I call bullshit.
A mere 20 years ago, police would show up to a house where husband was beating wife and basically tell them to keep it down and move along.
Ehhh... pretty sure that's not true (though there will always be isolated cases.) Severe domestic violence has been punished for hundreds of years in most western societies (although, as Othello demonstrates, society at large didn't always frown on it) and I'm guessing even mild domestic violence probably wasn't officially tolerated post-WWII... but I wasn't talking about law. And neither was the OP.
I was responding to the OP's claims about "morality", specifically intending to allude to the moral assertion that women should obey their husbands and the things that came out of that assertion, including tacit acceptance (regardless of legality) of mild 'corrective' violence.
It varied a lot by geography and subculture, though. The issues surrounding rape and sexual honor were more widespread.
Congratulations on your massive reading comprehension failure. I said nothing about law; I said shame. You think it was ok, 3+ generations ago in most western cultures, to freely admit you were raped in polite society? Particularly if you were (thought to be) a virgin, this was an extremely big deal. These things were often kept quiet if possible.
Preserving and defending honor and valuing virginity were real fucking things. I've seen color film of places in Europe where an ostensibly bloodied sheet was hung outside the window to prove the new wife was a virgin on her wedding night. This probably wasn't a widespread practice; it was a hick thing to do, surely, but it indicates a wider ideal that was prevalent for millennia beforehand.
The only people who think otherwise are brainwashed feminists who've never read a history book.
I push back against non-egalitarian feminism all the time and I'm a huge defender of western culture, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate this historical revisionism.
Defending western culture, to me, means pushing back against the reactionary conservative blowhards like the OP who pretend we've hugely regressed.
The only people who think otherwise are brainwashed feminists who've never read a history book.
What kind of history books do you read? A few generations ago, virginity was very much valued and rapists were despised in part because of the damage they did (virgin or otherwise) to a woman's honor.
Have you literally never heard a single story about a woman committing suicide rather than suffer the dishonor of being raped? Hell, it happened multiple times just a few years ago with young Yazidi girls. Fortunately, our culture has managed to at least partially outgrow this attitude.
Congrats on the gratuitous Trump and Farage name drops. That just tips off everyone that you are a cretin.
Wow, and you don't even understand the point of those name drops, do you? I mention it precisely because (despite what the hysterical regressive left wants you do believe), those two people did NOT build their careers or platforms on religious and social conservative ideas. I'm pointing out that the OP's arguments are dying out even among the right.
(Trump's anti-abortion stuff being a slight exception here, but there is plenty of room for reasonable people to have secular and rational debates on that issue.)
A fantastic summary of the current state of the right in this country. Willful ignorance has (sort of) saved the establishment right this election cycle, but it isn't going to last you people much longer.
Both sides succumb to snowflake syndrome, just on different issues. Claiming that the electoral college can't exercise the rights it was explicitly given, and that the man who lost the popular vote should be voted for or else "civil war", because you think he's entitled to something he didn't yet win (either in spirit or by the rules of the game), is no less self-entitled than the worst SJW twaddle.
Incidentally, I was against Hillary as well and repeatedly spoke out against them both this election. This isn't about me wanting her to win; it's about D cowardice on one side, with astonishingly childish and ignorant R whining on the other side about how the EC does, and is supposed to, work.
Given the popularity of cheating by members of either sex, I'd say the penis bone isn't the only thing we've lost. Morality and Monogamy have pretty much gone by the wayside. The divorce rate tends to speak volumes as well.
Blah blah blah, yeah things are so much worse than the days when being raped was considered utterly shameful by mainstream society and being moral meant opposing things like miscegenation or smacking your wife a bit if she got a bit too uppity.
This is why the more reactionary and religious flavors of conservatism have fallen by the wayside in favor of guys like Trump or Farage. I'm not on board with the self-flagellating left, and if you want to argue that society needs improving you'll get very little argument from most reasonable people of the left or right, but there is no golden age of morality in America that's significantly better than what we have now.
Those instructions have weight on the federal level and thus no bearing on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the EC vote. If TX considers you an outlaw, that's no skin off my back. I don't live in TX. If you're a big fan of "citizens of states first, union second" sort of thing, you really can't expect the rest of the union to instantly recognize your own state's pet ideas about what is and isn't legal.
Besides, twenty-one states have no restrictions whatsoever, which is probably enough to swing it. I'm not going to look it up and add it all up just to confirm for some random slashdotter because, like I said, this is an exercise in intellectual honesty and snowflake-proclivity, i.e. if you're going to insist "rules are rules and we're a union of states and not individuals" do you ACTUALLY mean that?
And so far your responses seem to indicate that you don't really mean it, and you're just on board with anything that means your side has already legitimately won under all conceivable contingencies.
given the attitudes towards violence and weapons prevailing among them.
It's a much-overlooked fact that the incredibly left-leaning pussies at university include most of the experts on bomb-making and chemical weapon making.
Not legally binding. Someone with a user ID as low as yours should be able to recall Gore retracting his initial concession in 2000.
Wow! Still stuck on denial? That's unhealthy, man. Most of your kind are well into the the depression stage already... MoveOn, so to speak.
I suffer no illusions about what is likely to happen. The Ds are cowards as always, unable/unwilling to consider any strategy other than "let's keep giving the Rs as much rope as possible and hope they hang themselves."
The point, sunshine, isn't that I so, so want to see a Hillary become president. It's that these self-entitled snowflake Trump supporters want to support the quirks of the EC only when it suits them, and scream civil fucking war if it's pointed out that the EC has other quirks too that could, at least in theory, result in the person who won popular vote by millions actually winning the presidency as well.
This isn't about prognostication or false hope; it's about intellectual honesty. If the EC actually did their job, people like the OP would characterize it as "stealing the election", even though Trump would've lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote and the EC would've done exactly what they were meant to do.
Bring it on. If the special snowflakes on the right are going to be smug assholes about insisting that the electoral college is perfectly fine and legitimate as-is (and the popular vote is therefore irrelevant), then we should make every effort to remind them that Trump hasn't legally won a goddamn thing yet and it is not only legal but entirely proper (or else why are they even there?) for the electoral college to veto an asshole like Trump, particularly when another candidate scored millions more votes.
Don't like it? Speak up and help abolish the electoral college then. Want to start a literal civil war about it? Bring it on, you whining, hypocritical snowflake bastards. You may be startled to find out how many blue-tinged citizens own guns, too.
