Someone said doing so would be wise for Trump and Republicans, for exactly the reason of appearance you mentioned, and because Republicans have a majority it would likely go through.
I use FireFox with NoScript on everything except gmail as my webmail-only browser, so that an accidental click on a link won't take me to some cesspool of malware. (I also use Chrome for a trusted few work sites, and Chrome in Sandboxie for everything else, including being here. All three with AdBlock of course.)
All you said is true -- aside from the fact that when he was talking about Mexican immigrants he was talking about a *tiny minority* who is like that, but that tiny minority of violent people makes all the difference, and it also terrorizes the Mexican community the most -- so yes it's true, but here is a crucial nuance: the Far Left essentially says Trump demeans people because he is an evil person. But look at the pattern in all the things you wrote. I think you will find that Trump demeans only *immediate political opponents* as a way to neutralize them. No greater example than Clinton or Cruz: once they were out of the way, Trump praised both of them. Even Clinton, remember the inauguration day?
And by Far Left I really mean Trump-Triggered "Progressive" Left Who Are Still Whining About The Election In An Incredibly Unproductive Way Which Harms The Country And Themselves, and I absolutely stand by that characterization. Fortunately this is not all of Left, but there is too many of such mindsets. In the Obama days maybe 5% of people I knew on the right where nutjobs who thought Obama was a Muslim traitor who hates America. But these days at least a quarter of people I know on the left think that Trump is an Orange Menace who is destroying the world. I wish the left to be a healthy opposition to the right, not half mad like that.
FWIW I agree the left is not a monolith, I referred specifically to the "far left", the people who are perpetually triggered by Trump and whose behavior is terribly unproductive. That includes the likes NYT and WaPo although they profit from their affliction. I wish the left to be healthy and strong because the country needs it to be in opposition to the right, whoever the right is, and vice versa.
I'm not saying the far-left view is that people should not be demeaned. I think it's normal decency and would like to believe that most of us think that way. The far left view is that Trump in particular is demeaning people, a view which is not shared with many outside of that group.
True, however satire only works if it's clever, and even then is more bitter than funny, as the goal is to cause bitterness. There's nothing clever in what Colbert said. So it wasn't funny (by my measure) nor good satire, if that was his goal, it seemed more like someone just venting frustration. SNL in their attacks of Trump et al can be both funny and clever ("I will not be de-terred" comes to mind.)
It wasn't in the 2+ minute clip I saw, if you have a longer clip or a transcript feel free to post it. That said, state of mind expressed through voice, body language and so on is more telling about the person than the content.
Re projecting -- the only way we can even *know* about another person's emotion is by having their emotions resonate with our own. An autistic person can't do that. However when it resonates, you need to keep detachment in order to register that emotion consciously. Projecting is when you get lost in it without realizing it.
Post below sums it up well re hate speech. I believe speech that carries the threat of physical harm is hate speech and it should be punishable -- you know it when you hear it -- and Colbert's clearly wasn't that.
Hypocrisy in my view comes from the Colbert-adopted far left view that Trump is demeaning people -- whether it's women, illegal immigrants, or Ted Cruz -- which in turn comes from the set of values that no human being should be so treated, yet Colbert demeans Trump. Hypocrisy is defined as "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." Not related to crassness at all, crassness in itself is not necessarily a vice.
We can only guess his reasons since we don't know what was going on in his head. My guess would be something simpler -- Colbert is angry that Trump is President, and he profits from venting his anger (see what happened to Jimmy Fallon), which is a powerful combo. Anger makes people not funny as they lose detachment necessary for humor.
He didn't harm anyone, it wasn't hate speech, he just made a crude unfunny joke. If people think that's fine, it's fine. If they think he's an idiot, they should ask their network to fire him. If they think he's a hypocrite (as I do) they don't need to watch him. Save legal enforcement for serious things.
I was searching for a comment that might say that. I agree. To that I would add, I wonder if we have peaked with entertainment. With the screens everywhere we seem to have reached a saturation point *and* the habits have solidified. Our brains are stimulated in a radically different way minute by minute now compared to the 70s. Mario for iPhone having failed is an example. VR which is the most radical form of (asocial) entertainment is barely making a dent in people's lifestyles. Even just reading political discussions everywhere seems to be enough to entertain.
