Many states, including mine, have enacted "Stand Your Ground" (supportive spin) / "Shoot First" (oppositional spin) laws. Under this law, if I feel threatened, then I have the right to use a deadly firearm to defend myself and have no obligation to flee, even if fleeing is possible, provided that the firearm is legal and legally-used.
So this situation that you decry is about to be tested in my state. I think that you are promoting the same kind of fearmongering that the pilloried "futurist" pundit is doing. There's no use in entertaining it -- it's about to be tested for real in my very state. Perhaps the population of my state will start going down instead of up? We'll see.
Furthermore, I disagree that "an armed society is a polite society", since that notion depends on the existance of a culture that is peaceful and respectful. I live about 30 miles from one of the most high-crime zones in the country. There are between nine and ten assload of guns floating around down there, so I think that qualifies as "an armed society". The whole place is infested with drug dealers. Are they peaceful and respectful? Hell, no! Hence, there are murders, robberies, and assaults (with deadly weapons) down there constantly. Yet another reason to legalize all drugs. But I digress...
If you didn't like all the recompiling, why did you run "emerge --sync" every day? Even then, you didn't have to update everything the minute it came out.
Because I like to have my system up-to-date. I like running the latest software.
Even then, you didn't have to update everything the minute it came out.
That's true. In fact, I didn't even have to run Linux, nor did I have to use a computer. This isn't an issue of what I *have* to do, but rather what I *want* to do, and thus of how well gentoo meets my own personal needs. So I guess it's safe to say that if you feel like running up-to-date software, then you better be prepared to have your computer compiling endlessly for the rest of its life if you choose gentoo. Fair enough?
Also, it's not like *you* spent 8 hours compiling, or that your computer was rendered unuseable.
You're right -- it was still usable, just a much slower and shittier version of usuable. One can't exactly play mp3s or play games or move elegantly windows across the screen when one's processor is maxed-the-fuck-out for the next 12 hours.
Nothing prevented you or your computer from doing what they normally do in the meantime.
Of course. And if my car blows up, then nothing prevents me from doing what I normally do. I'd just have to spend extra money on a rental or go through the horrible pain of public transit. And that's really what your defense comes down to. You claim that it's okay to have a much shitter experience because you can still do everything you need to do. I claim it's not okay to have a shittier experience. We have a difference in taste, and that's precisely why you are a gentoo user and I am not.
Have you ever heard De gustibus non est disputandum? My critisicm of gentoo is not a criticism of you.
I read TFM and had a fairly easy time with the installation. Of course, I've an experienced Linux user. But that was when the REAL fun with Gentoo began!
1. Minor update to glibc. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours. 2. Next day, there was a minor update to Xorg. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours. 3. Next day, there was a minor update to KDE. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours. 4. Next day, there was another minor update to Xorg. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours. 5. Next day, there was another minor update to KDE. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours.
It didn't take me long to realize that the Gentoo experience was one of endless recompiling for every minor or trivial update. Quite honestly, that's for the birds. Of all the joys I received from learning how the system worked, they were all killed much like a puppy is killed by a falling meteor when I saw that, "KDE has been updated from 3.0.1.1-1 to 3.0.1.1-2! Prepare to spend the next EIGHT HOURS recompiling every single package!"
Now I'm a Kubuntu user and I'm much, much happier. apt-get rules the universe!
(Savvy folks will see that this is a copy from my anon post on Newsforge. I just wasn't done bitching at how unpleasant the gentoo experience was.)
Where did you get the idea that's what the original poster's friend were doing?
I don't see how that is relevant. The notion that it is patriotic to stand up or excuse speech that is unpatriotic is contradictory, and that seems to be a case that you advocate. It does not make sense.
Do you agree that one can be an unpatriotic American?
Do you agree that the two notions ("patriotic" and "American") are distinct?
At the very least, it would be unAmerican of *you* to attempt to silence someone simply because you disagree with what they are saying, yet that is precisely what you seem to be advocating.
I have never advocated depriving someone of their right to speech based on their opinions.
And you still seem to find it acceptable for Congress to ever have had anything to do with attempting to squash Communism in America.
Of course it is acceptable. Communism represented and perpetrated slavery, murder, and theft on a scale unimaginable I consider it the government's duty to protect its citizens from slavery, murder, and theft, particularly when such things are conducted by a foreign government whose stated goal is to destroy the United States of America.
Mind you, individuals have the right to discuss and promote slavery, murder, and theft. However, people who do that warrant greater surveillance by the government because those people are much higher risks to the life, liberty, and property of others. Should the CPUSA have been allowed to exist and say whatever they want? Of course. Should they have been tracked, bugged, and observed by the FBI as a dangerous group with a high risk of harming others? Of course.
Ideologies that promote the deprivation of life, liberty, and property are dangerous and the people who follow those ideologies are much more likely to commit violent crimes. The KKK, the Nazis, the Communists, anarchists, greenpeace, PeTA, the Mafia, Aryan Nations, MS-13, and the World Church of the Creator (to name a few) are all groups that should be watched by the government. The wicked acts perpetrated by those groups are directly linked to and supported by the ideologies which those groups follow. While every individual has the right to speech and assembly, I do not believe that groups which follow ideologies that promote the deprivation of life, liberty, and property have the right to privacy.
Now are you going to call me "un-American" because I don't support the privacy rights of the KKK or of the Mafia?
Someone telling Congress that they have no right to question their beliefs is absolutely patriotic, regardless of the beliefs. That is the very BASIS of the 1st Amendment.
So, in other words, someone telling congress that they have no right to question their beliefs is "patriotic", even if it is done to hide sentiments that show contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture. Yet you have not contested my claim that patriotism is defined for a love of one's own country/culture. How can speech which shows contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture simultaneously be an expression of love for one's own country/culture? You are claiming "A is not A".
I believe wholeheartedly that the 'friends' referred to by the original poster were patriotic. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject.
Since I've gotten you to the point of proclaiming your beliefs "wholeheartedly" (as if that "punches up" your argument), I think we have come down to a matter of faith on your behalf. I understand faith as "believing something in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence". Here, it is contradictory, as you are claiming "A is not A".
Is it American to allow people freedom of speech and conscience? Yes. Is it patriotic to show disdain and contempt for America? No. One can easily be an unpatriotic American, and numerous examples abound. Perhaps you arrive at your contradiction because you fallaciously conflate "American" with "patriotic".
It never mattered to me if I won or lost, just as long as I pissed someone off, and got a laugh out of it.
You don't belong out here with the rest of us. You belong in prison.
You have clearly demonstrated that you enjoy abusing other people. For now, it's just on line games. What's next? Will you do it in real life? Will you walk through a crowd of senior citizens and shoot them with paintballs, just to know that it pissed them off? Would you get a laugh out of that, too?