But I highly doubt it'll come to that. A few towns in Bumfuck, TX will do some dumb symbolic shit for a few months until they get tired of it, and then that will be that. The fact that another candidate won the popular vote, and they're cynically trying to leverage technicalities to ignore that fact, will rather undercut any broader resistance from breaking out. The situation only needs to be articulated clearly for people to realize how dumb the argument is:
"They're stealing the election from Trump! The American people voted for Trump, not Clinton!"
"Uh, no they didn't. Clinton got millions more votes than Trump."
"But that's not what counts! Only electoral college votes count!"
"Right you are. And the electors just voted for.... Clinton. So, Clinton won the popular vote and then she won the electoral college vote. So, she has won the presidency. What's the problem here?"
"But the news said Trump won!"
"'Fake news'. They don't know what they're talking about. They shouldn't have pretended it was over with."
"Trump won all those states though!"
"Says who? You (and the media) are just making stuff up. The electors didn't cast their ballots on November 8th. When it comes time for them to vote, the electors aren't constrained at all in twenty-one states, nor is there any mechanism at the federal level to prevent people from changing their mind in the other states."
"But that's dumb! That's outrageous! Trump won!"
"No he didn't. He lost literally every single vote that counted."
"But he..."
"No, he didn't. Here, let me explain to you what the constitution says..."
And then suddenly *everyone* is on board with federal electoral college reform / abolition. I don't say this is a very likely scenario, but it would be highly desirable and worth risking a few riots for.
The way things stand right now is just sickening, with people claiming that the EC isn't in need of reform whilst ignoring the very purpose it was created for and the powers it was explicitly intended to have, and the cowardly Ds just bowing down and accepting it, playing the same losing strategy of giving the Rs everything they want and wagering on cleaning up after they make a hash out of everything.
You are calling Trump unfit â" what do you call yourself? He won â" fair and square. Suck it up, cupcakes...
Ignorant self-serving rubbish. He hasn't won a goddamn thing yet.
You want to worship the electoral college as some perfect institution that doesn't need reform, you have to worship the ENTIRE thing, which means that electors in 21 states are completely free to vote for whomever they please with no penalty whatsoever and electors in the other states are still free (as far as the federal government is concerned, which is the only one that counts when we're discussing legitimacy here) to write whatever they want to on that piece of paper and face up to the state-level consequences.
You want to get technical here, that's fine: Trump hasn't win a goddamn thing yet. And, although it's extremely unlikely, the electors are entirely free to vote for Clinton or some other person if they so choose.
Don't like it? Then you should be in favor of electoral college reform. But as things currently stand, it would be just as "fair and square" if the electors do the 'unthinkable' and vote in Clinton.
Its better to stay employed and do what you can from the inside.
If the institution has turned against what you believe is right, then the odds of making any positive change "from the inside" are extremely low.
That seems excessively pessimistic given they may only need to fight this fight for 4 years. That's not a very long time to "accidentally" forget to delete important data when ordered to, slow down work output and otherwise subtly oppose destructive changes, etc.
I almost forgot: I'm also talking about Hillary's decisions here as much as anything else. Her response to the whole thing was "I'ma just gonna stand here and keep acting 'normal' and maybe toss in a few more halfhearted platform changes that no one believes. Trump is 'unfit for president', therefore the argument is won, therefore I shouldn't do anything interesting at all to un-win that argument. People will come around."
Which I think corresponds pretty well with the "Systemd is horrible because of foo and bar; therefore, we should keep using sysvinit until the end of time" folks.
The psychological parallels between the systemd debacle and the Trump debacle are surprisingly deep. Both are cases where the existence of dire flaws in a proposed solution caused the judgment centers in brains of most detractors (or at least the most of the vocal detractors) to short-circuit.
Wait, is this some sort of 2016 version of Godwin's law?
It's through the inaction of the influential masses that a poor decision has been made and now the community suffers. This is opposite of the Tragedy of the Commons, instead of the selfish actions of a few to the detriment of all, we have the inaction of a few to the detriment of all.
But this is about a lot more than mere inaction[1]. The effects I'm getting at here were much more noticeable among the passionate than the apathetic. The existence of what appear to be clinching arguments and what should've been deal-killing obnoxiousnesses actually prevented many (probably most) emotionally invested anti-Trump folks from thinking clearly or acting rationally about nearly any argument related to the candidates.
People have called Trump's tactics 'trolling' but it's not as simple as that. It's a lot more like... well, 'flamebait'. Which is a distinction I'm not sure I fully understood until just this moment. Get the opposition screaming regularly about the less-than-bullseye points and you poach a lot of the less emotionally invested fence-sitters who are running a mental heuristic whereby any badly formed anti-Trump argument they hear a lot of will end up counting against Hillary... because people who had a strong case wouldn't be forced to resort to lies or tiresomely repetitive character assassination, right? This is the problem with homo sapiens and modern society; there's too much information and we're hard-wired to seek out and apply social-based mental shortcuts like this to help navigate it.
Systemd does seem broadly similar, and with a similar end result of partisan polarization that torpedoes the apparent global optimum, though there are obviously a ton of other factors in both cases. (Like, I'm pretty sure RHAT gave the signal for full steam ahead in no small part because of the additional power it gives them.) And there may already be some obscure concept and term that perfectly encompasses this particular form of polarization, but the go-to example of Trump's election is still pretty handy.
On that note: Can we call this "Shane's Law"? I only propose it because I'm fairly certain no one is going to remember "ausekilis".
1. Yes, voter turnout in key demographics were low and in many ways that's the story the mainstream media doesn't like dwelling on so much, but that analysis can't end by simply saying "kids were great in 2008 but they're just lazy these days".)
Or just go back to sysvinit. It worked perfectly fine for a long time, and there was no good reason to switch to systemd.
I don't have much firsthand knowledge here but I suspect this is why systemd has seen such widespread adoption despite its warts. If you don't care about dependency management via declarative syntax that's fine, but distro builders probably appreciate it. If you view its ability to babysit processes as un-UNIXy and a slippery slope leading towards a more Windows-like state of affairs, heck I'd largely agree with you there... but once again, this is something distro builders and many other developers are going to quickly become addicted to. If you think virtualization/containerization features are useless, you're living in the stone age.
You greybeards could have halted this thing in its tracks early on by throwing your weight behind an alternative like OpenRC, but instead the majority appeared to adopt this "there is absolutely no reason to care about any systemd feature whatsoever" attitude... so now we're stuck with the bad solution dominating the ecosystem unless and until enough people can throw their weight behind good solutions and play catchup... and yet people like you are still stuck on the "no solution required, damnit!" point of view.
