1. Their ideology is, by definition, one which finds treating some races as less than others, sub-human. That is the definition of evil. This isn't a point of debate. If you are coming for my friends, you get a punch in the face. Minimum.
2. It's not all of a sudden, there is considerable precedent for shooting Nazis. Both my grandfathers, all of my great uncles and all of their friends used machine guns, rifles, bombs and hawker hurricanes on Nazis. A punch in the face is basically a gentle wakeup call.
3. if your worldview requires the subjugation of others, based on your assumed superiority, and you are scared of a middle aged white guy punching you in the face, your ideology is provably wrong.
Different standards can be, and are, applied to governments that to the citizens. Especially in the US where the constitution was written by rebels who very specifically wanted to impose greater restriction on the government, while still allowing it to function as a government.
Actually, it's not a false equivalence argument, as both arguments reflect the same central argument, that after sufficient time (in fact exactly the same time: Since the end of World War II) colloquial definitions become the norm, and the language is accepted to have evolved. We call things wars, even when they are not formally declared, and this is accepted practice. We call people who, while not members of the, now discredited and defunct German National Socialist Party, hold most (nationalism may be transposed to the nation of residence, for example) of the same beliefs; Nazi's. Modern usage allows this to indicate someone who holds racial supremacy views, is anti-semitic and utilizes certain Symbology.
If it looks like a Nazi, Smells like a Nazi, holds the same views as a Nazi, and salutes like a Nazi, it is acceptable to call it a Nazi, and then punch it in it's stupid, ignorant, bigoted, Nazi, face.
Seriously? look, we can discuss the socioeconomic factors that impact the rise in violent crime in certain communities and the influence this has on police actions if you want. We can do root cause analysis, but let us not pretend that institutional racism is not a contributing factor there. Poor marginalized communities with no prospects will true to crime, history shows this to be true regardless of race. So, if you marginalize people by race, guess what, the marginalized racial demographics will show elevated crime rates.
But that does not change my unarguable point that an innocent black man is more likely to be shot by the police, by a significant margin, that an innocent white man, and that is a damn problem. Your argument is essentially that a shoot first and ask questions later policy is justifiable based on racial profile, which is bullshit.
A poorly educated, unemployed white Christian man is statistically more likely to be a Nazi (Nazis overwhelmingly being white, Christian males), by your logic, given the historical threat Nazi's pose, the police would be justified in assuming they are a clear threat in any tense situation and just shooting them.
1. The narrative that black people are more likely to be killed in error or unjustifiably by police officers than whites is statistical fact, not a false narrative, and that's what Obama stood by. it ain't a pleasant fact, or a comfortable one, but it's a fact and I'm guessing, I mean I don't know, I don't have that life experience, but I'm guessing, that knowing that fact, living in a world where that is true, must be pretty goddamn stressful if you are part of the "gets shot by people in authority who don't go down for it" demographic and they should probably be able to expect their president to at least discuss the issue.
2. The majority of Americans did want the ACA, and still do want the ACA, and are terrified of loosing their healthcare: according to....all of the polls. (go on, say they are "fake news" I dare you).
3. his politics weren't all that exceptionally controversial compared to...say, his predecessor: Bush Jr, he was controversial, he started wars people were against for reasons that were false, and thousands of US servicemen and women died in them. Obama, droned some terrorists to death and wasn't perfect. or his successor, the president with the lowest approval rating...ever. Leaders with the sort of approval ratings Trump gets have, in other countries, ben killed in popular revolutions and military coups.
4. really, forcing an agenda without congress? while Trump is in office? a man who can't get deals past his own party controlled congress and drops executive orders on a staggering basis?
How is anyone HERE not in favor of net neutrality? What the actual?
Seriously, it should be a trollfarm test - do you post in favor on eliminating net neutrality? If yes, you are Comcast/Russian paid troll and I claim my $5!
OK, well, that's actually not a response to the argument I made. The community exists and has checks and balances for a reason. Because no system is perfect, but equally no individual can reasonably judge information in all fields no matter how clever and well informed they are, we must find some balance between trust and self reliance.