And after that, what degree of suffering will you create in order to get another laugh?
I agree with others here. You are the very definition of a sociopath. Rather than following the generally accepted rule that you do not initiate force with other people, you instead not only flaunt that rule but gain sadistic pleasure in doing so.
I sincerely hope something kills you before you hurt someone else. With a dangerous tendency like yours, you don't deserve to have human contact.
Don't put words in my mouth. I know exceedingly little about American Communists and am unprepared to pass judgement on them. I, unlike most, do not pass that kind of half-cocked judgement. I cannot judge something I know next to nothing about. While I am very familiar with Communism, I am very much unaware of any of the actions or beliefs of the Communists in America.
The CPUSA was directly funded by the Soviet Union, a nation that was not only the antithesis of American values both in theory and in practice, but had a stated and proven (by massive military buildup and a well-document spy ring inside the USA) to destroy the United States. They were, quite literally, an arm of the Soviet Union in the USA. I don't understand how much more preparation you require to pass judgment.
Riiiiiiiight, because every single person McCarthy hauled before the Senate committee was OBVIO--
1. It is unfair of you to accuse me of "putting words in your mouth" and then for you to turn around and do the exact same thing to me.
2. Your sarcasm adds heat and no light to this discussion.
3. My point stands: you claim that the people standing up were "unfairly targeted" yet you admit can't pass judgment on those people. By what means are you so sure that they were "unfairly targeted" when you admittedly can't judge what "fair" is in this instance?
I think you misunderstood the poster. HIS friends were the ones unfairly targeted by McCarthyism. That pretty much addresses your entire post, I should think.
It does not address my post, because:
But let me be clear: I am unprepared to call American Communists unpatriotic.
I think you are unwilling, not unprepared, call American Communists unpatriotic. America allows people the right to think and say whatever they wish (provided that such speech does not deprive people of life, liberty, or property -- at least, in theory). This allows people the right to think and say things that are unpatriotic. There is no way that an American Communist could be patriotic since Communism, both in theory and in practice, supports the mass deprivation of the right to speech, the right to life and liberty (you belong to the state to be used as slave labor to the point of your death), and the right of property (all property belongs to the state). Hence, I can't buy your argument that the ones who were speaking against the rightful persection of American Communists were unfairly targeted since I imagine that you would think that it is unfair to call an American Communist unpatriotic. Meaning, we have a disagreement over what would be an "unfair" targeting by anti-Communist forces.
His point was very simple: the people he knew who stood up for their rights in front of Congress were patriotic. It need be no more complicated than that. What THEY did was patriotic. I can sit here and come up with 1000 examples of unpatriotic speech too, and while that speech should be no less free, it is not what the grand parent was talking about when he called them patriotic.
The people who stood up for their rights in front of Congress where those who were opposing those who were targeted by anti-Communist inquiries. Those people who were targets were people who were excusing, defending, and promoting the communist regime in the Soviet Union which, through ComIntern, had an organized, and openly stated, and aptly demonstrated violent, imperial desire. The Soviet Union, both in theory and especially in practice, are openly and directly contemptuous of the values that this country was founded on. Go read _The Gulag Archipeligo_ if you need gross details about the numerous abuses committed by the Soviet Union, most notably its mass exploitation of slave labor to effect the "production gains" that were lauded by Leftist apologists living in the United States. The CPUSA was directly funded by the Soviet Union, whose goals were to destroy the United States. There were many, many people in the US government who were spies for the Soviet Union, as the Venona transcripts show.
The poster's comment was that the people who gave their "political opinion" which was motivated by either empathy or open support for the Soviet Union were more patriotic than someone with a "support our troops" bumper sticker. It is NOT patriotic to express a political opinion that expresses contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture. Any and all political opinion that excuses, defends, or supports the Soviet Union or its supporters is, by definition, unpatriotic.
I feel the same way about political speech that excuses, defends, or supports jihad.
Please correct me if you think my assessment is incorrect.
It does not make sense to me. Allow me to quote you and explain. In the post you referenced, you wrote:
THAT is political speech at its most powerful, and most important, and that is political speech that defends the values and rights that this nation was founded on.
Political speech can conceivably be speech that contains the notions that:
1. Individual rights to free speech, free association, and free press should be abolished 2. The state should own all property 3. That human beings are property of the state
That (above) is, of course, a type of political speech, but it is NOT in any way defending the values and rights that this country was founded on. Certainly one has a right to say it (since we have the right to free speech, ironically one can speak of their hatred for free speech), but it shows nothing but contempt and disdain for the country/culture. Hence, I can't buy the notion that political speech is, by definition, patriotic since political speech can conceivably contain contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture.
Those who would give up freedom in exchange for security, deserve neither.
This phrase is now Bumper-Sticker-Ready(TM). There's nothing like short, trite statements to fill the gap when a more nuanced discourse is taxing on the mind! Let's repeat that phrase often to avoid thinking about something that is both complicated and scary.
And that "something" is jihad. Specifically, the lesser jiahd. Even more specifically, the offensive version of lesser jihad. What are we kaffir going to do about it?
Anyone who is cited or charged for voiceing his or her belives in a nonviolent fashion is a bigger patriot than all those who drive around with a "Support our troops" sticker irregardles of the belives.
Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but what is so patriotic about voicing an opinion? I thought that patriotism was definined by a love and support of one's country/culture. If an opinion could conceivably be a contempt and disdain for one's country/culture (which many people certainly display), then how can that still be considered "patriotic"? I'm sorry, but I don't see the same sacred value is "voiceing his or her believes" that you do.
What if someone voiced the opinion that blacks were "mud people"? Would that person be a bigger patriot than the one who drives around with a "support our troops" sticker?
As for being afraid I agree with you - though much younger, I thank god that I do not live in America.
I don't believe in gods, but I am glad that I, a gay man, live in America opposed to living in Europe. The editor of the gay newspaper where I live (in the ultra-conservative, racist, gay-bashing South) was recently gay-bashed. No, he was NOT gay-bashed by Christian Republicans in Cobb County, Georgia. He was gay bashed by muslims in tolerant, progressive Amsterdam.
Bruce Bawer was a gay man who lived in the United States and decided to move to more tolerant, progressive Europe to escape from Christian Fundamentalists. What he found was that Europe has its own Fundamentalists, yet they are Muslims and they are worse in every way than America's Fundamentalists. He wrote a book about it called While Europe Slept. You can find out about it at http://www.brucebawer.com/. Is it safe to be gay in Europe? In many places, the answer has become not "no", but "hell no", and that is due largely to the influence of muslims who resoundingly believe that gay people are worthy of death.