The psychological parallels between the systemd debacle and the Trump debacle are surprisingly deep. Both are cases where the existence of dire flaws in a proposed solution caused the judgment centers in brains of most detractors (or at least the most of the vocal detractors) to short-circuit.
> All money is fake by definition.
That's partially incorrect.
* Hard currencies have an intrinsic value. i.e. Especially the metals.
Except in practice this "intrinsic value" is a laughable myth, especially the metals:
1. Almost all of that "intrinsic" value is due to it being perceived as luxurious. Most people don't even like gold-colored jewelry; so-called "white gold" (i.e. gold that's been adulterated with other metals to hide its real color) is more popular. How is the totally psychological value of "I feel teh warm fuzzies because this ring is REAL!" any more "inherent" than the warm fuzzies you get from knowing you have 20 $100 bills in your pocket?
2. Excepting supply issues, whenever gold skyrockets (usually dragging the other precious metals with it, although they don't always rise as dramatically), it's when all non-precious metals are crashing in value... the same fears that cause people to suspect copper will be worth less tomorrow also cause them to think gold will be worth more. Thus, it should be clear that gold's value as currency is definitely not rooted in its practical or intrinsic worth.
All currencies will take on "artificial" qualities once they become widely accepted as a currency, or even if they are merely thought to be an emergency currency that almost no one currently accepts (gold).
You might have bought it after the change; if I recall correctly, they switched in the 90s. Or maybe not. Borosilicate glass isn't indestructible if you subject it to extreme enough temperature changes, nor is it the absolute best for thermal expansion durability (pure quartz glass is the best, but isn't commonly available in consumer grade stuff.)
I doubt Pyrex is dead (from a financial standpoint); it still has generic trademark effect for a lot of people, and as I recall they still do produce some borosilicate stuff for laboratory use (i.e. for people who are informed enough to not be fooled by the brand name alone.)
Have you listened to a pair of 901s made in the 80s? Bose used to make quality gear. Somewhere in the late 90s things took a sharp turn for the worse.
Doesn't terribly surprise me. If true, that's a bit like Pyrex; once you discover you have by far the biggest name recognition (or in fact possibly the only company with significant brand name recognition amongst the general public), the most obvious course of action if you're looking to make a quick buck is to dilute the quality of your product and/or raise the price.
The situation with Pyrex was especially bad because it was basically (but not legally) a genericized trademark. No one wanted to walk around saying "borosilicate glass" once Pyrex switched to soda-lime, so Pyrex got to keep selling "heat-resistant" glass to the ignorant masses who were conditioned to think of Pyrex as being synonymous with heat resistance, even though their products were no longer any different from their cheaper competitors.
Is this because Bose have just discovered that half-deaf people won't notice how terrible their gear is?
Of course, the irony is that many audiophiles who pooh-pooh Bose often end up caught up in an even more expensive snake oil trap. But yeah, Bose is basically the Apple of the audio world.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised Apple has made no move to buy them out. "Macbook: The only laptop with Bose speakers!"... it pretty much sells itself.
They might have to remove the space bar or something to make room for it, though.
1) I said nothing about Bush Jr. What does he even have to do with the conversation?
Because your entire thesis was about Rs vs. Ds and you used the 2008 financial crisis as an example. If you cannot see how Bush Jr's decision to sign into law a 12 figure stimulus package (one that saw broad R support and saw virtually no criticism either at the time or years later, unlike the second stimulus package that Obama signed) is relevant to your ridiculous claim that Ds can get away with spending sprees with euphemisms while Rs get called on it...
2) You understand that not everyone worships at the Holy Altar of Keynes, right? 'Broken Windows' is bullshit of the highest order, a perfect credo to justify politicians spending money on their pet projects.
Re-read #2. I already explained why your own opinion of Keynesian economics is irrelevant to my point and indeed to your original point. Your claim was about Rs vs. Ds, and that's what I was responding do. I've heard libertarians (Ron Paul specifically) disparage Keynesian economics, but that isn't part of the regular R platform that I'm aware of.
3) If you think Fed policy isn't guided by the general policies who sits in the Oval Office, you're kidding yourself. You know who appoints the Fed, right?
George W. Bush appointed Bernake, a Republican. In 2008, while Bush was still in office, the Fed (under Bernake) executed QE1, which was the largest of the QEs. This was also when the term "Quantitative Easing" was widely popularized (though not coined.) It's true that later on, Obama re-appointed Bernake and the Fed conducted two other QEs. Obama is, of course, a centrist technocrat who repeatedly and naively sought to build bridges by appointing or nominating moderate Republicans to various positions.
But if you're tempted to quibble that point, please go back and read the bold part a couple times first, then re-read your original post. Don't you think it's the tiniest bit misleading to blame Ds for either the name "Quantitative Easing" or the action itself?
But a Democrat president can spend like there's no tomorrow and it gets names like "stimulus spending" or "quantitative easing".
No double standard, certainly.
Haven't the Democrats told us since 2008 that the ONLY way out of a recession is to spend money the government doesn't have?
Um, no. That's bullshit. In no particular order:
1. George W. Bush passed multi-billion dollar stimuluses on his watch as well. The crisis unfolded in the summer of 2008, remember.
2. In the face of a major downturn, "spending your way out" is the ONLY reliable way to ameliorate it, at least temporarily. You could argue this is just kicking the can down the road, but Democrats did not invert Keynesian economics, nor is it a major part of their platform, nor is the Republican platform particularly against it. (On the topic of fiscal responsibility, most of the time they appear to be stuck in the old, rather incoherent anti-Communist propaganda modes. I doubt the majority of them have ever used the word "Keynesian".)
3. Quantitative Easing:...you do realize that the Federal Reserve of the United States of America answers to neither Congress nor the President, right? They can do whatever the hell they want and no one can veto it. They were the ones responsible for the QEs, and they were run by a Republican during all three QEs.
As far as Telsa goes, yes I had looked into their battery contributions and they do not appear to be using anything particularly special (yet), just some variant of regular consumer grade lithium stuff. If you've evidence that they are developing, promoting or are heavily lobbying governments to help fund next-gen battery tech (efforts that are on par with Musk's ridiculous hyperloop hijinks and lofty SpaceX claims), I'd be happy to issue a brief apology. Otherwise, pretty sure my point stands. I have a ~45 second Google limit for testing the bullshit that random ACs spout and I didn't see anything particularly interesting.
