Corporations stand (ideally in practice, anyway) based on those that agree to their service; the "cost" for not dealing with them is simply lack of service rendered, which may or may not be culturally "necessary") but you otherwise are not fined and never stuck in a corporate jail for refusal of service.
Try to avoid dealing with government and find yourself in jail. You'll pay for any damn service they think you ought to pay for, including killing brownskins and overthrowing foreign governments. Of course, those issues are far less important than (admittingly still important, of course) issues such as gay rights and and other less significant issues du jour because the government and media collusion keeps those issues away from the forefront of your consciousness).
I notice this too, and when I saw this on reddit before it got on slashdot I noticed how "individualism" is lumped in with all sorts or negative personality traits--there's nothing wrong with individualism, and nothing wrong with helping other people out, the two are not mutually exclusive even though many view "collectivism" to be more caring, etc, and it is often treated that way in the very confused (IMO; on this topic..) social science literature, and it should be noted that more individualistic countries, these so-called selfish, me-generation uncaring individualistic countries, are typically much less authoritarian and much more permissive...
It's telling how they don't try to connect this rampant lack of empathy (in college students, the test groups) to the notorious liberal-leaning political culture (as a college student myself, Republicans are often few and far between; I am not one, either...) but they are more than willing to connect it to capitalism and individualism so on and so forth.
The fact that this is newsworthy and the law is such an enigmatic set of rules and ritual demonstrate just how flawed our democratic system is. How can you call anything remotely resembling justice if the playing field is so uneven that it's newsworthy that someone was able to take a big corporation to small claims court and win? Police often say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, despite very frequently either flat-out lying about what the law is or misunderstanding it themselves--remember, they aren't lawyers, and lawyers often get it wrong too because it's a convoluted jumbled mess of precedent and sometimes vague statutes. The law is a giant, incomprehensible tangle of mumbo-jumbo, with legal precedents being treated like magic spells (uttered in Latin, no less). And with this structure, who wins? Why, the ones with the resources to hire experts...!
In the words of a certain insanely underrated and clever kid's cartoon show from the 90's (Rocko's Modern Life): "You can't fight City Hall! You can't fight corporate America, they are big and we are small, you can't fight City Hall..."
Oh please, quit the fanboy apologia, "Everything that happens to these characters is grounded to reality as we know it" does not include turning magical wheels and ending up in Tunisia.
Re:Babylon 5 / Firefly / Star Blazers
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
What? Buffy and Angel were fine, despite Angel being canceled a season earlier than was intended by the writers.
Acknowledging the bizarre elements, Lindelof was quick to point out: "This show isn't 'The X-Files.' Everything that happens to these characters is grounded to reality as we know it. Time and space are not bent."
No, he's quite right, here's a quote during/after Season 1 (I'm not sure when):
Acknowledging the bizarre elements, Lindelof was quick to point out: "This show isn't 'The X-Files.' Everything that happens to these characters is grounded to reality as we know it. Time and space are not bent."
I thought the exact same thing, but that really is wrong. The island was not purgatory, they did not all die in the original crash; everything was apparently real, they just all met in the alt time line to have a reunion before passing on.
Re:Season 6 was a complete disapoimtment
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Here's a quote you'll like, said either during or after Season 1:
Acknowledging the bizarre elements, Lindelof was quick to point out: "This show isn't 'The X-Files.' Everything that happens to these characters is grounded to reality as we know it. Time and space are not bent."
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, they even said, during/after(?) the first season,
Acknowledging the bizarre elements, Lindelof was quick to point out: "This show isn't 'The X-Files.' Everything that happens to these characters is grounded to reality as we know it. Time and space are not bent."
which turned out later to be the complete opposite of the truth.
The characters stopped developing after the first 3 seasons, too, maybe the biggest thing past that was Sawyer and Juliet, but that's it for the most part.
