Only by skin tone. But their ancestry and shared culture apparently ejects them from the "white race." The White Genocide Conspiracy Theory holds that Jews are trying to eliminate white people by bringing in as many non-white people (apparently also including Caucasian latinos) as possible to outbreed and completely displace White Americans.
Your casual White Genocide believer might just think that it's non-whites taking the place of whites, but the theory has Antisemitism as its core belief.
Trump has done very little to appease the social conservative side of his base.
Not according to social conservatives. Trump has done more for them than any other president in their lifetimes, in the words of Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. Specifically, Trump gets a "mulligan" on his entire pre-Presidential life, as long as he continues to deliver for social conservatives.
Did Trump get the wall? No he didn't, not so far, but he fought for it, and that is what will count for them. He's put a lot of anti-LGBT and anti-abortion people in the HSS and other executive departments, and that also makes them quite happy.
Trump, meanwhile, likes pandering to the evangelical base because they're truthworthy and reliable. They don't blow with the political winds, and that sort of loyalty is pretty important to Donald Trump. While they admit they wouldn't nominate him for pastor and don't consider him a moral leader, it's a marriage of extreme convenience, because he has rewarded their loyalty like no other president in recent memory.
I think there are places where you can have honest, open dialogues with most people: person to person. Not at a rally, not at a big gathering or even a big party. Maybe not even at a bar. Just two people honestly trying to figure each other out. It's a hell of a lot harder to demonize someone in that sort of a setting; you have to really ACTIVELY work at it, while if we don't have that personal contact, it's very easy.
Forget the Internet. The Internet sucks for exchanges of ideas and debates. How optimistic and wrong about it I used to be!
I used to care. The older I got, the more I realized that people WILL believe what they want to believe. They won't be convinced. They will come up with amazing, overcomplicated stories for how their version of reality is actually reality. They will believe that zaniness without proof over a simpler explanation with proof. Because we will believe in the conclusions we want to be true and then work backwards to cherry pick evidence, discount any non-supporting evidence, and engage in personal attacks on anyone who argues differently. I got tired of it. It's too draining. Too few want to honestly exchange ideas. We just want to sit in our tribes.
Well, I don't think we should have mandatory tips, period. A tip should be a tiny bit extra if someone provides exceptional service. It should not be an expected minimum that the restaurant assumes so they can underpay their staff.
It's the idea that people who don't share a particular narrow worldview are programmed bots, regurgitating scripted lines, like non-player characters in video games.
It is also a nice way to dehumanize people who have a different opinion from you, something that is critical if you aren't necessarily interested in a debate and weighing the pros and cons of your position and theirs, but instead want a one-dimensional 'enemy' to fight.
Well that's pretty monstrous. Because what's the solution to "too many people"?
The answer is "lower birth rates." Much lower. Much of that comes naturally as a nation develops. And of course "too many people" is a problem, an obvious one.
Limit agricultural exports and imports.
The only possible goal for this action is to literally starve the people outside our nation. You are a monster.
Yeah, I don't know what that was supposed to solve either, unless his point was that every section of the world should be 100% self-sufficient. Well, there are good swaths of the USA that aren't self-sufficient either.
We need a seventh the global population and we need that as a fixed ceiling.
I hope you're not questing for an Infinity Gauntlet.
Thanos's solution was something of a dumb one. Kill half the population, and they will be at their former population within a generation.
Thanos's solution would have to be run continuously.
Brazil just elected a president who wants to privatize even more of the Amazon, so expect the rate of deforestation there to increase from its current rate of six square miles per day.
I'm not in Brazil, so I don't know this first hand, but I suspect that as with the US, the respectable people wouldn't address things that needed addressing, so the voters went with the unrespectable person.
Cutting down the entire Amazon is one of Jair Bolsonaro's less controversial positions. Other quotes:
(Said to a Congresswoman) "I wouldn't rape you because you don't deserve it."
"I've got five kids but on the fifth I had a moment of weakness and it came out a woman."
"I visited a quilombo (settlement founded by former slaves) and the least heavy afro-descendant weighed seven arrobas (approximately 230 pounds). They do nothing! They are not even good for procreation."
"I would be incapable of loving a homosexual son [... I would rather my son ] died in an accident than showed up with some bloke with a moustache."