I never claimed to be versed in battery research, nor did I make any specific claims, Mr. Anonymous Coward, regarding the eventual nature of the tech itself; I merely covered the likely outcomes of a revolution in cost and/or performance. Specific battery technologies, which doexist, were mentioned only offhand as possibilities.
Keep working on your reading comprehension skills. Adult illiteracy is no joke.
The downside is a much smaller coverage area.... It's a potentially very expensive endeavor,
Yeah, that's a world-changer right there.
You'll forgive me, but as someone who has taken a closer look at the hyperloop long ago (before thunderf00t did his underrated take down), random expensive-sounding Musk pipe dreams don't really stir me unless some extremely compelling details are provided. The man has been tilting at technological windmills for years and years instead of pursuing things that are actually achievable and really would change the world.
Tesla's efforts are a slight exception here, I mean obviously they've helped generate some of that momentum that someone is eventually going cash in on to help get next gen battery tech[1] off of the ground, but it could happen a lot sooner if Musk could put away his toys for a moment and spend his interviews trying to sensationalize (in an entirely plausible manner) the effect that cheap, durable, high-capacity batteries will have on the world. Instead, Musk is caught up in the dream of and/or is cashing in on this retro-futurist "where are my flying cars and moon colonies" type of frustration, instead of actually leading revolutions that will have a massive impact. Not could, will.
The effect on cars alone is a massive game-changer, but it's not just cars: off the grid homes will become much more doable, drones will be cheaper and be able to fly farther, tether-free robots will become more and more attractive, Apple will be able to make some ridiculous phone that's 1.3mm thick, etc.
1. Very possibly just some form of nanotech manufacturing added to existing chemical designs to increase durability and density. Nanotech fabrication is one obvious area that benefits from trailblazing and front-loaded investment, with lower costs usually becoming possible down the road once demand is high enough.
There are also intriguing side avenues that, while possibly pipe dreams, would at least be semi-plausible pipe dreams that really do have a non-zero chance of profoundly changing the world. (By this I mean super-capacitors or cheap molten salt batteries. For transportation applications, I've long been curious about the possibilities of molten salt electric-external combustion engine hybrid. The heat generation mechanism would thus have a dual purpose, and both electric and ECEs are high-torque so neither should require an expensive and fragile transmission to function.)
>SpaceX isn't revolutionary; it's just the chorus of NASA's swan song.
Really? Landing a first stage back on its tail during a COMMERCIAL, FULLY PAID FOR LAUNCH IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL.
I meant technologically revolutionary.
Being a market revolutionary doesn't excite me all that much, particularly since there is a very hard floor on how low they can drive the prices. Space travel was expensive and niche in the 20th century and it's going to remain expensive and niche in the 21st century. I'm glad it's still being done, and by an American company no less, but seriously... meh. 99% of their customers are going to be people who want satellites launched or perhaps governments who want to launch astronauts. The other 1% will be multi-millionaire tourists who want to experience space. The safety concerns and engineering challenges will, as always, prevent space travel from being a commonplace or cheap thing. (Unless SpaceX has been secretly working on a carbon nanotube space elevator or a space gun or some other non-rocket technology.)
Isn't this pretty much how things were 10+ years ago? How is this a change from the status quo?
Musk - Focusing on clean energy, cleaner transportation, and space travel (that isn't so clean), but finding ways to make peoples lives better and push society to the future without it trying to wait for the other companies to change what they are doing only when they find out it is too late.
+5 Insightful... christ, really? The hyperloop is a bad joke that has zero potential to be revolutionary or cost-effective in the forms it's currently proposed[1]. It's just diverting funds that could be spent on a worthier cause and (ultimately) breaking the hearts of millions of starry-eyed geeks. SpaceX isn't revolutionary; it's just the chorus of NASA's swan song.
That leaves only Tesla which, yeah, has done some good stuff and has produced a fair number of interesting things, but right now they're far from the most important players on the scene. They're still a luxury car company, first and foremost. The real potential revolution is in the batteries and in the low end car market. Once battery tech gets good enough, electric cars have the potential to be cheaper and much more durable than ICEs, but from what I've seen Tesla has yet to lead this charge.
They should be buying up patents and building partnerships and lobbying governments for assistance to lay the groundwork for next-gen batteries that are both more powerful/durable and yet only cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. From there, the world pretty much should beat a path to the door of not just Tesla, but every single EV company out there.
EVs are the future, not merely because of the possibility of rising gasoline prices or global warming but because ICEs are such dirty, heavy, complicated, and ultimately fragile pieces of crap. Tesla might be helping us leisurely saunter towards that future, but only as a minor side-effect of their main business strategy of building fun toys for the upper and upper-middle class.
1. It's only 2x faster than maglev, the proposed route is too short to make a big difference, the extra engineering challenges regarding the 1/1000 atmosphere vacuum and the ultra high RPM jet engine on the nose of the thing are handwaved away whist simultaneously claiming it's somehow going to cheaper than maglev (how in the hell is it going to be cheaper with a much more expensive track and a jet engine tacked onto the nose? And that's not even touching the cheaper per-passenger argument), and the security and safety concerns are ominous indeed... and are almost certain to obliterate any advantage in cost, public enthusiasm, or travel time that it might otherwise somehow retain.
Please. The difference is that hundreds of millions of mainstream Muslims (very possibly even the majority) believe in the doctrine of abrogation because without it, they would be left with even more contradictions in their perfect book.
It's also worth noting that Christians never had such a tool beyond the occasional weak and wishywashy appeal to the fact that Jesus' covenant superseded what the Jews had with Moses... but that left open the question of whether anything from the old testament was still valid (including the ten commandments and the extra-strong condemnation of things like homosexuality), so in the end each contradiction had to be individually tackled and the arbitrariness of this endeavor is one of the things that allowed so much innovation (something that is considered a major sin in Islam) and heterodoxy in interpretation with few rational or literary tools available to those who wanted to intellectually argue theirs was the one true way.
But that wasn't even your point, was it? You were comparing Muslims who believe in abrogation of verses to Christians who believe that rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists, i.e. comparing the beliefs of a tiny sliver of a minority (discounting perhaps one or two African hellholes) compared to a mainstream belief held by hundreds of millions of Muslims.
For your own sanity and for the cause I assume you champion, I recommend you be a little less lazy or hyperbolic in your comparisons. The world already has quite enough people saying that Christianity and Islam are, at this exact point in time, basically the same and certainly equally dangerous, and this laughable attitude has already done untold damage to almost every single western democracy, particularly in the form of the right-wing reaction against it.