If Sony would make a device that makes you learn things better, or travel more easily, I'm exaggerating to make an example but something not strictly entertainment, it might be different. As it is, I don't think they have many ways to go.
Primary reason is taste: my tap water, clean though it is, does not taste good to me -- I do not wish to drink it except when I must. It is also very hard. Fluoride is another reason. Reverse osmosis used by the water station where I refill supposedly removes fluoride.
But at any rate, taste alone is enough of a reason.
Plastic has great utility (as long as it's safe), it's disposable plastic that's the problem. And much of it is just for convenience that's not necessarily all that convenient.
As an example -- I've been drinking water from disposable plastic bottles for over a decade and just recently switched to refilling water at my local store. At 50 cents a gallon I pay less for higher quality water in a BPA-free container. I had thought that's too much of a hassle but with "double buffering" it's actually less hassle than the bottled water, it's cheaper, tastier, and supposedly healthier.
And social sciences most if not all the time fail to deliver useful theories even when they are not burden by an agenda. Though now I wonder have they ever not been burdened by an agenda.
I should say I do believe -- on a purely intuitive and logical level -- that 7 billion people burning fossil fuels are having a negative effect on the world's ecosystem. What I don't believe is that this effect can be quantified and made predictive in any way you can trust and verify, as the system is too complex. And without trust and verification you can't have a major policy decision that brings additional burden to the populace, you can just zigzag as with Obama and Trump.
What I would propose instead is focus on the positive and on bottom up instead of top down: provide stimulus for developing green energy sources and let them take over with time if they get good. Meanwhile cut the measurable pollution -- improve air quality, forbid toxic dumps etc. Those you can see work in a relatively short time, vs. a hypothetical 0.3 degrees cooling in 100 years. Otherwise I believe the perceived arrogance and hubris of the pro-climate change side (mostly non-scientists, to be fair) will only hurt the cause further.
... and that includes the climate scientists. I imagine it would be hard to find a climate scientist who would be willing to bet his house on a measurable and non-trivial prediction about the future -- one that he would make from his climate models in the span of a few years.
Because that's what it's all about: would you Mr. Scientist assert that A will follow B and vouch for it? Physicists and chemists would do it, biologists would do it for some things, medical researchers might do for some others, but sociologists, economists, and climate scientists wouldn't, it is just too complex. Engineers would do it: in England some centuries ago bridge builders were required to live and sleep under the bridge they'd just built along with their families. Afterwards you had less doubt the bridge was reliable and you could start planning to transport heavy stuff over it.
I may be wrong but outside of its models (and anyone can have models) climate science doesn't have enough to establish trust for making a major decision.
The story is about Linux being better at dealing with ransomware, and ransomware writers target platforms where a huge number of users keep their unique digital files. Mobile devices don't count since most of the user's unique content (pictures, notes) is backed up on the cloud, and same goes for servers to a degree. That really means the only real ransomware target is desktops (and laptops) and that is the place where Windows clearly dominates.
Which really goes to say if Windows desktop/laptop users switched over to Linux they'd be better equipped to deal with ransomware. But we know that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons, some of them quite justified in my opinion.
I don't know what incentive Russians have besides fighting ISIS, but however you slice it the WaPo leak only brings more danger to the source, not less, with that clearly being known to the leaker.
If we are talking about hypocrisy -- whoever leaked the story to WaPo out of "concern" about the danger to the sources certainly knew that it's much more likely ISIS would find out what happened by reading the story about the secrets on the front page of WaPo.
Yes the article compares share growth of tech sector with economic growth of the rest which is nonsense. That said, It's been said that the stock market leads the overall economy in terms of trends by about 6 months. I don't know if it's true. But the productivity part is probably relevant: 2.7% for the tech industry and 0.7% in things that are more important. That's not a good sign.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone said doing so would be wise for Trump and Republicans, for exactly the reason of appearance you mentioned, and because Republicans have a majority it would likely go through.
I think in this case the choice for most is clear.