...recently had this discussion with a friend, except more about teacher bullies and less about children bullies. I am unhappy with myself to this day over how I didn't have the guts to stand up to all the humiliation, emotional abuse, and overall nonsense (like requiring us to say the pledge of alliegance) in high school. All the little things, like teachers wasting time with education by sending students to the dean for saying words that they have us read in assigned books. How government class was skewed greatly not just for pro-America crap but was biased for the democratic and republican parties (that is, assignments regarding political parties did not allow us to focus on any of the third parties).
As for student bullies, school administrations are often composed of people so stupid that the military wouldn't ever take them, yet they have every bit of the authoritarian mindset typical of many military personnel. They're the kind of people with strong political opinions that only shout out slogans and respond to having their views challenged with these weak slogans (like how creationists will respond to anything with, "it's only a theory" without them understanding at all what a theory is). In my view, putting these adults in charge of the children's well-being and punishment is itself child abuse.
You couldn't be more right. Often the teachers know the kids are being bullied, they just do nothing about it because the problem is not "necessary" to intervene in.
My point is that you can color a view of history not by lying, but simply by what you concentrate on. That is, there's more beyond the facts themselves that can color perspective. Case in point: the overly-patriotic nonsense they teach in schools to begin with.
Most of what the Texas changes propose aren't false on their face, but there's an obvious agenda present and it's questionable how it's likely to be presented. The problem with complaining about the Texas changes specifically is that we currently already have a very colored account of what history is being presented right now in the schools--and it's neither left or right, but it's wholly biased and often factually incorrect.
If you read my post, I was merely talking about a college course I had, where the professor concentrated on stuff related to his own personal politics. That's my point. Bias is more than just what you say is and isn't true; it's what you choose to present.
As much as I hate saying this or looking like I'm coming off as defending these changes, in my experience it's true that the experts in history have a left wing (progressive, more accurately) tilt, and that's not merely reflected in what they say is and isn't so, but the actual information they present (or don't present) that can color one's view of previous times. For example, one of my progressive history professors (naturally) had a focus on the progressive movements in his history class.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations stand (ideally in practice, anyway) based on those that agree to their service; the "cost" for not dealing with them is simply lack of service rendered, which may or may not be culturally "necessary") but you otherwise are not fined and never stuck in a corporate jail for refusal of service.
Try to avoid dealing with government and find yourself in jail. You'll pay for any damn service they think you ought to pay for, including killing brownskins and overthrowing foreign governments. Of course, those issues are far less important than (admittingly still important, of course) issues such as gay rights and and other less significant issues du jour because the government and media collusion keeps those issues away from the forefront of your consciousness).
Aw, that's so adorable.
Corporations pillage and plunder? I thought governments did that.
I notice this too, and when I saw this on reddit before it got on slashdot I noticed how "individualism" is lumped in with all sorts or negative personality traits--there's nothing wrong with individualism, and nothing wrong with helping other people out, the two are not mutually exclusive even though many view "collectivism" to be more caring, etc, and it is often treated that way in the very confused (IMO; on this topic..) social science literature, and it should be noted that more individualistic countries, these so-called selfish, me-generation uncaring individualistic countries, are typically much less authoritarian and much more permissive...
It's telling how they don't try to connect this rampant lack of empathy (in college students, the test groups) to the notorious liberal-leaning political culture (as a college student myself, Republicans are often few and far between; I am not one, either...) but they are more than willing to connect it to capitalism and individualism so on and so forth.
Yes, but the problem is that, by nature, it's still much harder for you, a lone individual, to chase this down, then it is a monolithic corporation.
Additionally, it's much worse in regular court.
Apparently, the rules are different in small claims court, but I'm willing to bet the odds are well against you still.