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit. A mere 20 years ago, police would show up to a house where husband was beating wife and basically tell them to keep it down and move along.
Ehhh... pretty sure that's not true (though there will always be isolated cases.) Severe domestic violence has been punished for hundreds of years in most western societies (although, as Othello demonstrates, society at large didn't always frown on it) and I'm guessing even mild domestic violence probably wasn't officially tolerated post-WWII... but I wasn't talking about law. And neither was the OP.
I was responding to the OP's claims about "morality", specifically intending to allude to the moral assertion that women should obey their husbands and the things that came out of that assertion, including tacit acceptance (regardless of legality) of mild 'corrective' violence.
It varied a lot by geography and subculture, though. The issues surrounding rape and sexual honor were more widespread.
Preserving and defending honor and valuing virginity were real fucking things. I've seen color film of places in Europe where an ostensibly bloodied sheet was hung outside the window to prove the new wife was a virgin on her wedding night. This probably wasn't a widespread practice; it was a hick thing to do, surely, but it indicates a wider ideal that was prevalent for millennia beforehand.
The only people who think otherwise are brainwashed feminists who've never read a history book.
I push back against non-egalitarian feminism all the time and I'm a huge defender of western culture, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate this historical revisionism.
Defending western culture, to me, means pushing back against the reactionary conservative blowhards like the OP who pretend we've hugely regressed.
The only people who think otherwise are brainwashed feminists who've never read a history book.
What kind of history books do you read? A few generations ago, virginity was very much valued and rapists were despised in part because of the damage they did (virgin or otherwise) to a woman's honor.
Have you literally never heard a single story about a woman committing suicide rather than suffer the dishonor of being raped? Hell, it happened multiple times just a few years ago with young Yazidi girls. Fortunately, our culture has managed to at least partially outgrow this attitude.
Congrats on the gratuitous Trump and Farage name drops. That just tips off everyone that you are a cretin.
Wow, and you don't even understand the point of those name drops, do you? I mention it precisely because (despite what the hysterical regressive left wants you do believe), those two people did NOT build their careers or platforms on religious and social conservative ideas. I'm pointing out that the OP's arguments are dying out even among the right.
(Trump's anti-abortion stuff being a slight exception here, but there is plenty of room for reasonable people to have secular and rational debates on that issue.)
Didn't need to read farther than that.
A fantastic summary of the current state of the right in this country. Willful ignorance has (sort of) saved the establishment right this election cycle, but it isn't going to last you people much longer.
Both sides succumb to snowflake syndrome, just on different issues. Claiming that the electoral college can't exercise the rights it was explicitly given, and that the man who lost the popular vote should be voted for or else "civil war", because you think he's entitled to something he didn't yet win (either in spirit or by the rules of the game), is no less self-entitled than the worst SJW twaddle.
Incidentally, I was against Hillary as well and repeatedly spoke out against them both this election. This isn't about me wanting her to win; it's about D cowardice on one side, with astonishingly childish and ignorant R whining on the other side about how the EC does, and is supposed to, work.
Given the popularity of cheating by members of either sex, I'd say the penis bone isn't the only thing we've lost. Morality and Monogamy have pretty much gone by the wayside. The divorce rate tends to speak volumes as well.
Blah blah blah, yeah things are so much worse than the days when being raped was considered utterly shameful by mainstream society and being moral meant opposing things like miscegenation or smacking your wife a bit if she got a bit too uppity.
This is why the more reactionary and religious flavors of conservatism have fallen by the wayside in favor of guys like Trump or Farage. I'm not on board with the self-flagellating left, and if you want to argue that society needs improving you'll get very little argument from most reasonable people of the left or right, but there is no golden age of morality in America that's significantly better than what we have now.
Those instructions have no weight on the federal level*
Besides, twenty-one states have no restrictions whatsoever, which is probably enough to swing it. I'm not going to look it up and add it all up just to confirm for some random slashdotter because, like I said, this is an exercise in intellectual honesty and snowflake-proclivity, i.e. if you're going to insist "rules are rules and we're a union of states and not individuals" do you ACTUALLY mean that?
And so far your responses seem to indicate that you don't really mean it, and you're just on board with anything that means your side has already legitimately won under all conceivable contingencies.
given the attitudes towards violence and weapons prevailing among them.
It's a much-overlooked fact that the incredibly left-leaning pussies at university include most of the experts on bomb-making and chemical weapon making.
That aside, meh. I know where my Kalashnikov is.
Earth to Shane_Optima: the fat lady has sung :
Not legally binding. Someone with a user ID as low as yours should be able to recall Gore retracting his initial concession in 2000.
Wow! Still stuck on denial? That's unhealthy, man. Most of your kind are well into the the depression stage already... MoveOn, so to speak.
I suffer no illusions about what is likely to happen. The Ds are cowards as always, unable/unwilling to consider any strategy other than "let's keep giving the Rs as much rope as possible and hope they hang themselves."
The point, sunshine, isn't that I so, so want to see a Hillary become president. It's that these self-entitled snowflake Trump supporters want to support the quirks of the EC only when it suits them, and scream civil fucking war if it's pointed out that the EC has other quirks too that could, at least in theory, result in the person who won popular vote by millions actually winning the presidency as well.
This isn't about prognostication or false hope; it's about intellectual honesty. If the EC actually did their job, people like the OP would characterize it as "stealing the election", even though Trump would've lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote and the EC would've done exactly what they were meant to do.
Bring it on. If the special snowflakes on the right are going to be smug assholes about insisting that the electoral college is perfectly fine and legitimate as-is (and the popular vote is therefore irrelevant), then we should make every effort to remind them that Trump hasn't legally won a goddamn thing yet and it is not only legal but entirely proper (or else why are they even there?) for the electoral college to veto an asshole like Trump, particularly when another candidate scored millions more votes.
Don't like it? Speak up and help abolish the electoral college then. Want to start a literal civil war about it? Bring it on, you whining, hypocritical snowflake bastards. You may be startled to find out how many blue-tinged citizens own guns, too.
But I highly doubt it'll come to that. A few towns in Bumfuck, TX will do some dumb symbolic shit for a few months until they get tired of it, and then that will be that. The fact that another candidate won the popular vote, and they're cynically trying to leverage technicalities to ignore that fact, will rather undercut any broader resistance from breaking out. The situation only needs to be articulated clearly for people to realize how dumb the argument is:
"They're stealing the election from Trump! The American people voted for Trump, not Clinton!"