I use FireFox with NoScript on everything except gmail as my webmail-only browser, so that an accidental click on a link won't take me to some cesspool of malware. (I also use Chrome for a trusted few work sites, and Chrome in Sandboxie for everything else, including being here. All three with AdBlock of course.)
All you said is true -- aside from the fact that when he was talking about Mexican immigrants he was talking about a *tiny minority* who is like that, but that tiny minority of violent people makes all the difference, and it also terrorizes the Mexican community the most -- so yes it's true, but here is a crucial nuance: the Far Left essentially says Trump demeans people because he is an evil person. But look at the pattern in all the things you wrote. I think you will find that Trump demeans only *immediate political opponents* as a way to neutralize them. No greater example than Clinton or Cruz: once they were out of the way, Trump praised both of them. Even Clinton, remember the inauguration day?
And by Far Left I really mean Trump-Triggered "Progressive" Left Who Are Still Whining About The Election In An Incredibly Unproductive Way Which Harms The Country And Themselves, and I absolutely stand by that characterization. Fortunately this is not all of Left, but there is too many of such mindsets. In the Obama days maybe 5% of people I knew on the right where nutjobs who thought Obama was a Muslim traitor who hates America. But these days at least a quarter of people I know on the left think that Trump is an Orange Menace who is destroying the world. I wish the left to be a healthy opposition to the right, not half mad like that.
FWIW I agree the left is not a monolith, I referred specifically to the "far left", the people who are perpetually triggered by Trump and whose behavior is terribly unproductive. That includes the likes NYT and WaPo although they profit from their affliction. I wish the left to be healthy and strong because the country needs it to be in opposition to the right, whoever the right is, and vice versa.
I'm not saying the far-left view is that people should not be demeaned. I think it's normal decency and would like to believe that most of us think that way. The far left view is that Trump in particular is demeaning people, a view which is not shared with many outside of that group.
Alcohol, tobacco and firearms are not toys. They have a powerful force to them. Drones don't.
Just having tough laws on hazardous toys may prevent a lot of abuse.
Also consider the source, BuzzFeed.
True, however satire only works if it's clever, and even then is more bitter than funny, as the goal is to cause bitterness. There's nothing clever in what Colbert said. So it wasn't funny (by my measure) nor good satire, if that was his goal, it seemed more like someone just venting frustration. SNL in their attacks of Trump et al can be both funny and clever ("I will not be de-terred" comes to mind.)
It wasn't in the 2+ minute clip I saw, if you have a longer clip or a transcript feel free to post it. That said, state of mind expressed through voice, body language and so on is more telling about the person than the content.
Re projecting -- the only way we can even *know* about another person's emotion is by having their emotions resonate with our own. An autistic person can't do that. However when it resonates, you need to keep detachment in order to register that emotion consciously. Projecting is when you get lost in it without realizing it.
I never saw that argument, maybe I missed it. He did look angry though. That said he's an entertainer, and an actor, but it seemed genuine.
Post below sums it up well re hate speech. I believe speech that carries the threat of physical harm is hate speech and it should be punishable -- you know it when you hear it -- and Colbert's clearly wasn't that.
Hypocrisy in my view comes from the Colbert-adopted far left view that Trump is demeaning people -- whether it's women, illegal immigrants, or Ted Cruz -- which in turn comes from the set of values that no human being should be so treated, yet Colbert demeans Trump. Hypocrisy is defined as "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." Not related to crassness at all, crassness in itself is not necessarily a vice.
We can only guess his reasons since we don't know what was going on in his head. My guess would be something simpler -- Colbert is angry that Trump is President, and he profits from venting his anger (see what happened to Jimmy Fallon), which is a powerful combo. Anger makes people not funny as they lose detachment necessary for humor.
He didn't harm anyone, it wasn't hate speech, he just made a crude unfunny joke. If people think that's fine, it's fine. If they think he's an idiot, they should ask their network to fire him. If they think he's a hypocrite (as I do) they don't need to watch him. Save legal enforcement for serious things.
