No, and I wasn't under a rock during George W. Bush's administration either. Or Bill Clinton's. Those got progressively nastier with each administration.
You may have been under a rock however, if you think well known celebrities casually mocked Obama's death, or openly talked about burning down the White House, or that tens of thousands of average conservatives took to the streets to protest, march, chant, and in many cases, burn cars and businesses, break windows, and beat people in an anti-Obama berserker rage. Then there's the constant attacks on his family. Previous presidents have all seen a little of that too, but nothing like what the trump family is seeing. OTOH, the mainstream media adored Obama in all it's sycophancy.
Yes, we would have, because since Hillary would have been president, the same Republican-led House and Senate which are running interference for the con artist over the current Russia investigations, would have spared no expense to get to the bottom of what happened. They would have used it to claim her presidency wasn't legitimate or it was tainted, neither of which they are doing now. They would be digging as deep as possible to find every scrap of information regarding Russia's interference, the exact opposite of what they are doing now where many members are saying it's no big deal and the investigations should be dropped.
It was tainted, given the genuine corruption of the DNC in shafting Sanders (that lawsuit is still pending), the immediate resignation of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and the proven collusion with CNN's Donna Brazile.
I'm tired of the exaggerated propaganda that summaries like the one here uses to categorize Podesta's email breach as Russia's hacking the "electoral system". Podesta's emails do not comprise the electoral system. It's perhaps a half-truth if given if a much broader, vague definition of "electoral system", but half-truths are often more devious than outright lies. I'd love to see a solid reliable poll of how many people in the street are actually under the impression that election servers and machines were hacked by Russians to give Trump the edge.
My sentiments exactly. Not crazy about him, didn't vote for him, and hate his insipid tweeting; but OTOH, I've never seen such viciousness and unfounded speculation directed against a political figure ever. Ironically, it almost makes you want to root for the guy just on principle, but like you said, he creates a lot of his own problems too with his big mouth.
I think it comes down to this: Steve thought he was an artist that had to manage science people, while Cook thinks he's a businessman who needs to manage artists.
That does not constitute a "drinking problem". That's fairly controlled, at least, if it's in the evening, like unwinding at the end of the day. Though here in the US, a beer is 12 oz, not 16, so I have less. It's a problem when you can't stop drinking, or always drink to the point of drunkeness and generally become a layabout or spousal abuser, or maybe if you drink during the day or at lunch. I don't know what it is, I don't like to drink during the day, it hits like 5x harder and your day is shot. I don't know how some people do that.
Slashdot isn't (yet) an Alt-right safe space. Head on over to Breitbart if that's what you're looking for.
You Dems should really stop with the silly attempt at turning the tables with the "safe space" thing. It's really lame, unoriginal.. even immature. I don't see the trump supporters or defenders (not necessarily the same group) claiming trauma, or feeling threatened and unsafe by dissenting comments, or needing counseling because someone wrote, "Trump colluded with Russia" somewhere in chalk. The overreaction at Emory was ridiculous. In contrast, had a couple of ISIS supporters run over and killed half a dozen students with a truck in the quad, I suspect they and the faculty would have been only marginally more upset at best. What I see here is normal debate, aback and forth over debated issues and points, questioning of sources, the normal stuff we've always seen. Try something else.
Good catch. And when weasel words aren't enough, they'll just redefine terms after the fact to make them fit their agenda. Example, I've read many opinions that blacks simply cannot be "racist" because racism is defined (?) now as, "racial discrimination or stereotyping exercised or implemented at an institutional level".. i.e. not personal belief or actions. Definitely not what Merriam-Webster says but whatever. So, a black person can, under this new definition, say or do anything against a white person or people and it's "not racist" or hate speech because it's not somehow institutionalized. I've seriously had this argument on Facebook with a few BLM members, and their racist UC professor actually teaches (brainwashes) them this made up crap. It's scary. There are many SJWs out there that don't seek justice, they want revenge.