This individualist "it's not science unless you did it yourself" stuff just acts as a drag on progress and strikes me as dangerously fundamentalist and far too concerned with ideological adherence to some sort of extreme libertarianism to the exclusion of reality.
Well, that's my opinion anyway, it's a fairly strongly held one.;)
That's an understandable point, but practicality means that an individual simply does not have the capacity to master all scientific fields, trust is therefore necessary. While it's uncomfortable for some people, apparently, science is collaborative and always has been. No one can hold all the knowledge and experience needed to understand, for example, immunology, genetics, quantum physics, Nano engineering etc etc etc. You have to trust the community, the education process, the accreditation process, the collaborative process, peer review and your understanding of the core principles and the results. You review and when they all align, you trust, when they do not, you can, in your own fields, or areas where you have access to the knowledge and understanding, address the anomalies. That's reality. any other approach will lead to errors, misunderstandings and eventuality insanity, drinking your own urine and being punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin.
If you donate to or encourage this obviously mentally-ill man's provably wrong, insane, expensive, public suicide attempt, are you, in any way culpable for the consequences?
Well, not only is that staggeringly wrong and ill informed, it also shows a fairly massive US centric bias.
As a Brit, I declare my loyalty to British Law over US law! Is that a negative?
I love my Lumia 950, and I'll miss it, but to be honest, I was carrying an iPad with me for boarding passes and comixology and all the apps that weren't being written for windows 10 anyway.
I always used to say, Apple OS let you do anything that APPLE thought of really easily and intuitively, without really learning anything, Microsoft OS make you learn the damn thing so you can do whatever YOU can think of. (yes yes yes Linux! but for the masses, the argument holds) The moment Microsoft made an environment where that wasn't the case, where the user and third party programmers weren't encouraged to tinker and be in control was the moment the downward spiral began.
The vast majority of these posts are either thinly veiled complaints about a female black lead, which, frankly, STFU, you are objectively wrong, and would be, even if you hadn't completely missed how good this actress is, given you failed to recognize her as Sasha from the Walking Dead.
The rest are either Bitching that the show is
1. Too modern trek action style over substance.
2. Too SJW echo chamber snowflake touchy-feelyness.
Mutually exclusive positions like this generally mean polarized people are reading into it what they want to, so, stuff that as well.
It's got action, it's got star trek exploration of moral and cultural issues. Because it is Trek. The lead is, FFS, not a Vulcan, she's a human raised by Vulcans for a time, struggling between two cultures, She is basically reverse Spock, and that's at lest an idea worth looking at. She's not gender fluid or trans or whatever, she simply has a name that sounds masculine to us in this century, Marion used to be a male name less than a hundred years ago (Famously, the Duke's real name). Is it that weird that a masculine name would become unisex in 200 years? isn't that exactly the sort of world building detail that Star Trek would include? I'm reminded of the famous, "wouldn't they have cured baldness in the future?" question given to Rodenberry, to which the response was, "in the future, they wouldn't care".
There's a lot of hate here that seems weirdly misplaced.
The lead isn't a Mary Sue, in no small part because that would require her to be amazing at everything, when it's perfectly clear that she is in fact massively insecure about not being amazingly perfect at everything (because raised by VULCANS) and fucks up several (reasonably believable) times.
Some characters are thinly drawn, but my understanding is that most of the "crew" in the pilot are guest stars, and the actual ship and crew are due to be introduced in Epp3, so they were all basically redshirts and I can live with that.
The physics is a bit hit and miss, sure, but t'was ever thus with trek.
As for the Klingons, only the one ship, led by the religious fanatic, covered themselves in coffins, because, hey, RELIGIOUS FANATIC!
I will agree with one major gripe though, the Klingons (and they are not "new" they are the ones from the shoddy "Into Darkness" movie) are so badly awful looking, so horribly done, I think they gave me cancer. Fecking Ctrl-Z that change.
Star wars and marvel fans will just buy the films (which they do in decent numbers anyway) and keep their Netflix/amazon accounts for everything else.
I like star wars, I like marvel, I buy their films anyway.