While I do not support anything Bush has done (except for the tax cuts -- he's even waging the "war on terror" with a deliberately militant blind eye to the reality of jihad and Islam), I fear that the Europe that I know and love is going to be turned into an utter craphole by the regressive, anti-liberal, and fundamentliast muslim colonists who live there and are tolerated under the hideous canard of "multiculturalism". And I feel this is happening because far too many Europeans feel disdain and contempt for their own country/culture. "If Shari'a rules Europe, then who cares? Europe doesn't have a culture worth preserving anyway." I soundly disagree with that assessment, and I hope that more Europeans may find their sense of patriotism before muslims do to the beloved Mont Saint Michel what they did to the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
The gist was: the vast majority of people are children, and children like to exaggerate and tell lies.
I don't think adults exaggerate and lie less than children do, but I do think that they're much more sophisticated and subtle at the insidious craft. A great deal of nuance goes into grown-up lies.
There is no way of knowing the truth.
On the contrary! Everyone knows what Truth is. Bad guys are liars and and propagandists, and good guys are truth-speakers and educators. Those last two statements are valid for all value systems that my limited mind can recognize or imagine.
My own story of innate talent
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 2
As strongly as I believe in "One Learns By Doing", I do not fully believe it and thus I do not fully believe the premise of this story.
Though I am a software developer now, I was, at one time, a music student studying voice. One of the classes that all music students were forced to take for several years was called "ear training". It focused on "training" several different "skills". They were:
1. The instructor would play a series of chords (generally six to eight) on the piano in four-part harmony. These chords would follow resolution patterns which we were presently learning in our music theory classes, which happened concurrently. The students were obligated to write down the bass (lowest) and melody (highest) voices.
2. The student was required to sing a series of chord patterns. I-IV-V7-I would thus be C-E-G-E-C, F-A-C-A-F, G-B-D-F-D-B-G, C-E-G-E-C (in the key of C major).
3. The student was required to clap out rhythms.
4. Other tests, such as hearing a pitch and being required to generate (with one's voice) the note above it which created the interval of a perfect fourth.
Most of the time was spent in task #1. In the three years that I was in ear training, here is what I noticed.
1. I was able to hear all four voices (not just the bass and melody) by the second pass. I would then get so bored by waiting for the other students to catch up that I would write lyrics to the chords. In the three years, I never improved, and neither did any of the other students. Even worse, my "success" at this task had no effect on the other students' ability. They simply couldn't do it, no matter how much they practiced. It didn't "click" with them like it did with me.
2. On the other hand, I had a very hard time with the rhythms. I jokingly blamed this on my being white, of course.
So, having gone through this experience, I decided that my ability to "hear" the voices for "ear training" was pure talent and has nothing to do with training or practice.
Now, training my VOICE on the other hand (which was my instrument, as all music students have one major instrument), took lots and lots and lots and lots of practice. Then again, even that totally depended on whether or not you had a "set of good pipes". Meaning, Jessye Norman as a singler is much like Nolan Ryan as a baseball pitcher: their bodies were practically built for it. And, on top of that, they might have had some innate mental talent as well.
I've known a piano accompanist (the guy who plays piano while the singer plays) who was able to transpose Faure and Debussy on the fly. In other words, the romantic and modulating piano piece in front of his eyes was in E-flat minor but what comes out of his playing is C-sharp minor, and he was making sure to take cues from the singer while he was playing! I honestly don't know what kind of practice one can do in order to be able to accomplish that. That, in my opinion, is sell-your-soul kind of magic ability.
We all know it's addictive, that's kinda the point to these games; To make them as addictive as possible.
You are impugning the game maker with evil motives. Suppose we rewrote your statement in a more sanitized way: "We all know it's fun, that's kinda the point of these games; To make them as fun as possible." Would that be inaccurate at all, except that it removes the evil intent that you seem keen in assigning?
It's useful to remind people here that cocaine is NOT physically addictive. It's just incredibly, awesomely FUN! In fact, it's so fun that life while you're not on cocaine, comparitively, seems like a horribly boring drag. This is only from what I've heard from my friends who have been users. You wonder why I've never used it?
Probably for the same reason that I've never played WoW. It's not addictive -- it's just too much of a good thing. And that, in itself, can be dangerous!
And 'biased reporting' is an overworn, inflammatory cliche drummed up by the conservative right some years ago in reaction the perception that the Fifth Estate was unfair to their ideals and goals and should be beholden to those in power instead of continuing the long standing tradition of questioning it.
First, I would like to note that you are clearly biased against what you perceive as "the conservative right". While they rightly deserve some criticism (after all, who is perfect?), I think that you bias may well seep into outright demonization. If that's where your values lie, then be up-front about it.
Second, you ascribe solely clean and noble goals to what you obsequiously label the "fifth estate" without noting that they can and do hold power (and abuse it!) that rightly deserves to be questioned. Who watches the watchers?
If you're a devotee of "talk" radio or a consumer of similar ill-informed, opinion-laden punditry, I guess it's a catchy phrase, and no doubt reinforces long held opinions without the risk of alternative viewpoints or critical thinking messing things up.
I see this opinion as insidious and dangerous. It sounds to me like you are decrying punditry because of its obvious bias and stated opinion. In other words, you'd prefer reporting to be free of such obvious bias. I think this is dangerous because journalists generally think that they are the noble guardians of society (an opinion that you clearly share, from your groveling language), and thus are highly motivate to use thier position to do what they think is right. And through the magic of the "editing" room (I put it in quotes because "editing" is a creative process, not merely "touching up"), television reporting can both hide its bias in plain sight as well as exploit frighteningly-effective influence techniques.
Be very, very afraid of watching full-motion video with sound that claims to be "reporting". You are being abused.
Everyone has opinions; not everyone has an agenda.
I disagree, but I think we'd get into a semantic argument about what constitutes an "agenda". Would you agree that the agenda of journalists is "questioning those in power"?
Would you agree that some dishonest journalists exploit the fact that many people see that as their agenda?
As for those who do the reporting, I'd wager that anyone who spends years in an institution of higher learning so they can earn (yes, "earn") a degree in journalism has probably learned something during those years that the rest of us sitting on our couches didn't. I'd also wager that after graduating, most take up employment in an organisation that has a history and tradition that extends farther than recent memory. If you don't believe any of that counts for something, then I guess it's both fair and logical to assume you don't count for anything, either.
I don't see that as fair and logical at all. In fact, I see it as unfair and cruel. Are you saying that I'm completely useless and might as well be sent to a gas chamber if I don't agree with you that a journalism degree affords someone the right to think of him/herself as an exalted and superior member in a "Kingdom of Journalistic Knights" (Dan Rather's supercilious self-assessment)? You've already trashed pretty much all of journalism is low-intelligence entertainment tripe, anyway. What actions of the minute percentage of journalists that meet your exacting standards compare in the terms of human achievements to those performed by our top scientists, businesspeople, and engineers? Perhaps you might tell us exactly what a journalism degree delivers that is so awesome as to turn an ordinary mortal like me into a gilded demigod before dismissing me as excrement.