"Elections won't change anything in this country. It will only change on the day that we break out in civil war here and do the job that the military regime didn't do: killing 30,000. If some innocent people die, that's fine. In every war, innocent people die."
"the error of the Brazil dictatorship was that it tortured, but did not kill." And, "Pinochet should have killed more Chileans."
On one hand, that is a horrible, cautionary story.
On the other hand, we did get the great propaganda slogan "birds are public animals of capitalism" to motivate people in their anti-sparrow campaign.
Decrease spending and taxes > Increase spending and taxes > Increase spending and decrease taxes.
I guess I can't get decreasing spending and taxes, but at least the Dems want to increase taxes to pay for their stuff. That's a heck of a lot better than issuing a tax refund that's added to the national debt.
But above all, you're missing the larger point, which is that lumping together everyone on the other side of the line, whether they be just a shade over or the most extreme, is a really terrible political strategy (doesn't matter if you lean left or right)
It isn't? It seems like it works really really well.
Getting "your base" really fired up with a good turnout is the key to winning elections these days. Much of the middle is apathetic and doesn't turn out to vote, and people who don't vote at all might as well not exist.
I'm not just being contrary, I actually preferred it when 45 minute stories were the norm. I find myself getting bored with 23 x 45 minute long story arcs. It's too drawn out in most cases.
I can get behind that. It's probably one of the (many) reasons why I couldn't get into many of the anime shows that my friends would be gaga about.
On the other hand, I also tired of the many dramas out there were you could watch the episodes in any order because few things carried over from episode to episode.
I hear what the article brings up every five or ten years or so -- we'll have more truly interactive content, it'll gauge your reactions, it'll be tailored for you. The problem is that leads to experiences that aren't written as well. It's much harder to bring everything together when you have to come up with so many plot possibilities. It will also make productions much, much more expensive.
Remember the movie 1985 movie Clue, which had a different ending depending on which theater you went to? Why didn't that catch on? Is it because they had to make the story as vague and generic enough that it could support all those different endings? Is it because filming those different possibilities ramped up the costs without it actually translating into box office dollars? Was it an experiment that audiences weren't really interested in, because despite the novelty, people want shared, similar experiences? How could they have come up with a sequel? With that many branches of the story, you either have to film many more extensions to each variation of the story, or else those "differences" don't have much impact, letting you collapse all those threads back into one again.
I certainly hope 'good story writing' isn't becoming a thing of the past, because I sure haven't seen much of it lately.
Ah, the folly of nostalgia. The "good writing" of the past was the exception, not the rule. As a general optimistic estimate, "90% of everything is crap." Older things look a little better because most of the bottom 80% has been lost, forgotten, or willfully ignored.
We've been in a "golden age" of storytelling in the TV world for a number of years now. Movies may be bigger, but I attended a talk by Alexander Payne (Oscar-winning writer/director of Sideways, The Descendants, Election) where he said that much of the writing talent had switched from movies to TV, since cable companies were willing to invest in high-quality shows with season-long story arcs, and that lets you tell more varied stories, longer stories, more complex stories that you don't have to boil down into something that starts and ends in 90 minutes. When the Big Three networks controlled the themes and characters of every show that they aired, television was the small screen, considered the lesser arena for lesser players. Now it's the opposite -- Hulu, Netflix, HBO, etc are all creating shows that offer writing freedom (within SOME limits, ha) and more opportunities for character exploration.
I thought the economy was going to collapse under Trump? That was the libtard prediction pre election.
It's probably going to happen, and sooner rather than later. But really, the economic rise didn't have that much to do with the Obama, and there's very little that Trump will be able to do to stave off the eventual fall. Economies rise and fall, and the effect that the President has on them is greatly exaggerated.
Or does it hurt too fucking much that Obama's 8 years of "remaking the US economy (based on dated, stale, and failed 19th century "progressive" redistributionist ideals...)" didn't work?
Trump is benefiting from Obama's economy -- it's not like the economy did a 180 when Trump was elected. We're currently in the longest bull market in US history, starting in 2009. The bull market that Trump derided as being a fraud when he was on the campaign trail, then took credit for when it was convenient for him.
Using a person's likeness in photos or videos without the person's consent should be illegal.