I was searching for a comment that might say that. I agree. To that I would add, I wonder if we have peaked with entertainment. With the screens everywhere we seem to have reached a saturation point *and* the habits have solidified. Our brains are stimulated in a radically different way minute by minute now compared to the 70s. Mario for iPhone having failed is an example. VR which is the most radical form of (asocial) entertainment is barely making a dent in people's lifestyles. Even just reading political discussions everywhere seems to be enough to entertain.
If Sony would make a device that makes you learn things better, or travel more easily, I'm exaggerating to make an example but something not strictly entertainment, it might be different. As it is, I don't think they have many ways to go.
Primary reason is taste: my tap water, clean though it is, does not taste good to me -- I do not wish to drink it except when I must. It is also very hard. Fluoride is another reason. Reverse osmosis used by the water station where I refill supposedly removes fluoride.
But at any rate, taste alone is enough of a reason.
Plastic has great utility (as long as it's safe), it's disposable plastic that's the problem. And much of it is just for convenience that's not necessarily all that convenient.
As an example -- I've been drinking water from disposable plastic bottles for over a decade and just recently switched to refilling water at my local store. At 50 cents a gallon I pay less for higher quality water in a BPA-free container. I had thought that's too much of a hassle but with "double buffering" it's actually less hassle than the bottled water, it's cheaper, tastier, and supposedly healthier.
And social sciences most if not all the time fail to deliver useful theories even when they are not burden by an agenda. Though now I wonder have they ever not been burdened by an agenda.
I should say I do believe -- on a purely intuitive and logical level -- that 7 billion people burning fossil fuels are having a negative effect on the world's ecosystem. What I don't believe is that this effect can be quantified and made predictive in any way you can trust and verify, as the system is too complex. And without trust and verification you can't have a major policy decision that brings additional burden to the populace, you can just zigzag as with Obama and Trump.
What I would propose instead is focus on the positive and on bottom up instead of top down: provide stimulus for developing green energy sources and let them take over with time if they get good. Meanwhile cut the measurable pollution -- improve air quality, forbid toxic dumps etc. Those you can see work in a relatively short time, vs. a hypothetical 0.3 degrees cooling in 100 years. Otherwise I believe the perceived arrogance and hubris of the pro-climate change side (mostly non-scientists, to be fair) will only hurt the cause further.
... and that includes the climate scientists. I imagine it would be hard to find a climate scientist who would be willing to bet his house on a measurable and non-trivial prediction about the future -- one that he would make from his climate models in the span of a few years.
Because that's what it's all about: would you Mr. Scientist assert that A will follow B and vouch for it? Physicists and chemists would do it, biologists would do it for some things, medical researchers might do for some others, but sociologists, economists, and climate scientists wouldn't, it is just too complex. Engineers would do it: in England some centuries ago bridge builders were required to live and sleep under the bridge they'd just built along with their families. Afterwards you had less doubt the bridge was reliable and you could start planning to transport heavy stuff over it.
I may be wrong but outside of its models (and anyone can have models) climate science doesn't have enough to establish trust for making a major decision.
The story is about Linux being better at dealing with ransomware, and ransomware writers target platforms where a huge number of users keep their unique digital files. Mobile devices don't count since most of the user's unique content (pictures, notes) is backed up on the cloud, and same goes for servers to a degree. That really means the only real ransomware target is desktops (and laptops) and that is the place where Windows clearly dominates.
Which really goes to say if Windows desktop/laptop users switched over to Linux they'd be better equipped to deal with ransomware. But we know that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons, some of them quite justified in my opinion.
I don't know what incentive Russians have besides fighting ISIS, but however you slice it the WaPo leak only brings more danger to the source, not less, with that clearly being known to the leaker.
If we are talking about hypocrisy -- whoever leaked the story to WaPo out of "concern" about the danger to the sources certainly knew that it's much more likely ISIS would find out what happened by reading the story about the secrets on the front page of WaPo.
Yes the article compares share growth of tech sector with economic growth of the rest which is nonsense. That said, It's been said that the stock market leads the overall economy in terms of trends by about 6 months. I don't know if it's true. But the productivity part is probably relevant: 2.7% for the tech industry and 0.7% in things that are more important. That's not a good sign.