the difference between saying the n-word, and a lynching, is one very dead black person.
hate one another, be vile to one another, but be cordial. Life is not without friction, and the moment we try and dictate what people think, that's the moment we overstep ourselves.
no, because there is a clear moral line between dictating someone's actions and dictating their thoughts.
slavery isn't wrong because racism is involved, slavery is wrong because one is depriving another of their liberty. racism isn't wrong because 'discrimination' is wrong, but because 'prejudice' is a logical fallacy. the two are linked in our world view. but one is a crime, one is a mistake. racism in isolation only hurts the racist. slavery in isolation hurts another.
discrimination is a valid response, and prejudice is intrinsic to our species. if a black man comes into my diner, and and destroys all my glassware, if he comes into my diner again, i would be crazy not to refuse him service, that's discrimination. if i extend this to all black people, then that's discrimination with a helping of prejudice. On the other hand, if i'm a hunter on the plains of africa, and i see a snake, and last tuesday a snake bit and killed my friend, i'm high-tailing it even if this snake has different stripes. that's prejudice, and it's pattern recognition, that's what kept our species going for much of its history. taking one example with a trait, and extrapolating over all similar examples with the same trait. we've just carried it further than its usefulness, into the modern era.
Ah, lovely, to see the moral equivalence being made between slavery and racism.
racism isn't even close to slavery, son. as a mugging isn't close to murder.
wanting to do an act isn't the same as doing an act. islamophobia isn't racism, homophobia isn't 'being a nazi', etc. etc.
so a baker doesn't want to sell a centerpiece for a gay wedding. so what? go down the street, the prevailing direction we see society going is one where for every 1 shop that won't sell to your special day, there are 9 that are lining up for your business, and probably 3 of them actually actively support your right. the other 6 just want your money.
people on the left see a great moral victory in the gay couple suing the baker. I think people in the middle just see two people trying to impose their will on another person. A diversity of opinion means a diversity in wrong opinions too, because who are you to be the arbiter in what is right and what is wrong?
i'd say you have to take the context into consideration when looking at things like this. you have a political candidate this unsuited for office, and still winning. essentially you've got an undercurrent of resentment that effects a whole bunch of people, but a whole bunch of those people couldn't even hold their nose and vote for trump. i'd say there were people on the left that couldn't vote for hillary either, but i think those are fewer than those on the right that couldn't vote for trump. but still wanted to 'throw the bums out'.
you have to appreciate, be cognizant of the fact, that trump didn't have a platform. he was only really running on "fuck you" and half the country agreed.
people weren't voting for him on the abortion issue, the tax issue, foreign policy, etc. etc. there was a singular reason for the majority of trump voters i think. it was, 'washington needs to change'.
normally i'd say a mandate needs a majority, even a plurality makes for a weak mandate. but in this case, i think he has a mandate because his was a single issue campaign.
i didn't vote, don't have a candidate. in texas, so the question was moot anyway. fundamentally objected to clinton's email issues. trump is, troubling, but not overly so.
regardless. my objection is not with the electoral college as its purpose has been reinterpreted to be. to balance the concerns of the less populated states with the more populated states. my concern is with the propriety of further removing the election from the vote. right now, as it stands, the popular vote in a state, with the local concerns at that discrete level, determine the winner of that state. that's fine.
if a candidate could wait until the eleventh hour to strictly court the individual electors, then you've untied elections completely from the vote at all. how we have it now, works to make sure that the rural areas of the country aren't dominated by urban concerns. which is acceptable to me. urban centers already have a certain amount of focus and need to be addressed to a certain amount regardless.
I might have an idealized vision of small-town america, i'll admit that, but i don't think that's a way of life that we should abandon. those areas, the places between urban centers, are the repository of "americana" and giving them a political voice has value.
this election was clinton's to lose. her team didn't play the game right and they neglected a demographic that voted for obama twice.
i'd protest if that happened. they were playing by the same rules, they were playing by the same rules. everybody knew what was at stake, and they were playing by the same rules. if you want to change it, you need to change it before the next election not during this election after the votes have been counted. because electors electing a president, contrary to how the rules are laid out, how the game is played, that, is a violation of our rights.
the electors were put in place in a time when they literally selected the president, and the popular votes weren't even counted, the popular vote was a suggestion. now the electors are a formality. we've progressed to that point.
he ran against both the republican establishment, and the democratic one. and he was elected.
he doesn't have a traditional "majority" mandate, but the way this election has gone, to say he doesn't have a mandate is disingenuous.
his mandate, from literally half the country that elected him, without major party support, was "a pox on both your houses"
i'm not sure how i feel about trump, i could call him crazy, but he's not, he's slightly distasteful... all said and done... as they say, you need to take him seriously, not literally. nobody expects him to set up a wall, but they do expect him to do something about immigration. he's not going to round up all the muslims, but he's going to look into terrorism etc.etc. he talks a big game. but i don't think he made any campaign promises that anyone thinks are serious.
i'm with GP. I was with the left until the left left me.
freedom of speech to me isn't just a restriction against the government. it should be a societal goal we go for.