To a certain extent, it is. Little fan works like this might go under the radar, but Lucasfilm, even though they own all the footage of Harrison Ford from the Star Wars days, would need to get permission from Ford to insert him into a new movie, just like they needed from Peter Cushing's estate to get Cushing inserted into Rogue One.
Many of these rules date back to Back to the Future Part II, where test footage of Crispin Glover (George McFly) from the first movie was used along with actor Jeffrey Weissman who used chin, nose, and cheek prosthetics to appear as Glover. Glover sued, and now the SGA has clauses in their contracts forbidding the use of an actor's likeness without permission. That's why when there's an actor replacement for a role, very little effort is done to make the new actor look like the old character. If you make the "new" character look too much like the old one, there can be legal action if this wasn't already worked out with the old actor.
There's nothing snobby about it, and the numbers are fairly plain.
There are always going to be minor variations year to year, usually driven by weather events. A harsh winter or summer in one area means that area is more likely to have a blip increase that year. You need to look at multi-year trends to figure out where things are headed. The EU got a head start on the US; EU emissions have been declining since their high in 1980, but the US's emissions have been increasing year over year during that period until our decline started around 2007(ish?). Our emissions levels since then have declined faster than the EU's, but they had increased for so long, that the US is about at 1995-levels of CO2 emissions, while the EU's have fallen to roughly 1960s levels. But the biggest takeaway is that China's CO2 emissions dwarfs that of the US and EU combined. India has been climbing quickly, yet still not as fast as China has been.
Nope. There's plenty of people that understand climate change is happening are not "far-Left". Or even "left".
Nope, all of them are, what I call "watermelons": green on the outside, red inside.
I mean, is that even possible that people on the right or far-right believe in climate change? Or would you say that climate-change-belief (and thus, believing that something has to be done about it) is fundamentally left / far-left, and the former makes you the latter?
Sure they did. First, no one has the right to graze cattle on federal lands without a permit. You also can't set fires that spread onto federal land, nor can you "light the whole countryside on fire" without a burn permit.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't the Jews themselves... white?
Only by skin tone. But their ancestry and shared culture apparently ejects them from the "white race."
The White Genocide Conspiracy Theory holds that Jews are trying to eliminate white people by bringing in as many non-white people (apparently also including Caucasian latinos) as possible to outbreed and completely displace White Americans.
Your casual White Genocide believer might just think that it's non-whites taking the place of whites, but the theory has Antisemitism as its core belief.
If someone is on the radio or TV and their voice is raised at a higher volume than the average speaking voice, they're not worth listening to.
Trump has done very little to appease the social conservative side of his base.
Not according to social conservatives. Trump has done more for them than any other president in their lifetimes, in the words of Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. Specifically, Trump gets a "mulligan" on his entire pre-Presidential life, as long as he continues to deliver for social conservatives. Did Trump get the wall? No he didn't, not so far, but he fought for it, and that is what will count for them. He's put a lot of anti-LGBT and anti-abortion people in the HSS and other executive departments, and that also makes them quite happy. Trump, meanwhile, likes pandering to the evangelical base because they're truthworthy and reliable. They don't blow with the political winds, and that sort of loyalty is pretty important to Donald Trump. While they admit they wouldn't nominate him for pastor and don't consider him a moral leader, it's a marriage of extreme convenience, because he has rewarded their loyalty like no other president in recent memory.
I think there are places where you can have honest, open dialogues with most people: person to person. Not at a rally, not at a big gathering or even a big party. Maybe not even at a bar. Just two people honestly trying to figure each other out. It's a hell of a lot harder to demonize someone in that sort of a setting; you have to really ACTIVELY work at it, while if we don't have that personal contact, it's very easy. Forget the Internet. The Internet sucks for exchanges of ideas and debates. How optimistic and wrong about it I used to be!
I used to care. The older I got, the more I realized that people WILL believe what they want to believe. They won't be convinced. They will come up with amazing, overcomplicated stories for how their version of reality is actually reality. They will believe that zaniness without proof over a simpler explanation with proof. Because we will believe in the conclusions we want to be true and then work backwards to cherry pick evidence, discount any non-supporting evidence, and engage in personal attacks on anyone who argues differently. I got tired of it. It's too draining. Too few want to honestly exchange ideas. We just want to sit in our tribes.