Indeed? Conservatives generally place blame for crime where it lies; on the criminals. They go too easy on white collar crime, but generally acknowledge victims and perpetrators for what they are and the roles they play. Conversely, liberalism frequently defends violent criminals and twists things to instead portray them as victims, by way of absolving people of personal responsibility (what a concept), and laying blame at the feet of "society", or "Big Pharma", the NRA, "white privilege" (more recently), corporations, and the ever popular "industrial prison complex". They rally for BLM riots, justify the burning of cars, beating of objectors, and destruction of businesses; protest on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, berate and stereotype law enforcement, venerate Che Guevara and Castro, and discount the growing threat of ISIS and Al Queada. However, if the criminal can be identified (whether correctly or incorrectly) as "right wing", then all bets are off; suddenly personal responsibility is a factor again; there's blood in the water and new heights of Godwinism are achieved, though the aforementioned items might share some blame as well (usually the NRA). Overall, in liberalism, the murderer/attacker/thief/burglar/rapist/mugger is rarely to blame for their violent, anti-social behavior. It's everything else that drove them to this. This is why since an early age I could never vote liberal, it's the pretzel logic, the disregard for actual, hurting victims and the bizarre coddling of violent sociopaths, the twisted definition of compassion and skewing of priorities, despite the fact that I agree with them on some of the other issues.
People don't want anything new or different. They want the same over and over again. If there's something unusual they don't know how to categorize and compare it so they reject it.
If it takes more than 5-10 seconds to find out what you get people will skip it because there is just too much out there to spend more time on every single potential piece of entertainment.
I don't think so. I think it's just the studios and writers being lazy and unimaginative, and trying to cash in on baby boomer nostalgia. It's not so much driven by demand right now as it is supply. (Baby boomer nostalgia plays a role in the demand, but I don't think there's as much as the studios would like to believe.)
Agreed, I always just thought of Egyptians as "Mediterranean". Neither African, really (well, technically, they are), but certainly not Caucasian in the traditional sense. Fun(?) anecdote: Ages ago when I was a teenager, I used to work at a local dept store with an exchange student from Egypt. His name was Kamil, but I called him "Camel" now and then just to bust his stones for a laugh. He usually laughed it off but sometime he'd get upset...but he was a good sport and a good guy, so I stopped. I don't think anyone would've confused him for a black guy though. Mulatto, quite possibly, however. Now that I'm older, I wish I had asked him more questions about his country and culture.
Even with facts, extreme bias can be practiced. Telling half-truths is an art form, and most modern news media professionals have perfected it. The ones that actually push outright fabrications (buzzfeed) are not really even trying.
If you're watching an interview of a politician that's true. At the same time though, the anchors and editorialists themselves can subconsciously sway your perspective. Even just the way they phrase their questions sways thought. Journalists Pro topic: "How do you see people responding positively to the changes the president suggested?" Journalist Con topic: "Is this something the people really need to concern themselves about though? What about..." It's also a matter of what questions they **don't** ask, as well as those they do ask, which topics they ignore or omit, and which ones they harp on. In a world of confused people, the half-truth is King.
Wow, it's like you know her. heh Truth is, she's a luddite. Even universal remotes befuddle and frustrate her, it drives me nuts. (I had to plead with her for us to get a flat screen HDTV and her a smart phone. Seriously.) Anyway, a couple of slashdotters have now suggested the HD antenna route, so I think I'll look into that. If I'm not home to help her, our son is, and he's good with tech. As you point out, it's only gonna get worse. Though, I should also add, she bitches about people who put dish antennas on their roof. As if they're any uglier than the old fashioned antenna we used to use! So it's still an uphill battle no matter what I do. (I'll have to pull out the "I'm the breadwinner" card I guess.) I don't mind commercials in broadcast media because that's fair, it's how it's always worked. It just irks me to pay exorbitant amounts for cable and still have commercials on top of that.
Slashdot Mirror
No, and I wasn't under a rock during George W. Bush's administration either. Or Bill Clinton's. Those got progressively nastier with each administration.
You may have been under a rock however, if you think well known celebrities casually mocked Obama's death, or openly talked about burning down the White House, or that tens of thousands of average conservatives took to the streets to protest, march, chant, and in many cases, burn cars and businesses, break windows, and beat people in an anti-Obama berserker rage. Then there's the constant attacks on his family. Previous presidents have all seen a little of that too, but nothing like what the trump family is seeing. OTOH, the mainstream media adored Obama in all it's sycophancy.