someone says hurtful things you don't agree with, how is your organizing to deprive them of their livelihood any better than the government putting them in jail? hell, if they got convicted of a crime, the left might like them a little more.
i'm an atheist, but when you "throw the book" at a pair of bakers for essentially following their conscience and taking that financial hit in not baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding, that doesn't look like religious freedom.
we were for diversity of opinion at one point. at one point people understood that that would include opinions that you thought were "hateful" and "wrong".
brendan eich lost his job because he had made a small donation for a political issue. he gave 1000 dollars... the kind of involvement that we WANT from citizens. He was crucified for his political stance based on his religious views... and then he was told to recant for forgiveness.
don't know how it is now, but in 2013, congressional approval was like 15%, but 45ish percent of people approved of the job their local congressman was doing.
two things. it's useless here, right here right now, but not for the next election.
you bet your fucking ass that democrats will pay attention to pennsylvania next time round. margins are narrowing in texas. you think both parties aren't looking real careful at that?
also, everybody can't think their vote won't matter, or every single vote will matter more and more.
it only really works when a small percentage of the voters don't vote because they don't think their vote will matter.
we don't, it was to balance the power of virginia vs. rhode island. since you know, it was 1778ish and not 2016.
it just so happens that states with smaller populations like the fact that they can punch above their weight... because if it were up to you, i'm sure you would say "yes presidential candidates, please ignore us more"
california, ny etc.etc. they get their attention, because they've got people. what about hawaii, what about alaska. sure the people there really want to make themselves more irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
... the attacker was shot dead at the scene by a campus cop...
didn't know campus cops had guns. but there you go.
this is why we can't have nice things.
the difference between saying the n-word, and a lynching, is one very dead black person.
hate one another, be vile to one another, but be cordial. Life is not without friction, and the moment we try and dictate what people think, that's the moment we overstep ourselves.
no, because there is a clear moral line between dictating someone's actions and dictating their thoughts.
slavery isn't wrong because racism is involved, slavery is wrong because one is depriving another of their liberty. racism isn't wrong because 'discrimination' is wrong, but because 'prejudice' is a logical fallacy. the two are linked in our world view. but one is a crime, one is a mistake. racism in isolation only hurts the racist. slavery in isolation hurts another.
discrimination is a valid response, and prejudice is intrinsic to our species. if a black man comes into my diner, and and destroys all my glassware, if he comes into my diner again, i would be crazy not to refuse him service, that's discrimination. if i extend this to all black people, then that's discrimination with a helping of prejudice. On the other hand, if i'm a hunter on the plains of africa, and i see a snake, and last tuesday a snake bit and killed my friend, i'm high-tailing it even if this snake has different stripes. that's prejudice, and it's pattern recognition, that's what kept our species going for much of its history. taking one example with a trait, and extrapolating over all similar examples with the same trait. we've just carried it further than its usefulness, into the modern era.
what's good for the gander.
Ah, lovely, to see the moral equivalence being made between slavery and racism.
racism isn't even close to slavery, son. as a mugging isn't close to murder.
wanting to do an act isn't the same as doing an act. islamophobia isn't racism, homophobia isn't 'being a nazi', etc. etc.
so a baker doesn't want to sell a centerpiece for a gay wedding. so what? go down the street, the prevailing direction we see society going is one where for every 1 shop that won't sell to your special day, there are 9 that are lining up for your business, and probably 3 of them actually actively support your right. the other 6 just want your money.
people on the left see a great moral victory in the gay couple suing the baker. I think people in the middle just see two people trying to impose their will on another person. A diversity of opinion means a diversity in wrong opinions too, because who are you to be the arbiter in what is right and what is wrong?
and President washington, who refused to be king washington and thought 2 terms was enough.
:), it's a mandate to fuck washington up, fuck up their structure and all their backroom dealings.
essentially wipe it clean with purging fire, burn it all to the ground.
didn't say it was a great program or issue, but he essentially has a mandate to wipe washington clean.
i'd say you have to take the context into consideration when looking at things like this. you have a political candidate this unsuited for office, and still winning. essentially you've got an undercurrent of resentment that effects a whole bunch of people, but a whole bunch of those people couldn't even hold their nose and vote for trump. i'd say there were people on the left that couldn't vote for hillary either, but i think those are fewer than those on the right that couldn't vote for trump. but still wanted to 'throw the bums out'.
you have to appreciate, be cognizant of the fact, that trump didn't have a platform. he was only really running on "fuck you" and half the country agreed.
people weren't voting for him on the abortion issue, the tax issue, foreign policy, etc. etc. there was a singular reason for the majority of trump voters i think. it was, 'washington needs to change'.
normally i'd say a mandate needs a majority, even a plurality makes for a weak mandate. but in this case, i think he has a mandate because his was a single issue campaign.
i didn't vote, don't have a candidate. in texas, so the question was moot anyway. fundamentally objected to clinton's email issues. trump is, troubling, but not overly so.
regardless. my objection is not with the electoral college as its purpose has been reinterpreted to be. to balance the concerns of the less populated states with the more populated states. my concern is with the propriety of further removing the election from the vote. right now, as it stands, the popular vote in a state, with the local concerns at that discrete level, determine the winner of that state. that's fine.
if a candidate could wait until the eleventh hour to strictly court the individual electors, then you've untied elections completely from the vote at all. how we have it now, works to make sure that the rural areas of the country aren't dominated by urban concerns. which is acceptable to me. urban centers already have a certain amount of focus and need to be addressed to a certain amount regardless.