Disney don't do much that interests me outside those franchises and I don't have kids, so no Disney streaming service for me. Bet I'm not alone. All they are doing is cutting off the remaining casual viewers that might give a "comic book film" a try on Netflix one rainy afternoon, and find they like them.
But if your "punch me in the face" comment is in regards Richard Spencer, lets be honest. Nazis are FOR punching. That's settled science. They are wrong, provably, horribly, stupidly, evilly, willfully wrong. And they are FOR punching. They provide a public service of being unambiguous scum for us all to righteously hate and, frankly, punch. Just like grandpa did (although, in my case at least, Grandpa used a Hawker Hurricane rather than his fists because, really, fuck Nazis). There are very few simple political issues left in the world, very few binary choices, but with Nazis, the choice is really simple, and binary: Punch to the face, or knee to the nuts? it's still not an easy choice, the punch to the face is more immediately satisfying and unambiguously masculine, but the knee to the nuts is more likely to make them cry, and there is nothing funnier on earth than crying Nazis. Nothing. On. Earth. And it has the added bonus that it may reduce the chance of them breeding more Nazis. Tough one.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. But to simplify: You have the right to say anything free of state action or illegal retribution. Everyone else has the right to think you are a dick for saying it, judge you to be a dick for saying it, and exercise their rights to tell everyone else you are a dick for saying it. You have only very limited rights, in very specific contexts, to exercise your free speech with protected anonymity.
There is no such thing as consequence free speech. All speech has consequences because what you say impacts the thoughts and actions of others, and pretending otherwise is simply naïve.
His speech is free and protected, he can say whatever he likes. At present he has no right to anonymity and CNN are reminding him, and all trolls, using this example, that their unattributed free speech can become attributed free speech real fast. Free speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. Speech has power, and should remain free, but use of that power has consequences, you can change minds, policies and even governments with speech, you can inspire, offend or pacify as you wish.
Currently, you don't have the right to speak and impact the world, to deliver consequence unto others free of societies judgement, just free of the laws judgement. And that's as it should be, free speech should be a dialogue, not a monologue. terrorists, dictators and supervillains monologue, democracies debate.
Only Forward by Michael Marshall Smith.
Read it, laugh, be freaked out, realise you are not alone in your stranger thoughts.
Oh, and everything by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett ever. Because it's never too soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's arguable. An unemployed citizen can still vote (for the moment).
2. It's not all of a sudden, there is considerable precedent for shooting Nazis. Both my grandfathers, all of my great uncles and all of their friends used machine guns, rifles, bombs and hawker hurricanes on Nazis. A punch in the face is basically a gentle wakeup call.
3. if your worldview requires the subjugation of others, based on your assumed superiority, and you are scared of a middle aged white guy punching you in the face, your ideology is provably wrong.
Different standards can be, and are, applied to governments that to the citizens. Especially in the US where the constitution was written by rebels who very specifically wanted to impose greater restriction on the government, while still allowing it to function as a government.
Well, I'd suggest not believing in any magic pixies in the sky at all as a more viable alternative.
If it looks like a Nazi, Smells like a Nazi, holds the same views as a Nazi, and salutes like a Nazi, it is acceptable to call it a Nazi, and then punch it in it's stupid, ignorant, bigoted, Nazi, face.
http://ajph.aphapublications.o...
But that does not change my unarguable point that an innocent black man is more likely to be shot by the police, by a significant margin, that an innocent white man, and that is a damn problem. Your argument is essentially that a shoot first and ask questions later policy is justifiable based on racial profile, which is bullshit.
A poorly educated, unemployed white Christian man is statistically more likely to be a Nazi (Nazis overwhelmingly being white, Christian males), by your logic, given the historical threat Nazi's pose, the police would be justified in assuming they are a clear threat in any tense situation and just shooting them.
Fair point, should have qualified with, "at this point in his presidency".