What? No, that's not what I said. I have nothing against six packs!
Yes, we would have, because since Hillary would have been president, the same Republican-led House and Senate which are running interference for the con artist over the current Russia investigations, would have spared no expense to get to the bottom of what happened. They would have used it to claim her presidency wasn't legitimate or it was tainted, neither of which they are doing now. They would be digging as deep as possible to find every scrap of information regarding Russia's interference, the exact opposite of what they are doing now where many members are saying it's no big deal and the investigations should be dropped.
It was tainted, given the genuine corruption of the DNC in shafting Sanders (that lawsuit is still pending), the immediate resignation of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and the proven collusion with CNN's Donna Brazile.
I'm tired of the exaggerated propaganda that summaries like the one here uses to categorize Podesta's email breach as Russia's hacking the "electoral system".
Podesta's emails do not comprise the electoral system. It's perhaps a half-truth if given if a much broader, vague definition of "electoral system", but half-truths are often more devious than outright lies.
I'd love to see a solid reliable poll of how many people in the street are actually under the impression that election servers and machines were hacked by Russians to give Trump the edge.
My sentiments exactly. Not crazy about him, didn't vote for him, and hate his insipid tweeting; but OTOH, I've never seen such viciousness and unfounded speculation directed against a political figure ever. Ironically, it almost makes you want to root for the guy just on principle, but like you said, he creates a lot of his own problems too with his big mouth.
And did he not type those on a government laptop?
How is this modded informative? Trump didn't try to "stop the investigation", and Comey testified as such.
I think it comes down to this: Steve thought he was an artist that had to manage science people, while Cook thinks he's a businessman who needs to manage artists.
+ Insightful
Bad equivalence: Wine is approx 3 times stronger than beer.
That does not constitute a "drinking problem". That's fairly controlled, at least, if it's in the evening, like unwinding at the end of the day. Though here in the US, a beer is 12 oz, not 16, so I have less. It's a problem when you can't stop drinking, or always drink to the point of drunkeness and generally become a layabout or spousal abuser, or maybe if you drink during the day or at lunch. I don't know what it is, I don't like to drink during the day, it hits like 5x harder and your day is shot. I don't know how some people do that.
Republicans are generally pro smaller government except when it comes to military. In a post 9-11 world, that balance is all out of whack.
Slashdot isn't (yet) an Alt-right safe space. Head on over to Breitbart if that's what you're looking for.
You Dems should really stop with the silly attempt at turning the tables with the "safe space" thing. It's really lame, unoriginal.. even immature. I don't see the trump supporters or defenders (not necessarily the same group) claiming trauma, or feeling threatened and unsafe by dissenting comments, or needing counseling because someone wrote, "Trump colluded with Russia" somewhere in chalk.
The overreaction at Emory was ridiculous. In contrast, had a couple of ISIS supporters run over and killed half a dozen students with a truck in the quad, I suspect they and the faculty would have been only marginally more upset at best.
What I see here is normal debate, aback and forth over debated issues and points, questioning of sources, the normal stuff we've always seen.
Try something else.
Good catch. And when weasel words aren't enough, they'll just redefine terms after the fact to make them fit their agenda.
Example, I've read many opinions that blacks simply cannot be "racist" because racism is defined (?) now as, "racial discrimination or stereotyping exercised or implemented at an institutional level".. i.e. not personal belief or actions. Definitely not what Merriam-Webster says but whatever.
So, a black person can, under this new definition, say or do anything against a white person or people and it's "not racist" or hate speech because it's not somehow institutionalized.
I've seriously had this argument on Facebook with a few BLM members, and their racist UC professor actually teaches (brainwashes) them this made up crap. It's scary. There are many SJWs out there that don't seek justice, they want revenge.
It was a joke.
Indeed? Conservatives generally place blame for crime where it lies; on the criminals. They go too easy on white collar crime, but generally acknowledge victims and perpetrators for what they are and the roles they play.