"Uh, no they didn't. Clinton got millions more votes than Trump."
"But that's not what counts! Only electoral college votes count!"
"Right you are. And the electors just voted for.... Clinton. So, Clinton won the popular vote and then she won the electoral college vote. So, she has won the presidency. What's the problem here?"
"But the news said Trump won!"
"'Fake news'. They don't know what they're talking about. They shouldn't have pretended it was over with."
"Trump won all those states though!"
"Says who? You (and the media) are just making stuff up. The electors didn't cast their ballots on November 8th. When it comes time for them to vote, the electors aren't constrained at all in twenty-one states, nor is there any mechanism at the federal level to prevent people from changing their mind in the other states."
"But that's dumb! That's outrageous! Trump won!"
"No he didn't. He lost literally every single vote that counted."
"But he..."
"No, he didn't. Here, let me explain to you what the constitution says..."
And then suddenly *everyone* is on board with federal electoral college reform / abolition. I don't say this is a very likely scenario, but it would be highly desirable and worth risking a few riots for.
The way things stand right now is just sickening, with people claiming that the EC isn't in need of reform whilst ignoring the very purpose it was created for and the powers it was explicitly intended to have, and the cowardly Ds just bowing down and accepting it, playing the same losing strategy of giving the Rs everything they want and wagering on cleaning up after they make a hash out of everything.
You are calling Trump unfit â" what do you call yourself? He won â" fair and square. Suck it up, cupcakes...
Ignorant self-serving rubbish. He hasn't won a goddamn thing yet.
You want to worship the electoral college as some perfect institution that doesn't need reform, you have to worship the ENTIRE thing, which means that electors in 21 states are completely free to vote for whomever they please with no penalty whatsoever and electors in the other states are still free (as far as the federal government is concerned, which is the only one that counts when we're discussing legitimacy here) to write whatever they want to on that piece of paper and face up to the state-level consequences.
You want to get technical here, that's fine: Trump hasn't win a goddamn thing yet. And, although it's extremely unlikely, the electors are entirely free to vote for Clinton or some other person if they so choose.
Don't like it? Then you should be in favor of electoral college reform. But as things currently stand, it would be just as "fair and square" if the electors do the 'unthinkable' and vote in Clinton.
Its better to stay employed and do what you can from the inside.
If the institution has turned against what you believe is right, then the odds of making any positive change "from the inside" are extremely low.
That seems excessively pessimistic given they may only need to fight this fight for 4 years. That's not a very long time to "accidentally" forget to delete important data when ordered to, slow down work output and otherwise subtly oppose destructive changes, etc.
I almost forgot: I'm also talking about Hillary's decisions here as much as anything else. Her response to the whole thing was "I'ma just gonna stand here and keep acting 'normal' and maybe toss in a few more halfhearted platform changes that no one believes. Trump is 'unfit for president', therefore the argument is won, therefore I shouldn't do anything interesting at all to un-win that argument. People will come around."
Which I think corresponds pretty well with the "Systemd is horrible because of foo and bar; therefore, we should keep using sysvinit until the end of time" folks.
The psychological parallels between the systemd debacle and the Trump debacle are surprisingly deep. Both are cases where the existence of dire flaws in a proposed solution caused the judgment centers in brains of most detractors (or at least the most of the vocal detractors) to short-circuit.
Wait, is this some sort of 2016 version of Godwin's law?
It's through the inaction of the influential masses that a poor decision has been made and now the community suffers. This is opposite of the Tragedy of the Commons, instead of the selfish actions of a few to the detriment of all, we have the inaction of a few to the detriment of all.
But this is about a lot more than mere inaction[1]. The effects I'm getting at here were much more noticeable among the passionate than the apathetic. The existence of what appear to be clinching arguments and what should've been deal-killing obnoxiousnesses actually prevented many (probably most) emotionally invested anti-Trump folks from thinking clearly or acting rationally about nearly any argument related to the candidates.
People have called Trump's tactics 'trolling' but it's not as simple as that. It's a lot more like... well, 'flamebait'. Which is a distinction I'm not sure I fully understood until just this moment. Get the opposition screaming regularly about the less-than-bullseye points and you poach a lot of the less emotionally invested fence-sitters who are running a mental heuristic whereby any badly formed anti-Trump argument they hear a lot of will end up counting against Hillary... because people who had a strong case wouldn't be forced to resort to lies or tiresomely repetitive character assassination, right? This is the problem with homo sapiens and modern society; there's too much information and we're hard-wired to seek out and apply social-based mental shortcuts like this to help navigate it.
Systemd does seem broadly similar, and with a similar end result of partisan polarization that torpedoes the apparent global optimum, though there are obviously a ton of other factors in both cases. (Like, I'm pretty sure RHAT gave the signal for full steam ahead in no small part because of the additional power it gives them.) And there may already be some obscure concept and term that perfectly encompasses this particular form of polarization, but the go-to example of Trump's election is still pretty handy.
On that note: Can we call this "Shane's Law"? I only propose it because I'm fairly certain no one is going to remember "ausekilis".
1. Yes, voter turnout in key demographics were low and in many ways that's the story the mainstream media doesn't like dwelling on so much, but that analysis can't end by simply saying "kids were great in 2008 but they're just lazy these days".)
Or just go back to sysvinit. It worked perfectly fine for a long time, and there was no good reason to switch to systemd.
I don't have much firsthand knowledge here but I suspect this is why systemd has seen such widespread adoption despite its warts. If you don't care about dependency management via declarative syntax that's fine, but distro builders probably appreciate it. If you view its ability to babysit processes as un-UNIXy and a slippery slope leading towards a more Windows-like state of affairs, heck I'd largely agree with you there... but once again, this is something distro builders and many other developers are going to quickly become addicted to. If you think virtualization/containerization features are useless, you're living in the stone age.
You greybeards could have halted this thing in its tracks early on by throwing your weight behind an alternative like OpenRC, but instead the majority appeared to adopt this "there is absolutely no reason to care about any systemd feature whatsoever" attitude... so now we're stuck with the bad solution dominating the ecosystem unless and until enough people can throw their weight behind good solutions and play catchup... and yet people like you are still stuck on the "no solution required, damnit!" point of view.
The psychological parallels between the systemd debacle and the Trump debacle are surprisingly deep. Both are cases where the existence of dire flaws in a proposed solution caused the judgment centers in brains of most detractors (or at least the most of the vocal detractors) to short-circuit.
