" of his full rationale and reasoning - in other words, two quick sound-bite-worthy statements may appear contradictory, but if you dig a little deeper to understand the full position, it's often not as clear-cut as that. I saw Pres. Obama make more or less the two statements I cited in my last post in a speech on healthcare, and it was sort of humorous, because I sat there thinking, "Gee, I wonder how long until Rush Limbaugh is spouting off about those two comments?"

But if you're replying to me in order to suggest that I'm not doing those things, I think you're off-base. I'm not picking apart some particular instance where a single person misspoke, but rather I'm pointing out some of the self-contradictions in the theories of modern "conservative" thought.

No, my post wasn't directed specifically at you, my post was more geared to the general "you", as in, "people". I certainly wouldn't say you've been guilty of shooting from the hip - your post was thoughtful and well expressed, my apologies if it came out like I was railing *at you* specifically.

Not that I've ever witnessed. The Republican party seems to be made up of interchangeable clones who all think, talk, and act in lockstep.

Your comment is exactly the problem with political discourse in the US - everyone is painting their opponents to be this impossible, irrational caricature with which a compromise cannot be reached.

Republicans are just people. Even the wackiest Tea Party types actually have good points mixed in with their unenlightened Obama-hating froth. During the Bush years it was the Democrats had the comically enraged masses protesting with bizarre "anti-war" rallies full of people just as weird as the Tea Partiers.

This polarization has got to stop. I'm a Republican married to a Democrat. I voted for Obama. I voted for Kerry. I regularly vote 3rd Party. When I lived in New York, I was a registered Democrat for the obvious practical reasons. Democrats and Republicans are so freaking close together politically that it simply amazes me that they can go at each other on these minor issues. It's simple human tribalism run amok, and the sooner we recognize it, the sooner we can step back and realize why it's so easy for men like Arlen Specter and Joseph Lieberman to simply switch parties when convenient.

The parties are just tools for the powerful to stay powerful. They represent very, very little difference on any real issue. There are these crazy wedge issues that make very little difference in our day-to-day lives that soak up most of the debate in this country. Can you honestly say that this stupid fucking mosque in New York will have any bearing on your life? And yet that's what these assholes have decided is going to be the big election issue. Why? It riles up our tribalism and fear, which is good for manipulating people.

You might as well give up. Anything you say is going to be thrown back at you with in some ridiculous caricatured form in order for him to dispute it.

> But no, you go dwell happily in your caricature that we're weird and repressed.

At least I can buy games in the USA that are not limited to what is appropriate for a 15 year old.

What is with the Americans? PATRIOT, revocation of habeus corpus, free speech zones, a prison population 5-10 times that of *any* other western nation... even 2257? Is this really what the average American wants? Surely the Yank public is not this stupid? They do elect their politicians, don't they?

Or we could go across the pond to where it's the House of Lords, of all things, that is standing up for human rights by beating down unprinicipled legislation submitted by the House of Commons.

Yeah, it's all "those crazy people in Australia". No-one else has whackos. At least our major politicians don't have to mention God in every. damned. speech. Next time you see any quality of life measure, have a look to see which nation is usually nestled under the Scandanavian countries which top the list - it's not the US, nor the UK. But no, you go dwell happily in your caricature that we're weird and repressed.

"What a lovely caricature you've constructed there. "

Indeed. But so-called skeptics construct caricatures of religion once and again " the big superman in the sky", "the flying spaghetti monster". If you have studied a bit about religion, you know that this is only a caricature.

Although I think evolution is obviously true, it is good to see a caricature of evolution for a chance. Why should evolution be sacred?

And, the origin of life in Earth remains unexplained. The time between Earth's formation and life's appearance is not enough time for a complex structure like the cell to evolve. I think it was Crick the first scientific who suggested that life could have come from outer space, a possibility which is mainstream science now.

Does this really leave any doubt ? Anything you disagree with ?

Yeah. Everything.

It's painfully obvious from your post you've never studied either Ethics or Theology and are basing your whole opinion on caricatures of each ideology propagated by the mass media as well as abusing horribly biased examples just to further your own preconceptions. So, study both fields, perhaps some Logic as well and *then* come back.

as opposed to those who are satisfied with the theory that life evolved from inorganic chemical compounds, totally by chance, with a series of ininitely improbable events occurring in the right sequence over and over and over again.

What a lovely caricature you've constructed there. Secondly, just like most crappy caricatures of biological evolution you also seem to conveniently gloss over the major role that natural selection plays which is not random.

Oh, yeah...explain the platypus, then.

as opposed to those who are satisfied with the theory that life evolved from inorganic chemical compounds, totally by chance, with a series of ininitely improbable events occurring in the right sequence over and over and over again.

What a lovely caricature you've constructed there. Secondly, just like most crappy caricatures of biological evolution you also seem to conveniently gloss over the major role that natural selection plays which is not random.

I sincerely hope moderators understand tongue in cheek humor.