Perhaps you do that precisely because a journalism degree (not to mention a career in journalism) isn't all that it's purported up to be, and it's never been more apparent than it is right now. I remember seeing that senior VP of the media (was it Newsweek?
CSS is a pain in the ass, but it works pretty well if you have a vague notion of what you're doing and if you take the time to understand the cascading model.
I agree with the "CSS is a pain in the ass" part. However, CSS does NOT "work pretty well" if you have merely a vague notion of what you're doing. In fact, you have to be a god-damned wizened expert to do thing which are trivial to do otherwise. Center an element? Make a three-column layout that lines up at the bottom? If you're not confined to CSS, those things are simple. Otherwise, you must be well-fucking-versed in the library of arcane CSS hacks to get those things to work in CSS and have them appear correctly in all browsers.
The problem is not with the CSS standard, the problem is with implementations of that standard.
I get so sick of hearing this excuse.
I use hybrid designs in my web pages. CSS control fonts and other such sugar, whereas tables control the to-the-pixel designs churned out by our designers. I use nested tables with aplomb.
Then the CSS zealots lambaste, insult, condemn, and mock me for this horrible (yet completely FUNCTIONAL) choice. Okay, fine. So I dive into CSS positioning and experience what can, at best, be described as retarded, goat-blowingly horrible hell. Honestly, CSS positioning is "programmer-friendly" in much the same way that a hot, acid-spewing, rusty circular saw is "penis-friendly".
So I deign complain about the state of CSS programming, and the zealots reply: "That's not CSS's fault. It's the browser makers' fault for not following the standard." (If they're not following it, then it is not a "standard".) What goes unsaid after the excuse is, "Enjoy your neverending buffet of barely-debuggable CSS hacks for the rest of your career!"
No, thanks. Actually, scratch the "thanks" and make do with the with the "No!" I use tables for layout, CSS for sugar. And that's that.
The troubles you are experiencing are not CSS problems, per se, but rather piss-poor browser implementations of CSS. If browsers followed the specs, you'd probably eliminate 99% of the issues right off the bat.
You have given the default excuse for what is the reality of devloping using "web standards" (meaning, using CSS for layout).
Your excuse collapses in a heap when you are faced with the cold, hard fact that There will never, ever, ever be 100% compliance among browsers for CSS. NEVER! In fact, I would be stunned if you even got 10% compliance. Pigs will soar through frozen hell before that happens.
First, the $500 sunglass remark was metaphorical. I wasn't implying that you actually owned $500 sunglasses, really I was implying that the fact that $500 sunglasses exist at all suggests consumption for consumption sake, a second example, if you will...
First, it was not a "metaphor". You were making a snide and dismissive remark toward someone that you hold in contempt because they don't share your views.
Second, "consumption for consumption's sake" is a point in dispute. While you're trying to prove that one, you might also think about tackling "education for education's sake" as well as the notion of an "altruistic action".
Second, I didn't resort to personal attacks because I disagreed with you, but you seemed to feel the need to do it with me. Why is that?
Making a snide and dismissive remark toward me as an expression of your contempt is, in fact, a personal attack. If you are willing to apologize for that, then I will apologize for the "dipshit" comment and I will be happy to return to a more civil discussion.
Non sequitur. You did NOT answer the questions I posed for you, and I think that they are important since you think that the "racist, inbred, uneducated, violent, redneck, and unsophisticated" stereotype of those living in the Deep South is "definately justified". I will re-pose the questions to you, as I think they merit a response:
Would you then say that the sterotype that young black men are violent is also justified? They do, after all, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the USA. What other negative sterotypes are justified to you? The muslim terrorist? The greedy Jew?
I could very well say the same about you.
You could, but it would have no basis. I repeat: I am arguing against the unfair assumptions made about me on behalf of the actions of others. I am also arguing that many of the assumptions about the South are made because of the way that Southerners are constantly portrayed by the media. You, on the other hand, are using your "extensive travels" to the Deep South as "definite justification" for the horrendous stereotype that you apply. I ask you again to withdraw from your arrogant and omniscient tone.
A bad assumption on your part. My neighborhood is maybe 25% white.
Actually it was imprecise language on my part. The "you" in the sentence referred to "Many ignorant people point to areas in the North and West". My bad.
I suppose no one that lives in a multicultural area could possibly think the south had a lot of rednecks/racists in it.... right
Of course the Deep South has a lot of rednecks / racists in it. It also has a lot of highly penetant white folks who are well-trained to avoid the subject of race. It also has a lot of vicious and hateful blacks who have Montana-sized chips on their shoulders. You are merely displaying that which I mentioned in my first post. In general, I think non-Southerners are quite content to think of me in terms of those horrible stereotypes that I've heard all my life, and a more nuanced discussion is light-years away from their realm of interest.
Consumption for comsumption's sake is demonstrated clearly by people buying bigger and bigger SUVs... A suburban housewife driving a Hummer? Ridiculous...
Ridiculous to you. I can effortlessly imagine that a suburban housewife bought the hummer for the reasons of prestige, safety, enjoyment, and comfort. Are you saying that all of those reasons are completely bogus? That there is no suburban housewife who would drive a Hummer for any of those reasons?
Are you going to argue that a suburban housewife feels A) no additional prestige or negative prestige, B) no additional safety or negative safety, C) no additional enjoyment or negative enjoyment, and D) no additional comfort or negative comfort through the act of buying a Hummer?
Instead of seeing the reasons why one might buy a Hummer, you are blinded by your contempt for those who would do it and concluding that they are merely "consuming for consumption's sake". In other words, they're mindless and evil morons for not seeing the world the way that you do.
If you need a clearer example than that you should take off your $500 sunglasses...
Obviously if I disagree with you, then I must be one of the evil, hated rich. My sunglasses cost $9. Function over form, dipshit.
Regardless, I do need a clearer example. Give me an example of a person buying something solely for the sake of buying it. Make sure that you can prove that there is no reason that they would buy it except for the sole reason of buying it. And try and do a better job of masking your bitter disdain and false feelings of superiority.
Slashdot Mirror
Many states, including mine, have enacted "Stand Your Ground" (supportive spin) / "Shoot First" (oppositional spin) laws. Under this law, if I feel threatened, then I have the right to use a deadly firearm to defend myself and have no obligation to flee, even if fleeing is possible, provided that the firearm is legal and legally-used.