1. The narrative that black people are more likely to be killed in error or unjustifiably by police officers than whites is statistical fact, not a false narrative, and that's what Obama stood by. it ain't a pleasant fact, or a comfortable one, but it's a fact and I'm guessing, I mean I don't know, I don't have that life experience, but I'm guessing, that knowing that fact, living in a world where that is true, must be pretty goddamn stressful if you are part of the "gets shot by people in authority who don't go down for it" demographic and they should probably be able to expect their president to at least discuss the issue.
2. The majority of Americans did want the ACA, and still do want the ACA, and are terrified of loosing their healthcare: according to....all of the polls. (go on, say they are "fake news" I dare you).
3. his politics weren't all that exceptionally controversial compared to...say, his predecessor: Bush Jr, he was controversial, he started wars people were against for reasons that were false, and thousands of US servicemen and women died in them. Obama, droned some terrorists to death and wasn't perfect. or his successor, the president with the lowest approval rating...ever. Leaders with the sort of approval ratings Trump gets have, in other countries, ben killed in popular revolutions and military coups.
4. really, forcing an agenda without congress? while Trump is in office? a man who can't get deals past his own party controlled congress and drops executive orders on a staggering basis?
Your bias is showing dude.
Seriously, it should be a trollfarm test - do you post in favor on eliminating net neutrality? If yes, you are Comcast/Russian paid troll and I claim my $5!
OK, well, that's actually not a response to the argument I made. The community exists and has checks and balances for a reason. Because no system is perfect, but equally no individual can reasonably judge information in all fields no matter how clever and well informed they are, we must find some balance between trust and self reliance. This individualist "it's not science unless you did it yourself" stuff just acts as a drag on progress and strikes me as dangerously fundamentalist and far too concerned with ideological adherence to some sort of extreme libertarianism to the exclusion of reality. Well, that's my opinion anyway, it's a fairly strongly held one. ;)
so
very
sad
Gravity doesn't work? I just tested that, and things definitely fall down 100% of the time. Gravity appears to work just fine.
That's an understandable point, but practicality means that an individual simply does not have the capacity to master all scientific fields, trust is therefore necessary. While it's uncomfortable for some people, apparently, science is collaborative and always has been. No one can hold all the knowledge and experience needed to understand, for example, immunology, genetics, quantum physics, Nano engineering etc etc etc. You have to trust the community, the education process, the accreditation process, the collaborative process, peer review and your understanding of the core principles and the results. You review and when they all align, you trust, when they do not, you can, in your own fields, or areas where you have access to the knowledge and understanding, address the anomalies. That's reality. any other approach will lead to errors, misunderstandings and eventuality insanity, drinking your own urine and being punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin.
The laser we routinely bounce of the mirror we put ON THE MOON
Photos
The International Space Station
Navigation, that works
Satellites
Eclipses
The position of the stars
The fact that everything based on physics, which requires the earth to be round and the solar system to be heliocentric to work....works.
Facts, provable, replicable, testable science. Just...stop. it's so...damn...sad.
If you donate to or encourage this obviously mentally-ill man's provably wrong, insane, expensive, public suicide attempt, are you, in any way culpable for the consequences?
Well, not only is that staggeringly wrong and ill informed, it also shows a fairly massive US centric bias. As a Brit, I declare my loyalty to British Law over US law! Is that a negative?
I always used to say, Apple OS let you do anything that APPLE thought of really easily and intuitively, without really learning anything, Microsoft OS make you learn the damn thing so you can do whatever YOU can think of. (yes yes yes Linux! but for the masses, the argument holds) The moment Microsoft made an environment where that wasn't the case, where the user and third party programmers weren't encouraged to tinker and be in control was the moment the downward spiral began.
The vast majority of these posts are either thinly veiled complaints about a female black lead, which, frankly, STFU, you are objectively wrong, and would be, even if you hadn't completely missed how good this actress is, given you failed to recognize her as Sasha from the Walking Dead.
The rest are either Bitching that the show is 1. Too modern trek action style over substance. 2. Too SJW echo chamber snowflake touchy-feelyness.
Mutually exclusive positions like this generally mean polarized people are reading into it what they want to, so, stuff that as well.