I might have an idealized vision of small-town america, i'll admit that, but i don't think that's a way of life that we should abandon. those areas, the places between urban centers, are the repository of "americana" and giving them a political voice has value.
this election was clinton's to lose. her team didn't play the game right and they neglected a demographic that voted for obama twice.
i'd protest if that happened. they were playing by the same rules, they were playing by the same rules. everybody knew what was at stake, and they were playing by the same rules. if you want to change it, you need to change it before the next election not during this election after the votes have been counted. because electors electing a president, contrary to how the rules are laid out, how the game is played, that, is a violation of our rights.
the electors were put in place in a time when they literally selected the president, and the popular votes weren't even counted, the popular vote was a suggestion. now the electors are a formality. we've progressed to that point.
he does effectively have a mandate.
you know what his mandate is? fuck washington.
he ran against both the republican establishment, and the democratic one. and he was elected.
he doesn't have a traditional "majority" mandate, but the way this election has gone, to say he doesn't have a mandate is disingenuous.
his mandate, from literally half the country that elected him, without major party support, was "a pox on both your houses"
i'm not sure how i feel about trump, i could call him crazy, but he's not, he's slightly distasteful... all said and done... as they say, you need to take him seriously, not literally. nobody expects him to set up a wall, but they do expect him to do something about immigration. he's not going to round up all the muslims, but he's going to look into terrorism etc.etc. he talks a big game. but i don't think he made any campaign promises that anyone thinks are serious.
i apologize, i had assumed the hellen kellers of the world would not be walking around.
well... that might be a really stupid comparison.
one is promoting murder... or corpse disposal? i think most people would say murder.
the other is promoting criminal prosecution... or gitmo, i think most people would interpret it as criminal prosecution though.
"kill him" is qualitatively different than "lock her up" if you're not seeing the distinction, that's on you.
well, that sucks, sorry about that.
yeah, i'm surprised its taken this long for something like this to get passed... or adopted even.
i don't think anyone likes the idea of cars sneaking up on them. friggin ninja cars and freshly laid asphalt.
first time I saw an electric rolling by, my first fucking thought was... holy fuck is that quiet.
my second thought was... this will be a nightmare for the blind pedestrian.
don't think that's correct, they might have gotten confused, that might be more "percent increase" type deal, or a single county.
i'm with GP. I was with the left until the left left me.
freedom of speech to me isn't just a restriction against the government. it should be a societal goal we go for.
someone says hurtful things you don't agree with, how is your organizing to deprive them of their livelihood any better than the government putting them in jail? hell, if they got convicted of a crime, the left might like them a little more.
i'm an atheist, but when you "throw the book" at a pair of bakers for essentially following their conscience and taking that financial hit in not baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding, that doesn't look like religious freedom.
we were for diversity of opinion at one point. at one point people understood that that would include opinions that you thought were "hateful" and "wrong".
brendan eich lost his job because he had made a small donation for a political issue. he gave 1000 dollars... the kind of involvement that we WANT from citizens. He was crucified for his political stance based on his religious views... and then he was told to recant for forgiveness.
don't know how it is now, but in 2013, congressional approval was like 15%, but 45ish percent of people approved of the job their local congressman was doing.
it's never been a problem.
once or twice a protest, but it's never decided an election.
and i think 20 or so states have legislation that enforces the correct vote.
5 protest elector votes. in the past 3 decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
it's a non-issue.
two things. it's useless here, right here right now, but not for the next election.
you bet your fucking ass that democrats will pay attention to pennsylvania next time round. margins are narrowing in texas. you think both parties aren't looking real careful at that?
also, everybody can't think their vote won't matter, or every single vote will matter more and more.
it only really works when a small percentage of the voters don't vote because they don't think their vote will matter.
yes, an end-run around the constitution.
that's really the best way to fix something.
we don't, it was to balance the power of virginia vs. rhode island. since you know, it was 1778ish and not 2016.
it just so happens that states with smaller populations like the fact that they can punch above their weight... because if it were up to you, i'm sure you would say "yes presidential candidates, please ignore us more"
california, ny etc.etc. they get their attention, because they've got people. what about hawaii, what about alaska. sure the people there really want to make themselves more irrelevant.
source for the asian american vote? haven't found good numbers yet.
hah, read somewhere that protesters were trying to flip a car in one of these protests, until they realized there was someone in it.
because destruction of random property... that'll show them... something.
step 1. yell "not my president" ....
step 2. burn american flag
profit?!?
where the fuck is the profit? i don't get whatever message they're trying to send.
wwjd. it's not just for christians.
what would lincoln do?
morgenthau or marshall?
one road led to world war 2, the other led to... well modern germany.