So this situation that you decry is about to be tested in my state. I think that you are promoting the same kind of fearmongering that the pilloried "futurist" pundit is doing. There's no use in entertaining it -- it's about to be tested for real in my very state. Perhaps the population of my state will start going down instead of up? We'll see.
Furthermore, I disagree that "an armed society is a polite society", since that notion depends on the existance of a culture that is peaceful and respectful. I live about 30 miles from one of the most high-crime zones in the country. There are between nine and ten assload of guns floating around down there, so I think that qualifies as "an armed society". The whole place is infested with drug dealers. Are they peaceful and respectful? Hell, no! Hence, there are murders, robberies, and assaults (with deadly weapons) down there constantly. Yet another reason to legalize all drugs. But I digress...
If you didn't like all the recompiling, why did you run "emerge --sync" every day? Even then, you didn't have to update everything the minute it came out.
Because I like to have my system up-to-date. I like running the latest software.
Even then, you didn't have to update everything the minute it came out.
That's true. In fact, I didn't even have to run Linux, nor did I have to use a computer. This isn't an issue of what I *have* to do, but rather what I *want* to do, and thus of how well gentoo meets my own personal needs. So I guess it's safe to say that if you feel like running up-to-date software, then you better be prepared to have your computer compiling endlessly for the rest of its life if you choose gentoo. Fair enough?
Also, it's not like *you* spent 8 hours compiling, or that your computer was rendered unuseable.
You're right -- it was still usable, just a much slower and shittier version of usuable. One can't exactly play mp3s or play games or move elegantly windows across the screen when one's processor is maxed-the-fuck-out for the next 12 hours.
Nothing prevented you or your computer from doing what they normally do in the meantime.
Of course. And if my car blows up, then nothing prevents me from doing what I normally do. I'd just have to spend extra money on a rental or go through the horrible pain of public transit. And that's really what your defense comes down to. You claim that it's okay to have a much shitter experience because you can still do everything you need to do. I claim it's not okay to have a shittier experience. We have a difference in taste, and that's precisely why you are a gentoo user and I am not.
Have you ever heard De gustibus non est disputandum? My critisicm of gentoo is not a criticism of you.
(Anti-gentoo rant follows)
I read TFM and had a fairly easy time with the installation. Of course, I've an experienced Linux user. But that was when the REAL fun with Gentoo began!
1. Minor update to glibc. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours.
2. Next day, there was a minor update to Xorg. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours.
3. Next day, there was a minor update to KDE. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours.
4. Next day, there was another minor update to Xorg. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours.
5. Next day, there was another minor update to KDE. I had to recompile the whole thing, taking hours.
It didn't take me long to realize that the Gentoo experience was one of endless recompiling for every minor or trivial update. Quite honestly, that's for the birds. Of all the joys I received from learning how the system worked, they were all killed much like a puppy is killed by a falling meteor when I saw that, "KDE has been updated from 3.0.1.1-1 to 3.0.1.1-2! Prepare to spend the next EIGHT HOURS recompiling every single package!"
Now I'm a Kubuntu user and I'm much, much happier. apt-get rules the universe!
(Savvy folks will see that this is a copy from my anon post on Newsforge. I just wasn't done bitching at how unpleasant the gentoo experience was.)
Where did you get the idea that's what the original poster's friend were doing?
I don't see how that is relevant. The notion that it is patriotic to stand up or excuse speech that is unpatriotic is contradictory, and that seems to be a case that you advocate. It does not make sense.
Do you agree that one can be an unpatriotic American?
Do you agree that the two notions ("patriotic" and "American") are distinct?
At the very least, it would be unAmerican of *you* to attempt to silence someone simply because you disagree with what they are saying, yet that is precisely what you seem to be advocating.
I have never advocated depriving someone of their right to speech based on their opinions.
And you still seem to find it acceptable for Congress to ever have had anything to do with attempting to squash Communism in America.
Of course it is acceptable. Communism represented and perpetrated slavery, murder, and theft on a scale unimaginable I consider it the government's duty to protect its citizens from slavery, murder, and theft, particularly when such things are conducted by a foreign government whose stated goal is to destroy the United States of America.
Mind you, individuals have the right to discuss and promote slavery, murder, and theft. However, people who do that warrant greater surveillance by the government because those people are much higher risks to the life, liberty, and property of others. Should the CPUSA have been allowed to exist and say whatever they want? Of course. Should they have been tracked, bugged, and observed by the FBI as a dangerous group with a high risk of harming others? Of course.
Ideologies that promote the deprivation of life, liberty, and property are dangerous and the people who follow those ideologies are much more likely to commit violent crimes. The KKK, the Nazis, the Communists, anarchists, greenpeace, PeTA, the Mafia, Aryan Nations, MS-13, and the World Church of the Creator (to name a few) are all groups that should be watched by the government. The wicked acts perpetrated by those groups are directly linked to and supported by the ideologies which those groups follow. While every individual has the right to speech and assembly, I do not believe that groups which follow ideologies that promote the deprivation of life, liberty, and property have the right to privacy.
Now are you going to call me "un-American" because I don't support the privacy rights of the KKK or of the Mafia?
Someone telling Congress that they have no right to question their beliefs is absolutely patriotic, regardless of the beliefs. That is the very BASIS of the 1st Amendment.
So, in other words, someone telling congress that they have no right to question their beliefs is "patriotic", even if it is done to hide sentiments that show contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture. Yet you have not contested my claim that patriotism is defined for a love of one's own country/culture. How can speech which shows contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture simultaneously be an expression of love for one's own country/culture? You are claiming "A is not A".
I believe wholeheartedly that the 'friends' referred to by the original poster were patriotic. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject.
Since I've gotten you to the point of proclaiming your beliefs "wholeheartedly" (as if that "punches up" your argument), I think we have come down to a matter of faith on your behalf. I understand faith as "believing something in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence". Here, it is contradictory, as you are claiming "A is not A".
Is it American to allow people freedom of speech and conscience? Yes. Is it patriotic to show disdain and contempt for America? No. One can easily be an unpatriotic American, and numerous examples abound. Perhaps you arrive at your contradiction because you fallaciously conflate "American" with "patriotic".
It never mattered to me if I won or lost, just as long as I pissed someone off, and got a laugh out of it.
You don't belong out here with the rest of us. You belong in prison.
You have clearly demonstrated that you enjoy abusing other people. For now, it's just on line games. What's next? Will you do it in real life? Will you walk through a crowd of senior citizens and shoot them with paintballs, just to know that it pissed them off? Would you get a laugh out of that, too?
And after that, what degree of suffering will you create in order to get another laugh?
I agree with others here. You are the very definition of a sociopath. Rather than following the generally accepted rule that you do not initiate force with other people, you instead not only flaunt that rule but gain sadistic pleasure in doing so.