The fact that this is newsworthy and the law is such an enigmatic set of rules and ritual demonstrate just how flawed our democratic system is. How can you call anything remotely resembling justice if the playing field is so uneven that it's newsworthy that someone was able to take a big corporation to small claims court and win? Police often say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, despite very frequently either flat-out lying about what the law is or misunderstanding it themselves--remember, they aren't lawyers, and lawyers often get it wrong too because it's a convoluted jumbled mess of precedent and sometimes vague statutes. The law is a giant, incomprehensible tangle of mumbo-jumbo, with legal precedents being treated like magic spells (uttered in Latin, no less). And with this structure, who wins? Why, the ones with the resources to hire experts...!
In the words of a certain insanely underrated and clever kid's cartoon show from the 90's (Rocko's Modern Life): "You can't fight City Hall! You can't fight corporate America, they are big and we are small, you can't fight City Hall..."
I've yet to see any human being thing of a coherent moral or political system. John Rawls should've been a comedian...
Oh please, quit the fanboy apologia, "Everything that happens to these characters is grounded to reality as we know it" does not include turning magical wheels and ending up in Tunisia.
What? Buffy and Angel were fine, despite Angel being canceled a season earlier than was intended by the writers.
I do!
No, he's quite right, here's a quote during/after Season 1 (I'm not sure when):
I thought the exact same thing, but that really is wrong. The island was not purgatory, they did not all die in the original crash; everything was apparently real, they just all met in the alt time line to have a reunion before passing on.
Here's a quote you'll like, said either during or after Season 1:
Indeed, they even said, during/after(?) the first season,
which turned out later to be the complete opposite of the truth.
The characters stopped developing after the first 3 seasons, too, maybe the biggest thing past that was Sawyer and Juliet, but that's it for the most part.
...recently had this discussion with a friend, except more about teacher bullies and less about children bullies. I am unhappy with myself to this day over how I didn't have the guts to stand up to all the humiliation, emotional abuse, and overall nonsense (like requiring us to say the pledge of alliegance) in high school. All the little things, like teachers wasting time with education by sending students to the dean for saying words that they have us read in assigned books. How government class was skewed greatly not just for pro-America crap but was biased for the democratic and republican parties (that is, assignments regarding political parties did not allow us to focus on any of the third parties).
As for student bullies, school administrations are often composed of people so stupid that the military wouldn't ever take them, yet they have every bit of the authoritarian mindset typical of many military personnel. They're the kind of people with strong political opinions that only shout out slogans and respond to having their views challenged with these weak slogans (like how creationists will respond to anything with, "it's only a theory" without them understanding at all what a theory is). In my view, putting these adults in charge of the children's well-being and punishment is itself child abuse.
You couldn't be more right. Often the teachers know the kids are being bullied, they just do nothing about it because the problem is not "necessary" to intervene in.
My point is that you can color a view of history not by lying, but simply by what you concentrate on. That is, there's more beyond the facts themselves that can color perspective. Case in point: the overly-patriotic nonsense they teach in schools to begin with.
Most of what the Texas changes propose aren't false on their face, but there's an obvious agenda present and it's questionable how it's likely to be presented. The problem with complaining about the Texas changes specifically is that we currently already have a very colored account of what history is being presented right now in the schools--and it's neither left or right, but it's wholly biased and often factually incorrect.
If you read my post, I was merely talking about a college course I had, where the professor concentrated on stuff related to his own personal politics. That's my point. Bias is more than just what you say is and isn't true; it's what you choose to present.
As much as I hate saying this or looking like I'm coming off as defending these changes, in my experience it's true that the experts in history have a left wing (progressive, more accurately) tilt, and that's not merely reflected in what they say is and isn't so, but the actual information they present (or don't present) that can color one's view of previous times. For example, one of my progressive history professors (naturally) had a focus on the progressive movements in his history class.
Insert joke about the BFG 9000 here.
Political philosophy? Isn't that the branch of philosophy dedicated to thinking up rationalizations for democracy?
Lampshades?
Yes, but the extra special status they receive that makes them stay in prison despite not being sentenced is extrajudicial, as I understand it.
They're all awful people.
Couldn't have said it better myself.