Well, I don't think we should have mandatory tips, period. A tip should be a tiny bit extra if someone provides exceptional service. It should not be an expected minimum that the restaurant assumes so they can underpay their staff.
It's the idea that people who don't share a particular narrow worldview are programmed bots, regurgitating scripted lines, like non-player characters in video games.
It is also a nice way to dehumanize people who have a different opinion from you, something that is critical if you aren't necessarily interested in a debate and weighing the pros and cons of your position and theirs, but instead want a one-dimensional 'enemy' to fight.
Well that's pretty monstrous. Because what's the solution to "too many people"?
The answer is "lower birth rates." Much lower. Much of that comes naturally as a nation develops. And of course "too many people" is a problem, an obvious one.
Limit agricultural exports and imports.
The only possible goal for this action is to literally starve the people outside our nation. You are a monster.
Yeah, I don't know what that was supposed to solve either, unless his point was that every section of the world should be 100% self-sufficient. Well, there are good swaths of the USA that aren't self-sufficient either.
We need a seventh the global population and we need that as a fixed ceiling.
I hope you're not questing for an Infinity Gauntlet.
Thanos's solution was something of a dumb one. Kill half the population, and they will be at their former population within a generation. Thanos's solution would have to be run continuously.
Brazil just elected a president who wants to privatize even more of the Amazon, so expect the rate of deforestation there to increase from its current rate of six square miles per day.
I'm not in Brazil, so I don't know this first hand, but I suspect that as with the US, the respectable people wouldn't address things that needed addressing, so the voters went with the unrespectable person.
Cutting down the entire Amazon is one of Jair Bolsonaro's less controversial positions. Other quotes:
(Said to a Congresswoman) "I wouldn't rape you because you don't deserve it."
"I've got five kids but on the fifth I had a moment of weakness and it came out a woman."
"I visited a quilombo (settlement founded by former slaves) and the least heavy afro-descendant weighed seven arrobas (approximately 230 pounds). They do nothing! They are not even good for procreation."
"I would be incapable of loving a homosexual son [ ... I would rather my son ] died in an accident than showed up with some bloke with a moustache."
"Elections won't change anything in this country. It will only change on the day that we break out in civil war here and do the job that the military regime didn't do: killing 30,000. If some innocent people die, that's fine. In every war, innocent people die."
"the error of the Brazil dictatorship was that it tortured, but did not kill." And, "Pinochet should have killed more Chileans."
I like good BBQ sauce with my fries. Mmmm.
On one hand, that is a horrible, cautionary story. On the other hand, we did get the great propaganda slogan "birds are public animals of capitalism" to motivate people in their anti-sparrow campaign.
Decrease spending and taxes > Increase spending and taxes > Increase spending and decrease taxes. I guess I can't get decreasing spending and taxes, but at least the Dems want to increase taxes to pay for their stuff. That's a heck of a lot better than issuing a tax refund that's added to the national debt.
But above all, you're missing the larger point, which is that lumping together everyone on the other side of the line, whether they be just a shade over or the most extreme, is a really terrible political strategy (doesn't matter if you lean left or right)
It isn't? It seems like it works really really well. Getting "your base" really fired up with a good turnout is the key to winning elections these days. Much of the middle is apathetic and doesn't turn out to vote, and people who don't vote at all might as well not exist.
Trump isn't smart enough to download malicious aps on his iPhone
Wait.. does getting p0wned only happen to smart people?
I'm not just being contrary, I actually preferred it when 45 minute stories were the norm. I find myself getting bored with 23 x 45 minute long story arcs. It's too drawn out in most cases.
I can get behind that. It's probably one of the (many) reasons why I couldn't get into many of the anime shows that my friends would be gaga about. On the other hand, I also tired of the many dramas out there were you could watch the episodes in any order because few things carried over from episode to episode.
Remember the movie 1985 movie Clue, which had a different ending depending on which theater you went to? Why didn't that catch on? Is it because they had to make the story as vague and generic enough that it could support all those different endings? Is it because filming those different possibilities ramped up the costs without it actually translating into box office dollars? Was it an experiment that audiences weren't really interested in, because despite the novelty, people want shared, similar experiences? How could they have come up with a sequel? With that many branches of the story, you either have to film many more extensions to each variation of the story, or else those "differences" don't have much impact, letting you collapse all those threads back into one again.