Conversely, liberalism frequently defends violent criminals and twists things to instead portray them as victims, by way of absolving people of personal responsibility (what a concept), and laying blame at the feet of "society", or "Big Pharma", the NRA, "white privilege" (more recently), corporations, and the ever popular "industrial prison complex". They rally for BLM riots, justify the burning of cars, beating of objectors, and destruction of businesses; protest on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, berate and stereotype law enforcement, venerate Che Guevara and Castro, and discount the growing threat of ISIS and Al Queada.
However, if the criminal can be identified (whether correctly or incorrectly) as "right wing", then all bets are off; suddenly personal responsibility is a factor again; there's blood in the water and new heights of Godwinism are achieved, though the aforementioned items might share some blame as well (usually the NRA).
Overall, in liberalism, the murderer/attacker/thief/burglar/rapist/mugger is rarely to blame for their violent, anti-social behavior. It's everything else that drove them to this. This is why since an early age I could never vote liberal, it's the pretzel logic, the disregard for actual, hurting victims and the bizarre coddling of violent sociopaths, the twisted definition of compassion and skewing of priorities, despite the fact that I agree with them on some of the other issues.
People don't want anything new or different. They want the same over and over again. If there's something unusual they don't know how to categorize and compare it so they reject it.
If it takes more than 5-10 seconds to find out what you get people will skip it because there is just too much out there to spend more time on every single potential piece of entertainment.
I don't think so. I think it's just the studios and writers being lazy and unimaginative, and trying to cash in on baby boomer nostalgia. It's not so much driven by demand right now as it is supply. (Baby boomer nostalgia plays a role in the demand, but I don't think there's as much as the studios would like to believe.)
Yurt: a Hut made using Yogurt instead of mud. Or at least, that's what I picture when I come across the term.
Bah, it removed my /joking tag.. I didn't think it'd parse!
Besides, the extra fingers growing out of my kneecaps come in handy some days...
Louis Farrakhan will be devastated. Or probably just reject it out of hand.
Agreed, I always just thought of Egyptians as "Mediterranean". Neither African, really (well, technically, they are), but certainly not Caucasian in the traditional sense.
Fun(?) anecdote: Ages ago when I was a teenager, I used to work at a local dept store with an exchange student from Egypt. His name was Kamil, but I called him "Camel" now and then just to bust his stones for a laugh. He usually laughed it off but sometime he'd get upset...but he was a good sport and a good guy, so I stopped. I don't think anyone would've confused him for a black guy though. Mulatto, quite possibly, however. Now that I'm older, I wish I had asked him more questions about his country and culture.
Even with facts, extreme bias can be practiced. Telling half-truths is an art form, and most modern news media professionals have perfected it. The ones that actually push outright fabrications (buzzfeed) are not really even trying.
Reuters doesn't seem too bad either.
If you're watching an interview of a politician that's true.
At the same time though, the anchors and editorialists themselves can subconsciously sway your perspective.
Even just the way they phrase their questions sways thought.
Journalists Pro topic: "How do you see people responding positively to the changes the president suggested?"
Journalist Con topic: "Is this something the people really need to concern themselves about though? What about..."
It's also a matter of what questions they **don't** ask, as well as those they do ask, which topics they ignore or omit, and which ones they harp on.
In a world of confused people, the half-truth is King.
Wow, it's like you know her. heh Truth is, she's a luddite. Even universal remotes befuddle and frustrate her, it drives me nuts. (I had to plead with her for us to get a flat screen HDTV and her a smart phone. Seriously.)
Anyway, a couple of slashdotters have now suggested the HD antenna route, so I think I'll look into that. If I'm not home to help her, our son is, and he's good with tech. As you point out, it's only gonna get worse. Though, I should also add, she bitches about people who put dish antennas on their roof. As if they're any uglier than the old fashioned antenna we used to use! So it's still an uphill battle no matter what I do. (I'll have to pull out the "I'm the breadwinner" card I guess.)
I don't mind commercials in broadcast media because that's fair, it's how it's always worked. It just irks me to pay exorbitant amounts for cable and still have commercials on top of that.