I sincerely hope something kills you before you hurt someone else. With a dangerous tendency like yours, you don't deserve to have human contact.
Don't put words in my mouth. I know exceedingly little about American Communists and am unprepared to pass judgement on them. I, unlike most, do not pass that kind of half-cocked judgement. I cannot judge something I know next to nothing about. While I am very familiar with Communism, I am very much unaware of any of the actions or beliefs of the Communists in America.
The CPUSA was directly funded by the Soviet Union, a nation that was not only the antithesis of American values both in theory and in practice, but had a stated and proven (by massive military buildup and a well-document spy ring inside the USA) to destroy the United States. They were, quite literally, an arm of the Soviet Union in the USA. I don't understand how much more preparation you require to pass judgment.
Riiiiiiiight, because every single person McCarthy hauled before the Senate committee was OBVIO--
1. It is unfair of you to accuse me of "putting words in your mouth" and then for you to turn around and do the exact same thing to me.
2. Your sarcasm adds heat and no light to this discussion.
3. My point stands: you claim that the people standing up were "unfairly targeted" yet you admit can't pass judgment on those people. By what means are you so sure that they were "unfairly targeted" when you admittedly can't judge what "fair" is in this instance?
I think you misunderstood the poster. HIS friends were the ones unfairly targeted by McCarthyism. That pretty much addresses your entire post, I should think.
It does not address my post, because:
But let me be clear: I am unprepared to call American Communists unpatriotic.
I think you are unwilling, not unprepared, call American Communists unpatriotic. America allows people the right to think and say whatever they wish (provided that such speech does not deprive people of life, liberty, or property -- at least, in theory). This allows people the right to think and say things that are unpatriotic. There is no way that an American Communist could be patriotic since Communism, both in theory and in practice, supports the mass deprivation of the right to speech, the right to life and liberty (you belong to the state to be used as slave labor to the point of your death), and the right of property (all property belongs to the state). Hence, I can't buy your argument that the ones who were speaking against the rightful persection of American Communists were unfairly targeted since I imagine that you would think that it is unfair to call an American Communist unpatriotic. Meaning, we have a disagreement over what would be an "unfair" targeting by anti-Communist forces.
His point was very simple: the people he knew who stood up for their rights in front of Congress were patriotic. It need be no more complicated than that. What THEY did was patriotic. I can sit here and come up with 1000 examples of unpatriotic speech too, and while that speech should be no less free, it is not what the grand parent was talking about when he called them patriotic.
The people who stood up for their rights in front of Congress where those who were opposing those who were targeted by anti-Communist inquiries. Those people who were targets were people who were excusing, defending, and promoting the communist regime in the Soviet Union which, through ComIntern, had an organized, and openly stated, and aptly demonstrated violent, imperial desire. The Soviet Union, both in theory and especially in practice, are openly and directly contemptuous of the values that this country was founded on. Go read _The Gulag Archipeligo_ if you need gross details about the numerous abuses committed by the Soviet Union, most notably its mass exploitation of slave labor to effect the "production gains" that were lauded by Leftist apologists living in the United States. The CPUSA was directly funded by the Soviet Union, whose goals were to destroy the United States. There were many, many people in the US government who were spies for the Soviet Union, as the Venona transcripts show.
The poster's comment was that the people who gave their "political opinion" which was motivated by either empathy or open support for the Soviet Union were more patriotic than someone with a "support our troops" bumper sticker. It is NOT patriotic to express a political opinion that expresses contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture. Any and all political opinion that excuses, defends, or supports the Soviet Union or its supporters is, by definition, unpatriotic.
I feel the same way about political speech that excuses, defends, or supports jihad.
Please correct me if you think my assessment is incorrect.
I hope it makes sense.
It does not make sense to me. Allow me to quote you and explain. In the post you referenced, you wrote:
THAT is political speech at its most powerful, and most important, and that is political speech that defends the values and rights that this nation was founded on.
Political speech can conceivably be speech that contains the notions that:
1. Individual rights to free speech, free association, and free press should be abolished
2. The state should own all property
3. That human beings are property of the state
That (above) is, of course, a type of political speech, but it is NOT in any way defending the values and rights that this country was founded on. Certainly one has a right to say it (since we have the right to free speech, ironically one can speak of their hatred for free speech), but it shows nothing but contempt and disdain for the country/culture. Hence, I can't buy the notion that political speech is, by definition, patriotic since political speech can conceivably contain contempt and disdain for one's own country/culture.
Those who would give up freedom in exchange for security, deserve neither.
This phrase is now Bumper-Sticker-Ready(TM). There's nothing like short, trite statements to fill the gap when a more nuanced discourse is taxing on the mind! Let's repeat that phrase often to avoid thinking about something that is both complicated and scary.
And that "something" is jihad. Specifically, the lesser jiahd. Even more specifically, the offensive version of lesser jihad. What are we kaffir going to do about it?
Anyone who is cited or charged for voiceing his or her belives in a nonviolent fashion is a bigger patriot than all those who drive around with a "Support our troops" sticker irregardles of the belives.
Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but what is so patriotic about voicing an opinion? I thought that patriotism was definined by a love and support of one's country/culture. If an opinion could conceivably be a contempt and disdain for one's country/culture (which many people certainly display), then how can that still be considered "patriotic"? I'm sorry, but I don't see the same sacred value is "voiceing his or her believes" that you do.
What if someone voiced the opinion that blacks were "mud people"? Would that person be a bigger patriot than the one who drives around with a "support our troops" sticker?
As for being afraid I agree with you - though much younger, I thank god that I do not live in America.
I don't believe in gods, but I am glad that I, a gay man, live in America opposed to living in Europe. The editor of the gay newspaper where I live (in the ultra-conservative, racist, gay-bashing South) was recently gay-bashed. No, he was NOT gay-bashed by Christian Republicans in Cobb County, Georgia. He was gay bashed by muslims in tolerant, progressive Amsterdam.
Bruce Bawer was a gay man who lived in the United States and decided to move to more tolerant, progressive Europe to escape from Christian Fundamentalists. What he found was that Europe has its own Fundamentalists, yet they are Muslims and they are worse in every way than America's Fundamentalists. He wrote a book about it called While Europe Slept. You can find out about it at http://www.brucebawer.com/. Is it safe to be gay in Europe? In many places, the answer has become not "no", but "hell no", and that is due largely to the influence of muslims who resoundingly believe that gay people are worthy of death.