I certainly hope 'good story writing' isn't becoming a thing of the past, because I sure haven't seen much of it lately.
Ah, the folly of nostalgia. The "good writing" of the past was the exception, not the rule. As a general optimistic estimate, "90% of everything is crap." Older things look a little better because most of the bottom 80% has been lost, forgotten, or willfully ignored.
We've been in a "golden age" of storytelling in the TV world for a number of years now. Movies may be bigger, but I attended a talk by Alexander Payne (Oscar-winning writer/director of Sideways, The Descendants, Election) where he said that much of the writing talent had switched from movies to TV, since cable companies were willing to invest in high-quality shows with season-long story arcs, and that lets you tell more varied stories, longer stories, more complex stories that you don't have to boil down into something that starts and ends in 90 minutes. When the Big Three networks controlled the themes and characters of every show that they aired, television was the small screen, considered the lesser arena for lesser players. Now it's the opposite -- Hulu, Netflix, HBO, etc are all creating shows that offer writing freedom (within SOME limits, ha) and more opportunities for character exploration.
Seriously, you picked that to fixate on? Get a fix for the autism.
There was nothing else there worth fixating on. It was just trolling from start to finish.
I thought the economy was going to collapse under Trump? That was the libtard prediction pre election.
It's probably going to happen, and sooner rather than later. But really, the economic rise didn't have that much to do with the Obama, and there's very little that Trump will be able to do to stave off the eventual fall. Economies rise and fall, and the effect that the President has on them is greatly exaggerated.
Or does it hurt too fucking much that Obama's 8 years of "remaking the US economy (based on dated, stale, and failed 19th century "progressive" redistributionist ideals...)" didn't work?
Trump is benefiting from Obama's economy -- it's not like the economy did a 180 when Trump was elected. We're currently in the longest bull market in US history, starting in 2009. The bull market that Trump derided as being a fraud when he was on the campaign trail, then took credit for when it was convenient for him.
Using a person's likeness in photos or videos without the person's consent should be illegal.
To a certain extent, it is. Little fan works like this might go under the radar, but Lucasfilm, even though they own all the footage of Harrison Ford from the Star Wars days, would need to get permission from Ford to insert him into a new movie, just like they needed from Peter Cushing's estate to get Cushing inserted into Rogue One.
Many of these rules date back to Back to the Future Part II, where test footage of Crispin Glover (George McFly) from the first movie was used along with actor Jeffrey Weissman who used chin, nose, and cheek prosthetics to appear as Glover. Glover sued, and now the SGA has clauses in their contracts forbidding the use of an actor's likeness without permission. That's why when there's an actor replacement for a role, very little effort is done to make the new actor look like the old character. If you make the "new" character look too much like the old one, there can be legal action if this wasn't already worked out with the old actor.
There's nothing snobby about it, and the numbers are fairly plain. There are always going to be minor variations year to year, usually driven by weather events. A harsh winter or summer in one area means that area is more likely to have a blip increase that year. You need to look at multi-year trends to figure out where things are headed. The EU got a head start on the US; EU emissions have been declining since their high in 1980, but the US's emissions have been increasing year over year during that period until our decline started around 2007(ish?). Our emissions levels since then have declined faster than the EU's, but they had increased for so long, that the US is about at 1995-levels of CO2 emissions, while the EU's have fallen to roughly 1960s levels. But the biggest takeaway is that China's CO2 emissions dwarfs that of the US and EU combined. India has been climbing quickly, yet still not as fast as China has been.
Nope. There's plenty of people that understand climate change is happening are not "far-Left". Or even "left".
Nope, all of them are, what I call "watermelons": green on the outside, red inside.
I mean, is that even possible that people on the right or far-right believe in climate change? Or would you say that climate-change-belief (and thus, believing that something has to be done about it) is fundamentally left / far-left, and the former makes you the latter?
Read the Hammond case. They didn't break the law.
Sure they did. First, no one has the right to graze cattle on federal lands without a permit. You also can't set fires that spread onto federal land, nor can you "light the whole countryside on fire" without a burn permit.