It's got action, it's got star trek exploration of moral and cultural issues. Because it is Trek. The lead is, FFS, not a Vulcan, she's a human raised by Vulcans for a time, struggling between two cultures, She is basically reverse Spock, and that's at lest an idea worth looking at. She's not gender fluid or trans or whatever, she simply has a name that sounds masculine to us in this century, Marion used to be a male name less than a hundred years ago (Famously, the Duke's real name). Is it that weird that a masculine name would become unisex in 200 years? isn't that exactly the sort of world building detail that Star Trek would include? I'm reminded of the famous, "wouldn't they have cured baldness in the future?" question given to Rodenberry, to which the response was, "in the future, they wouldn't care".
There's a lot of hate here that seems weirdly misplaced.
The lead isn't a Mary Sue, in no small part because that would require her to be amazing at everything, when it's perfectly clear that she is in fact massively insecure about not being amazingly perfect at everything (because raised by VULCANS) and fucks up several (reasonably believable) times.
Some characters are thinly drawn, but my understanding is that most of the "crew" in the pilot are guest stars, and the actual ship and crew are due to be introduced in Epp3, so they were all basically redshirts and I can live with that.
The physics is a bit hit and miss, sure, but t'was ever thus with trek.
As for the Klingons, only the one ship, led by the religious fanatic, covered themselves in coffins, because, hey, RELIGIOUS FANATIC!
I will agree with one major gripe though, the Klingons (and they are not "new" they are the ones from the shoddy "Into Darkness" movie) are so badly awful looking, so horribly done, I think they gave me cancer. Fecking Ctrl-Z that change.
Oldest trick in the book. And behold; a nation divided.
Star wars and marvel fans will just buy the films (which they do in decent numbers anyway) and keep their Netflix/amazon accounts for everything else. I like star wars, I like marvel, I buy their films anyway. Disney don't do much that interests me outside those franchises and I don't have kids, so no Disney streaming service for me. Bet I'm not alone. All they are doing is cutting off the remaining casual viewers that might give a "comic book film" a try on Netflix one rainy afternoon, and find they like them.
But if your "punch me in the face" comment is in regards Richard Spencer, lets be honest. Nazis are FOR punching. That's settled science. They are wrong, provably, horribly, stupidly, evilly, willfully wrong. And they are FOR punching. They provide a public service of being unambiguous scum for us all to righteously hate and, frankly, punch. Just like grandpa did (although, in my case at least, Grandpa used a Hawker Hurricane rather than his fists because, really, fuck Nazis). There are very few simple political issues left in the world, very few binary choices, but with Nazis, the choice is really simple, and binary: Punch to the face, or knee to the nuts? it's still not an easy choice, the punch to the face is more immediately satisfying and unambiguously masculine, but the knee to the nuts is more likely to make them cry, and there is nothing funnier on earth than crying Nazis. Nothing. On. Earth. And it has the added bonus that it may reduce the chance of them breeding more Nazis. Tough one.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. But to simplify: You have the right to say anything free of state action or illegal retribution. Everyone else has the right to think you are a dick for saying it, judge you to be a dick for saying it, and exercise their rights to tell everyone else you are a dick for saying it. You have only very limited rights, in very specific contexts, to exercise your free speech with protected anonymity. There is no such thing as consequence free speech. All speech has consequences because what you say impacts the thoughts and actions of others, and pretending otherwise is simply naïve.
His speech is free and protected, he can say whatever he likes. At present he has no right to anonymity and CNN are reminding him, and all trolls, using this example, that their unattributed free speech can become attributed free speech real fast. Free speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. Speech has power, and should remain free, but use of that power has consequences, you can change minds, policies and even governments with speech, you can inspire, offend or pacify as you wish. Currently, you don't have the right to speak and impact the world, to deliver consequence unto others free of societies judgement, just free of the laws judgement. And that's as it should be, free speech should be a dialogue, not a monologue. terrorists, dictators and supervillains monologue, democracies debate.
Only Forward by Michael Marshall Smith. Read it, laugh, be freaked out, realise you are not alone in your stranger thoughts. Oh, and everything by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett ever. Because it's never too soon.