While I do not support anything Bush has done (except for the tax cuts -- he's even waging the "war on terror" with a deliberately militant blind eye to the reality of jihad and Islam), I fear that the Europe that I know and love is going to be turned into an utter craphole by the regressive, anti-liberal, and fundamentliast muslim colonists who live there and are tolerated under the hideous canard of "multiculturalism". And I feel this is happening because far too many Europeans feel disdain and contempt for their own country/culture. "If Shari'a rules Europe, then who cares? Europe doesn't have a culture worth preserving anyway." I soundly disagree with that assessment, and I hope that more Europeans may find their sense of patriotism before muslims do to the beloved Mont Saint Michel what they did to the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
The gist was: the vast majority of people are children, and children like to exaggerate and tell lies.
I don't think adults exaggerate and lie less than children do, but I do think that they're much more sophisticated and subtle at the insidious craft. A great deal of nuance goes into grown-up lies.
There is no way of knowing the truth.
On the contrary! Everyone knows what Truth is. Bad guys are liars and and propagandists, and good guys are truth-speakers and educators. Those last two statements are valid for all value systems that my limited mind can recognize or imagine.
As strongly as I believe in "One Learns By Doing", I do not fully believe it and thus I do not fully believe the premise of this story.
Though I am a software developer now, I was, at one time, a music student studying voice. One of the classes that all music students were forced to take for several years was called "ear training". It focused on "training" several different "skills". They were:
1. The instructor would play a series of chords (generally six to eight) on the piano in four-part harmony. These chords would follow resolution patterns which we were presently learning in our music theory classes, which happened concurrently. The students were obligated to write down the bass (lowest) and melody (highest) voices.
2. The student was required to sing a series of chord patterns. I-IV-V7-I would thus be C-E-G-E-C, F-A-C-A-F, G-B-D-F-D-B-G, C-E-G-E-C (in the key of C major).
3. The student was required to clap out rhythms.
4. Other tests, such as hearing a pitch and being required to generate (with one's voice) the note above it which created the interval of a perfect fourth.
Most of the time was spent in task #1. In the three years that I was in ear training, here is what I noticed.
1. I was able to hear all four voices (not just the bass and melody) by the second pass. I would then get so bored by waiting for the other students to catch up that I would write lyrics to the chords. In the three years, I never improved, and neither did any of the other students. Even worse, my "success" at this task had no effect on the other students' ability. They simply couldn't do it, no matter how much they practiced. It didn't "click" with them like it did with me.
2. On the other hand, I had a very hard time with the rhythms. I jokingly blamed this on my being white, of course.
So, having gone through this experience, I decided that my ability to "hear" the voices for "ear training" was pure talent and has nothing to do with training or practice.
Now, training my VOICE on the other hand (which was my instrument, as all music students have one major instrument), took lots and lots and lots and lots of practice. Then again, even that totally depended on whether or not you had a "set of good pipes". Meaning, Jessye Norman as a singler is much like Nolan Ryan as a baseball pitcher: their bodies were practically built for it. And, on top of that, they might have had some innate mental talent as well.
I've known a piano accompanist (the guy who plays piano while the singer plays) who was able to transpose Faure and Debussy on the fly. In other words, the romantic and modulating piano piece in front of his eyes was in E-flat minor but what comes out of his playing is C-sharp minor, and he was making sure to take cues from the singer while he was playing! I honestly don't know what kind of practice one can do in order to be able to accomplish that. That, in my opinion, is sell-your-soul kind of magic ability.
We all know it's addictive, that's kinda the point to these games; To make them as addictive as possible.
You are impugning the game maker with evil motives. Suppose we rewrote your statement in a more sanitized way: "We all know it's fun, that's kinda the point of these games; To make them as fun as possible." Would that be inaccurate at all, except that it removes the evil intent that you seem keen in assigning?
It's useful to remind people here that cocaine is NOT physically addictive. It's just incredibly, awesomely FUN! In fact, it's so fun that life while you're not on cocaine, comparitively, seems like a horribly boring drag. This is only from what I've heard from my friends who have been users. You wonder why I've never used it?
Probably for the same reason that I've never played WoW. It's not addictive -- it's just too much of a good thing. And that, in itself, can be dangerous!
And 'biased reporting' is an overworn, inflammatory cliche drummed up by the conservative right some years ago in reaction the perception that the Fifth Estate was unfair to their ideals and goals and should be beholden to those in power instead of continuing the long standing tradition of questioning it.
First, I would like to note that you are clearly biased against what you perceive as "the conservative right". While they rightly deserve some criticism (after all, who is perfect?), I think that you bias may well seep into outright demonization. If that's where your values lie, then be up-front about it.
Second, you ascribe solely clean and noble goals to what you obsequiously label the "fifth estate" without noting that they can and do hold power (and abuse it!) that rightly deserves to be questioned. Who watches the watchers?
If you're a devotee of "talk" radio or a consumer of similar ill-informed, opinion-laden punditry, I guess it's a catchy phrase, and no doubt reinforces long held opinions without the risk of alternative viewpoints or critical thinking messing things up.
I see this opinion as insidious and dangerous. It sounds to me like you are decrying punditry because of its obvious bias and stated opinion. In other words, you'd prefer reporting to be free of such obvious bias. I think this is dangerous because journalists generally think that they are the noble guardians of society (an opinion that you clearly share, from your groveling language), and thus are highly motivate to use thier position to do what they think is right. And through the magic of the "editing" room (I put it in quotes because "editing" is a creative process, not merely "touching up"), television reporting can both hide its bias in plain sight as well as exploit frighteningly-effective influence techniques.
Be very, very afraid of watching full-motion video with sound that claims to be "reporting". You are being abused.
Everyone has opinions; not everyone has an agenda.
I disagree, but I think we'd get into a semantic argument about what constitutes an "agenda". Would you agree that the agenda of journalists is "questioning those in power"?
Would you agree that some dishonest journalists exploit the fact that many people see that as their agenda?
As for those who do the reporting, I'd wager that anyone who spends years in an institution of higher learning so they can earn (yes, "earn") a degree in journalism has probably learned something during those years that the rest of us sitting on our couches didn't. I'd also wager that after graduating, most take up employment in an organisation that has a history and tradition that extends farther than recent memory. If you don't believe any of that counts for something, then I guess it's both fair and logical to assume you don't count for anything, either.
I don't see that as fair and logical at all. In fact, I see it as unfair and cruel. Are you saying that I'm completely useless and might as well be sent to a gas chamber if I don't agree with you that a journalism degree affords someone the right to think of him/herself as an exalted and superior member in a "Kingdom of Journalistic Knights" (Dan Rather's supercilious self-assessment)? You've already trashed pretty much all of journalism is low-intelligence entertainment tripe, anyway. What actions of the minute percentage of journalists that meet your exacting standards compare in the terms of human achievements to those performed by our top scientists, businesspeople, and engineers? Perhaps you might tell us exactly what a journalism degree delivers that is so awesome as to turn an ordinary mortal like me into a gilded demigod before dismissing me as excrement.