Since your "humor" is based on a nasty strawman caricature, you deserve all the downmods you get. Saying something blatantly stupid and insulting and then retreating behind "but I was joking!" is a classic bit of troll cowardice.

I don't think those stories are materializing out of nowhere.

Neither do I. And therein lies the rub...

The hoi polli have such a collective hard-on for this man that he genuinely can do no wrong. No matter what it is. No matter what proof. No matter what evidence.... He will always be seen as a 'victim of an evil system.' Even if he were to confess, his righteousness is now a ratified dogma. And not just for the nominal 'liberal' types. But for anyone with even a wisp of hatred for the US government (and as you know, there are millions).

His acolytes explode with orgasmic power every time another 'secret' is revealed. A video tape there, a hacked email account there...but they were never really secrets at all, were they? And they are revealed with such useful timing, are they not? Almost as if on cue....

Julian has all the trappings of a manufactured caricature. An celebrated imitation of a what amicus plebs plebis, sed magis amica veritas is really supposed to mean. Like the antithesis of Foxy Redstate, but not played for laughs. Personally I don't think Tom Clancy could create a more iconic, convoluted, one-dimensional character. It's a shame that such a clearly talented and charismatic man has chosen a life of faux drama and hucksterism. The US government (and I assume all others) have a vested interest in keeping its' citizens attention on the occasional 'leak' of unflattering information (genuine or not), rather then on the actual evils. The information propaganda clearing houses do as they are told and push out whatever needs be said to maintain the illusion of Julians' crusade for truth. All the while manipulating the puppet show and doing things so dark and wicked, no one would ever believe them..

It's indeed good that, in this case, profit was put aside for "the greater good," as it were.

But what about all of the useful drugs that are produced by profit-seeking corporations? If, as all the chest-pounders in this thread would have it, "profit were just laid aside," would these corporations still exist? Would they still be conducting research that has undeniably benefited sick people? The answer is probably "no."

"Profit" has, unfortunately, become synonymous with "greed" in the minds of all too many people -- and it many cases, it unfortunately plays out that way. What's lost in such caricatures, however, is that "profit" is also a great motivator to conduct good research and produce quality products that people want to buy.

In my mind, there's a place for both models. All this shouting about the evils of profit and capitalism and how it destroys "real" science strikes me as more than a little naive.

So you want to legislate morality. We must all believe in your ethics,

So first off, there's a difference between morality and ethics.

anyone who doesn't follow your ethical code must be punished,

And what's the alternative to following an "ethical code"? Is rape and murder OK?

Funny how similar the views of the right-wingers and left-wingers are when you reduce them to their cores.

When you create a mocking, oversimplified caricature of a position, sure. In fact, you can also reduce nearly every human endeavor to an attempt to get enough food and sex, or to compensate for not having enough sex.

It's just that such reductions, even if they were accurate, don't add much to the conversation.

So let's consider: The extreme right-wing would like to, among other things, make it illegal to create or distribute certain works, including violent video games, among other things. Many of them would like their own creation myth taught in a science class, given equal weight to real science, and excluding all other creation myths. They'd like to prevent other people from marrying each other, and many would like to outlaw certain sexual acts.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Everything I just mentioned is an attempt to impose their own morality on a behavior which harms no one.

By contrast, I am wanting to legislate against behavior which actually harms people. Again, there's a reason rape and murder are illegal -- is it that much of a leap to also outlaw fraud and attempt to restrain anticompetitive, predatory business practices?

If you wanted to say that the purpose of government is to prevent people from unjustly enriching themselves to the detriment of others, then perhaps we could agree. Then it would just be a matter of determining what is "just".

What's unclear about it? When a business takes advantage of a physical monopoly to censor communication in order to make a quick buck, that's unjust -- never mind the absurd pricing scheme.

But you seem to believe that some people are intrinsically entitled be enriched at the expense of others who intrinsically deserve to be punished,

I'm sorry, you seem to have spun that entirely around to mean just the opposite of what I said. You also haven't even set up a clear strawman.

What do you mean by intrinsically? There's nothing intrinsic to the person, it's the position they're in, and more importantly, what they've done with that position. And I am not trying to enrich some at the expense of others, I am trying to stop a small number from enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.

are willing to use government powers to forcibly do so

Government intervention is one way to deal with a market failure, yes. Do you admit that market failures exist? If so, how would you solve them without the government?

government powers derive entirely from the fact that the government has a monopoly on force.

Patently false -- private security groups (rent-a-cops) exist.

The government should no more be benefitting the CEO of the company than the janitor.

Unfortunately, the practical reality is that corporations become little fiefdoms -- pretty much all of them, so switching companies helps very little -- which creates an imbalance of power such that if the government does nothing, they are benefiting the CEO far more than the janitor.

Other approaches, such as unions, have been tried, without much more success.