> All money is fake by definition. That's partially incorrect. * Hard currencies have an intrinsic value. i.e. Especially the metals.
Except in practice this "intrinsic value" is a laughable myth, especially the metals:
1. Almost all of that "intrinsic" value is due to it being perceived as luxurious. Most people don't even like gold-colored jewelry; so-called "white gold" (i.e. gold that's been adulterated with other metals to hide its real color) is more popular. How is the totally psychological value of "I feel teh warm fuzzies because this ring is REAL!" any more "inherent" than the warm fuzzies you get from knowing you have 20 $100 bills in your pocket?
2. Excepting supply issues, whenever gold skyrockets (usually dragging the other precious metals with it, although they don't always rise as dramatically), it's when all non-precious metals are crashing in value... the same fears that cause people to suspect copper will be worth less tomorrow also cause them to think gold will be worth more. Thus, it should be clear that gold's value as currency is definitely not rooted in its practical or intrinsic worth.
All currencies will take on "artificial" qualities once they become widely accepted as a currency, or even if they are merely thought to be an emergency currency that almost no one currently accepts (gold).
You might have bought it after the change; if I recall correctly, they switched in the 90s. Or maybe not. Borosilicate glass isn't indestructible if you subject it to extreme enough temperature changes, nor is it the absolute best for thermal expansion durability (pure quartz glass is the best, but isn't commonly available in consumer grade stuff.)
I doubt Pyrex is dead (from a financial standpoint); it still has generic trademark effect for a lot of people, and as I recall they still do produce some borosilicate stuff for laboratory use (i.e. for people who are informed enough to not be fooled by the brand name alone.)
Have you listened to a pair of 901s made in the 80s? Bose used to make quality gear. Somewhere in the late 90s things took a sharp turn for the worse.
Doesn't terribly surprise me. If true, that's a bit like Pyrex; once you discover you have by far the biggest name recognition (or in fact possibly the only company with significant brand name recognition amongst the general public), the most obvious course of action if you're looking to make a quick buck is to dilute the quality of your product and/or raise the price.
The situation with Pyrex was especially bad because it was basically (but not legally) a genericized trademark. No one wanted to walk around saying "borosilicate glass" once Pyrex switched to soda-lime, so Pyrex got to keep selling "heat-resistant" glass to the ignorant masses who were conditioned to think of Pyrex as being synonymous with heat resistance, even though their products were no longer any different from their cheaper competitors.
Is this because Bose have just discovered that half-deaf people won't notice how terrible their gear is?
Of course, the irony is that many audiophiles who pooh-pooh Bose often end up caught up in an even more expensive snake oil trap. But yeah, Bose is basically the Apple of the audio world.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised Apple has made no move to buy them out. "Macbook: The only laptop with Bose speakers!"... it pretty much sells itself.
They might have to remove the space bar or something to make room for it, though.
1) I said nothing about Bush Jr. What does he even have to do with the conversation?
Because your entire thesis was about Rs vs. Ds and you used the 2008 financial crisis as an example. If you cannot see how Bush Jr's decision to sign into law a 12 figure stimulus package (one that saw broad R support and saw virtually no criticism either at the time or years later, unlike the second stimulus package that Obama signed) is relevant to your ridiculous claim that Ds can get away with spending sprees with euphemisms while Rs get called on it...
2) You understand that not everyone worships at the Holy Altar of Keynes, right? 'Broken Windows' is bullshit of the highest order, a perfect credo to justify politicians spending money on their pet projects.
Re-read #2. I already explained why your own opinion of Keynesian economics is irrelevant to my point and indeed to your original point. Your claim was about Rs vs. Ds, and that's what I was responding do. I've heard libertarians (Ron Paul specifically) disparage Keynesian economics, but that isn't part of the regular R platform that I'm aware of.
3) If you think Fed policy isn't guided by the general policies who sits in the Oval Office, you're kidding yourself. You know who appoints the Fed, right?
George W. Bush appointed Bernake, a Republican. In 2008, while Bush was still in office, the Fed (under Bernake) executed QE1, which was the largest of the QEs. This was also when the term "Quantitative Easing" was widely popularized (though not coined.) It's true that later on, Obama re-appointed Bernake and the Fed conducted two other QEs. Obama is, of course, a centrist technocrat who repeatedly and naively sought to build bridges by appointing or nominating moderate Republicans to various positions.
But if you're tempted to quibble that point, please go back and read the bold part a couple times first, then re-read your original post. Don't you think it's the tiniest bit misleading to blame Ds for either the name "Quantitative Easing" or the action itself?
When Trump talks about spending, it's a "binge".
But a Democrat president can spend like there's no tomorrow and it gets names like "stimulus spending" or "quantitative easing".
No double standard, certainly.
Haven't the Democrats told us since 2008 that the ONLY way out of a recession is to spend money the government doesn't have?
Um, no. That's bullshit. In no particular order:
...you do realize that the Federal Reserve of the United States of America answers to neither Congress nor the President, right? They can do whatever the hell they want and no one can veto it. They were the ones responsible for the QEs, and they were run by a Republican during all three QEs.
1. George W. Bush passed multi-billion dollar stimuluses on his watch as well. The crisis unfolded in the summer of 2008, remember.
2. In the face of a major downturn, "spending your way out" is the ONLY reliable way to ameliorate it, at least temporarily. You could argue this is just kicking the can down the road, but Democrats did not invert Keynesian economics, nor is it a major part of their platform, nor is the Republican platform particularly against it. (On the topic of fiscal responsibility, most of the time they appear to be stuck in the old, rather incoherent anti-Communist propaganda modes. I doubt the majority of them have ever used the word "Keynesian".)
3. Quantitative Easing:
Nice try.
Also.
As far as Telsa goes, yes I had looked into their battery contributions and they do not appear to be using anything particularly special (yet), just some variant of regular consumer grade lithium stuff. If you've evidence that they are developing, promoting or are heavily lobbying governments to help fund next-gen battery tech (efforts that are on par with Musk's ridiculous hyperloop hijinks and lofty SpaceX claims), I'd be happy to issue a brief apology. Otherwise, pretty sure my point stands. I have a ~45 second Google limit for testing the bullshit that random ACs spout and I didn't see anything particularly interesting.
I never claimed to be versed in battery research, nor did I make any specific claims, Mr. Anonymous Coward, regarding the eventual nature of the tech itself; I merely covered the likely outcomes of a revolution in cost and/or performance. Specific battery technologies, which do exist, were mentioned only offhand as possibilities.