Perhaps you do that precisely because a journalism degree (not to mention a career in journalism) isn't all that it's purported up to be, and it's never been more apparent than it is right now. I remember seeing that senior VP of the media (was it Newsweek?
CSS is a pain in the ass, but it works pretty well if you have a vague notion of what you're doing and if you take the time to understand the cascading model.
I agree with the "CSS is a pain in the ass" part. However, CSS does NOT "work pretty well" if you have merely a vague notion of what you're doing. In fact, you have to be a god-damned wizened expert to do thing which are trivial to do otherwise. Center an element? Make a three-column layout that lines up at the bottom? If you're not confined to CSS, those things are simple. Otherwise, you must be well-fucking-versed in the library of arcane CSS hacks to get those things to work in CSS and have them appear correctly in all browsers.
The problem is not with the CSS standard, the problem is with implementations of that standard.
I get so sick of hearing this excuse.
I use hybrid designs in my web pages. CSS control fonts and other such sugar, whereas tables control the to-the-pixel designs churned out by our designers. I use nested tables with aplomb.
Then the CSS zealots lambaste, insult, condemn, and mock me for this horrible (yet completely FUNCTIONAL) choice. Okay, fine. So I dive into CSS positioning and experience what can, at best, be described as retarded, goat-blowingly horrible hell. Honestly, CSS positioning is "programmer-friendly" in much the same way that a hot, acid-spewing, rusty circular saw is "penis-friendly".
So I deign complain about the state of CSS programming, and the zealots reply: "That's not CSS's fault. It's the browser makers' fault for not following the standard." (If they're not following it, then it is not a "standard".) What goes unsaid after the excuse is, "Enjoy your neverending buffet of barely-debuggable CSS hacks for the rest of your career!"
No, thanks. Actually, scratch the "thanks" and make do with the with the "No!" I use tables for layout, CSS for sugar. And that's that.
Instead, Mr. D, rant about how the different browsers (IE6 rules!) failed to follow a published standard.
Dvorak (to Microsoft): "Make your broswer CSS-compliant."
Microsoft: "What's in it for us to do that?"
Dvorak: <deer-in-headlights look>
The troubles you are experiencing are not CSS problems, per se, but rather piss-poor browser implementations of CSS. If browsers followed the specs, you'd probably eliminate 99% of the issues right off the bat.
You have given the default excuse for what is the reality of devloping using "web standards" (meaning, using CSS for layout).
Your excuse collapses in a heap when you are faced with the cold, hard fact that There will never, ever, ever be 100% compliance among browsers for CSS. NEVER! In fact, I would be stunned if you even got 10% compliance. Pigs will soar through frozen hell before that happens.
How about this: All browsers must support CSS1 completely and CSS 2.1's positioning at least.
Or what?
"Or I'll say, 'All browsers must support CSS1 completely and CSS 2.1's positioning at least' again!"
First, the $500 sunglass remark was metaphorical. I wasn't implying that you actually owned $500 sunglasses, really I was implying that the fact that $500 sunglasses exist at all suggests consumption for consumption sake, a second example, if you will...
First, it was not a "metaphor". You were making a snide and dismissive remark toward someone that you hold in contempt because they don't share your views.
Second, "consumption for consumption's sake" is a point in dispute. While you're trying to prove that one, you might also think about tackling "education for education's sake" as well as the notion of an "altruistic action".
Second, I didn't resort to personal attacks because I disagreed with you, but you seemed to feel the need to do it with me.
Why is that?
Making a snide and dismissive remark toward me as an expression of your contempt is, in fact, a personal attack. If you are willing to apologize for that, then I will apologize for the "dipshit" comment and I will be happy to return to a more civil discussion.
Nowhere did I say that you were a racist.
Non sequitur. You did NOT answer the questions I posed for you, and I think that they are important since you think that the "racist, inbred, uneducated, violent, redneck, and unsophisticated" stereotype of those living in the Deep South is "definately justified". I will re-pose the questions to you, as I think they merit a response:
Would you then say that the sterotype that young black men are violent is also justified? They do, after all, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the USA. What other negative sterotypes are justified to you? The muslim terrorist? The greedy Jew?
I could very well say the same about you.
You could, but it would have no basis. I repeat: I am arguing against the unfair assumptions made about me on behalf of the actions of others. I am also arguing that many of the assumptions about the South are made because of the way that Southerners are constantly portrayed by the media. You, on the other hand, are using your "extensive travels" to the Deep South as "definite justification" for the horrendous stereotype that you apply. I ask you again to withdraw from your arrogant and omniscient tone.
A bad assumption on your part. My neighborhood is maybe 25% white.
Actually it was imprecise language on my part. The "you" in the sentence referred to "Many ignorant people point to areas in the North and West". My bad.
I suppose no one that lives in a multicultural area could possibly think the south had a lot of rednecks/racists in it.... right
Of course the Deep South has a lot of rednecks / racists in it. It also has a lot of highly penetant white folks who are well-trained to avoid the subject of race. It also has a lot of vicious and hateful blacks who have Montana-sized chips on their shoulders. You are merely displaying that which I mentioned in my first post. In general, I think non-Southerners are quite content to think of me in terms of those horrible stereotypes that I've heard all my life, and a more nuanced discussion is light-years away from their realm of interest.
People need to learn to sto--
This will NEVER happen.
NEVER!
I think the better advice is:
People need to stop posting on slashdot that people need to learn to not click on spam and pop-up advertising.
Queue the cascade of "people need to stop..." posts.
Consumption for comsumption's sake is demonstrated clearly by people buying bigger and bigger SUVs... A suburban housewife driving a Hummer? Ridiculous...
Ridiculous to you. I can effortlessly imagine that a suburban housewife bought the hummer for the reasons of prestige, safety, enjoyment, and comfort. Are you saying that all of those reasons are completely bogus? That there is no suburban housewife who would drive a Hummer for any of those reasons?
Are you going to argue that a suburban housewife feels A) no additional prestige or negative prestige, B) no additional safety or negative safety, C) no additional enjoyment or negative enjoyment, and D) no additional comfort or negative comfort through the act of buying a Hummer?
Instead of seeing the reasons why one might buy a Hummer, you are blinded by your contempt for those who would do it and concluding that they are merely "consuming for consumption's sake". In other words, they're mindless and evil morons for not seeing the world the way that you do.
If you need a clearer example than that you should take off your $500 sunglasses...
Obviously if I disagree with you, then I must be one of the evil, hated rich. My sunglasses cost $9. Function over form, dipshit.
Regardless, I do need a clearer example. Give me an example of a person buying something solely for the sake of buying it. Make sure that you can prove that there is no reason that they would buy it except for the sole reason of buying it. And try and do a better job of masking your bitter disdain and false feelings of superiority.