Aside from a few universally hated people like Hitler, we have a tendency to focus on the good in people when they die. I think there are a couple of reasons why we do this:

a.) Except in the case of the universally reviled, we tend to think of people when they die as more...human, and not so much as whatever caricature of them we've built up in our minds over the years. Death is the ultimate equalizer. When someone dies, it's easier to think of them as having been just like us, with all of our foibles and vulnerabilities, and it becomes easier to forget, or at least minimize, their bad qualities.
b.) In most cases, people leave behind mourners when they die, and it's seen as in poor taste to be overtly negative about the dead and risk causing further grief to people who are already grieving. This is probably related to the whole idea of the sins of the father not being visited upon the sons.
c.) In the immediate aftermath of a person's death, criticism of them really serves no purpose. After all, they're dead, and are therefore presumably not actively doing anything to harm anyone anymore. After the initial shock wears off, and we begin to think of that person's place in history, we tend to start criticizing again. However, even then the criticism tends to be more tempered than it likely was when they were alive.

Having said all that, I think people do tend to get unnecessarily sensitive about these things after the death of a public figure. It's to be expected after a death of this type that people are going to make jokes and snide remarks, especially while cloaked in the pseudo (or sometimes total) anonymity of the Internet. Criticizing that or seeking to stop it in any way is pointless.

Yeah, Gandhi gets portrayed as a shaved-headed loincloth-wearing skinny caricature most of the time. He donned the ascetic lifestyle as a show of solidarity, but before and after that stint, he was a thoroughly modern man who wore suits

The article you linked to, however, is absolute garbage, a falsehood-ridden hit job from a political enemy with a clear agenda. The very large Gandhi family as a whole has a checkered political history, but alleging Mohandas to be a Nazi as the author does is ridiculous beyond words.

If my neighbor built such a shitty pool that it couldn't pass inspection I know he can't cover the cost of damage to my property.

No, you don't know that at all. The one has nothing at all to do with the other -- you're just gluing them together trying to make a caricature of what you imagine, in your naivete, as a "villain."

Also, the value of the neighbor's property is quite likely to cover your damages. Which, I might add, would be minimal if YOU built your property with any thought to safety and sanity, and which is ALSO your job. For instance, my home is fireproof; so while my neighbor may catch fire and burn right to the ground, I can just stand and watch. Likewise, should my neighbor flood for any reason - pool accident, pipes break, etc -- my first floor is four feet off the ground, and the basement was built with more than adequate pumping capacity to empty it even at very high incoming rates, presuming only that pumping water outside and into the storm drains in itself is not futile. I did this without my neighbor even *having* a pool. It's my duty to my family to see that they are as safe as possible. Not my neighbor's duty. Likewise, my power won't be cut off by a power company; the list goes on.

Let's make it real simple. There is a social aspect to risk, therefore there is a social responsibility to mitigate risk

Fine. So you're 100% ok with inspection by a professional of your junk, and your bloodstream, prior to each time you have sex; a full inspection of your hands before you are allowed to touch anything at all in a public restaurant, school or business; analysis of your breath before you are allowed to breathe the same air in a closed room as anyone outside your family; and of course, inspection by an editor and a defamation/libel specialist prior to each post you make here, right? RIGHT?

Oh, wait... you ARE prepared to take some risks, eh? Even when there are social aspects to them, and some of them, like HIV and the crap on your breath, might even kill the next person over.

Yeah, turns out you're just picking and choosing for your own convenience, perfectly willing to trade away another person's freedom(s) so YOU might have a little more (usually imaginary) security.

Well, you're winning, as there are a damned lot of you, but just so you know, that green glow you see way, way above you? That's where the pond scum lives.

Too true, the recording industry has been eating it's own since the beginning. Sure, it gives the opportunity to make a tiny fraction of musicians well-off, but where there used to be a string quartet or a piano in a nice resturaunt there is a stereo. Dance clubs almost universally have a DJ, and you may be able to argue that the DJ is a sort of musician in his own right, he is nothing without the original artists that recorded the songs he will sample or the breaks he will play over. The bars that used to have bands playing on weekends now mostly have Karaoke. It's becoming more and more difficult for young musicians to find places to get the experience that only playing live will give you. Not only that people don't get exposed to good live music as much anymore, which is a shame, because until you have seen a *really* good live performance you really have no concept of what music is really about. It's like thinking you know how good sex is just because you've had a bunch of dates with Rosy. In general technology keeps improving, but it isn't really improving music, it's making some aspects of a musician's life easier, for instance you can get decent gear that is much lighter now, but most of that gear is trying to replicate the sound of gear that is 40-50 years old. Keyboards have gotten closer to being able to replicate the sound of say a grand piano, or a Hammond organ, or a Fender Rhodes, but once you have been around the real thing, you know that closer is still not very close. Electronic Drums still sound like caricatures of real drums, they are ok for applications where you want that sound, and they are easier to transport and control levels in relation to other instruments in small venues, but I will take a skilled drummer with good dynamics over a set of electric drums any day of the week.