Keep working on your reading comprehension skills. Adult illiteracy is no joke.
The downside is a much smaller coverage area. ... It's a potentially very expensive endeavor,
Yeah, that's a world-changer right there.
You'll forgive me, but as someone who has taken a closer look at the hyperloop long ago (before thunderf00t did his underrated take down), random expensive-sounding Musk pipe dreams don't really stir me unless some extremely compelling details are provided. The man has been tilting at technological windmills for years and years instead of pursuing things that are actually achievable and really would change the world.
Tesla's efforts are a slight exception here, I mean obviously they've helped generate some of that momentum that someone is eventually going cash in on to help get next gen battery tech[1] off of the ground, but it could happen a lot sooner if Musk could put away his toys for a moment and spend his interviews trying to sensationalize (in an entirely plausible manner) the effect that cheap, durable, high-capacity batteries will have on the world. Instead, Musk is caught up in the dream of and/or is cashing in on this retro-futurist "where are my flying cars and moon colonies" type of frustration, instead of actually leading revolutions that will have a massive impact. Not could, will.
The effect on cars alone is a massive game-changer, but it's not just cars: off the grid homes will become much more doable, drones will be cheaper and be able to fly farther, tether-free robots will become more and more attractive, Apple will be able to make some ridiculous phone that's 1.3mm thick, etc.
1. Very possibly just some form of nanotech manufacturing added to existing chemical designs to increase durability and density. Nanotech fabrication is one obvious area that benefits from trailblazing and front-loaded investment, with lower costs usually becoming possible down the road once demand is high enough.
There are also intriguing side avenues that, while possibly pipe dreams, would at least be semi-plausible pipe dreams that really do have a non-zero chance of profoundly changing the world. (By this I mean super-capacitors or cheap molten salt batteries. For transportation applications, I've long been curious about the possibilities of molten salt electric-external combustion engine hybrid. The heat generation mechanism would thus have a dual purpose, and both electric and ECEs are high-torque so neither should require an expensive and fragile transmission to function.)
>SpaceX isn't revolutionary; it's just the chorus of NASA's swan song. Really? Landing a first stage back on its tail during a COMMERCIAL, FULLY PAID FOR LAUNCH IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL.
I meant technologically revolutionary.
Being a market revolutionary doesn't excite me all that much, particularly since there is a very hard floor on how low they can drive the prices. Space travel was expensive and niche in the 20th century and it's going to remain expensive and niche in the 21st century. I'm glad it's still being done, and by an American company no less, but seriously... meh. 99% of their customers are going to be people who want satellites launched or perhaps governments who want to launch astronauts. The other 1% will be multi-millionaire tourists who want to experience space. The safety concerns and engineering challenges will, as always, prevent space travel from being a commonplace or cheap thing. (Unless SpaceX has been secretly working on a carbon nanotube space elevator or a space gun or some other non-rocket technology.)
Isn't this pretty much how things were 10+ years ago? How is this a change from the status quo?
Musk - Focusing on clean energy, cleaner transportation, and space travel (that isn't so clean), but finding ways to make peoples lives better and push society to the future without it trying to wait for the other companies to change what they are doing only when they find out it is too late.
+5 Insightful... christ, really? The hyperloop is a bad joke that has zero potential to be revolutionary or cost-effective in the forms it's currently proposed[1]. It's just diverting funds that could be spent on a worthier cause and (ultimately) breaking the hearts of millions of starry-eyed geeks. SpaceX isn't revolutionary; it's just the chorus of NASA's swan song.
That leaves only Tesla which, yeah, has done some good stuff and has produced a fair number of interesting things, but right now they're far from the most important players on the scene. They're still a luxury car company, first and foremost. The real potential revolution is in the batteries and in the low end car market. Once battery tech gets good enough, electric cars have the potential to be cheaper and much more durable than ICEs, but from what I've seen Tesla has yet to lead this charge.
They should be buying up patents and building partnerships and lobbying governments for assistance to lay the groundwork for next-gen batteries that are both more powerful/durable and yet only cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. From there, the world pretty much should beat a path to the door of not just Tesla, but every single EV company out there.
EVs are the future, not merely because of the possibility of rising gasoline prices or global warming but because ICEs are such dirty, heavy, complicated, and ultimately fragile pieces of crap. Tesla might be helping us leisurely saunter towards that future, but only as a minor side-effect of their main business strategy of building fun toys for the upper and upper-middle class.
1. It's only 2x faster than maglev, the proposed route is too short to make a big difference, the extra engineering challenges regarding the 1/1000 atmosphere vacuum and the ultra high RPM jet engine on the nose of the thing are handwaved away whist simultaneously claiming it's somehow going to cheaper than maglev (how in the hell is it going to be cheaper with a much more expensive track and a jet engine tacked onto the nose? And that's not even touching the cheaper per-passenger argument), and the security and safety concerns are ominous indeed... and are almost certain to obliterate any advantage in cost, public enthusiasm, or travel time that it might otherwise somehow retain.
Oh, I do understand. I understand you're as full of it as someone saying Christians believe in rape victims being forced to marry their rapists, "because the Bible says so".
Please. The difference is that hundreds of millions of mainstream Muslims (very possibly even the majority) believe in the doctrine of abrogation because without it, they would be left with even more contradictions in their perfect book.
It's also worth noting that Christians never had such a tool beyond the occasional weak and wishywashy appeal to the fact that Jesus' covenant superseded what the Jews had with Moses... but that left open the question of whether anything from the old testament was still valid (including the ten commandments and the extra-strong condemnation of things like homosexuality), so in the end each contradiction had to be individually tackled and the arbitrariness of this endeavor is one of the things that allowed so much innovation (something that is considered a major sin in Islam) and heterodoxy in interpretation with few rational or literary tools available to those who wanted to intellectually argue theirs was the one true way.
But that wasn't even your point, was it? You were comparing Muslims who believe in abrogation of verses to Christians who believe that rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists, i.e. comparing the beliefs of a tiny sliver of a minority (discounting perhaps one or two African hellholes) compared to a mainstream belief held by hundreds of millions of Muslims.
For your own sanity and for the cause I assume you champion, I recommend you be a little less lazy or hyperbolic in your comparisons. The world already has quite enough people saying that Christianity and Islam are, at this exact point in time, basically the same and certainly equally dangerous, and this laughable attitude has already done untold damage to almost every single western democracy, particularly in the form of the right-wing reaction against it.