Yes, to be fair, they should have provided links to your full statement. Sadly, Slashdot and its editors are usually not fair, especially when they're not particularly concerned with a story.
That doesn't change the fact that I wholeheartedly disagree with you and am ashamed to hold views even remotely similar to yours, but I *do* believe you got shafted on this story.
Here's my response, having read as much of your actual statement that I could stomach:
If you won't bother to read the whole thing, then how the hell do you pretend to know what he's saying?
I did read it. Figure of speech to express contempt. I will refrain from engaging in the same behavior with you, despite the fact that this *is* Slashdot and you appear to have forgotten that fact or have chosen to disregard it and apply a standard of behavior that is not part of expected or even accepted discourse (see below).
You're an idiot.
Ad hominem. Try again.
Figure of speech, once again to express contempt. If you would like to enforce rules of rigorous debate I assure you I can hold my own in that arena. However, seeing as how this is Slashdot and not a high school debate team I choose not to hold myself to those standards because, quite frankly, I have things to do and this person doesn't deserve the constant self-candor and reexamination adherence to strict debate rules, if done properly, demands.
You're blaming a tool
Straw man. Where does he say Linux is to blame? Or are you just assuming it's in the part of his statement that you didn't bother to read?
"The U.S. Marines are doing it now. And Linux is their little helper."
Blaming Linux, using a standard epithet for collaboration, for participation in the "atrocities."
"I once had high hopes for Linux. I felt sure it could make a real contribution to the success of humanity, now more and more I have my doubts. I have a real and growing fear that if the Mr. Smith's of Linux have their way, in the future they will look back and say "Wasn't it nice that so many smart people worked to hard for free to forge their own chains.""
Blaming the tool for the consequence of (supposedly) less freedom.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you say he's mischaracterizing "the brave men and women of the US armed forces", so I'll just leave it alone and assume it's about as accurate as the rest of your post.
"Sniping experts - there are several here with the Marines - say there may not have been such a 'target-rich' battlefield since the World War II battle for Stalingrad." LA Times again. So if from behind the riflescope Fallouja looks like Stalingrad while the Nazi's lay siege to it, who does that make the U.S. Marine look like that uses the sniper rifle?
"21 year old Marine says of Fallouja "It's a sniper's dream." LA. Times again.
Despicable, just despicable!"
Mischaracterizing armed forces personnel as indiscriminate killers, which is both the denotation and connotation of the preceding words, is offensive to me.
"The Iraqi's who killed and those that mutilated are two separate groups. The four mercenaries were killed by resistance fighters and left on the field. Others mutilated the bodies. Not that anything can justify such behavior, but it could be more easily understood had the press reported on the massacre of 15 Iraqis by the new sheriff in town, the U.S. Marines, on that very same street the week before.
The Marines say they just want a handful of 'bad guys' and for this so far they have killed over 600 people including at least 46 children under 5 . But wait. The real slaughter has not yet begun."
Suggesting that the Marines are engaging of slaughter of Iraqis to support the "rule by terror" he introduces above this paragraph. Again, offensive, and, again, supportive of my contention that he is mischaracterizing the United States Armed Forces.
I read. I responded. You've failed to convince me that I was wrong. He is still an idiot, and I am ashamed to share similar viewpoints on the war with him merely because of the pain of association.
No, but he still has a good point. Denmark's laws are much looser than in, say, Germany, but Germany's bigger. Therefore, Germany's prudishness and lack of respect for freedom of speech and freedom of association end up adversely affecting him. Unfortunately, the EU has no interest in increasing the freedoms afforded to the citizens of its member countries; therefore, Denmark will continue to suffer.
The joys of capitalism. Oh, well... it beats the alternatives.
The difference is none. Europe is "protecting" children and young people- censoring what they are allowed to be exposed to. More importantly, because the censorship is applied to all retailers, it affects what adults can be exposed to as well. The appropriateness of the censorship can be debated all you want, but it is *still censorship*.
I can import Japanese tentacle porn, but by no means does that mean that censorship isn't going on- it just means that the censorship has a "outlet" wherein domestic producers aren't allowed to produce a certain work, but if it comes from overseas, it's just fine and dandy. (Yes, tentacle porn can be produced in the U.S. In fact, pretty much anything can be produced in the U.S. We don't have censorship on the order of the European countries. It is being used to illustrate a point.)
By the way, your obviously trolling and irrelevant crap about the Patriot Act isn't appreciated. Yeah, the USAPATRIOT Act was a POS. But Patriot Act II has not been passed- elements were just incorporated into an intelligence bill, and whatever anti-American biases exist in your mind, it isn't as bad as the Fascists, who raped, pillaged, shut people away in labor camps, and led them to their death simply because they looked different. If you're going to flame away about absolutely irrelevant American politics, know what you're talking about, mmkay?
Here's my response, having read as much of your actual statement that I could stomach:
You're an idiot. An absolute, flaming loony that makes the entire anti-war crowd look bad. You're blaming a tool, specifically designed so that *anyone* can use it, for being used by the military, which, last I checked, is part of anyone. Linux is like uranium- it can be used for great good (nuclear power) or great evil (nuclear destruction). Is anyone attacking God for making uranium? Nobody sane. Is anybody attacking the makers of Linux for making Linux? Nobody sane. You, however, are.
Whatever the injustices the American military is inflicting on Iraq (and you grossly mischaracterize the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces, misused though they may be), that doesn't excuse your childish transference of hostility onto the tools they use. Hell, those tools may be saving the lives of Iraqis- if Linux is being used in targeting or information gathering software, it might have prevented bombs from hitting civilian areas or prevented troops from mistakenly attacking a school.
Quite honestly, I would urge you to shut the *fuck* up. You merely make it easier for those of us who have actually bothered to *think* about this matter to be mischaracterized as sharing the preteen geopolitical beliefs of people like you./not intended for flaming
See, now, from the context, I'm not quite sure whether you're suggesting that it's unfortunate that Columbia broke up, or that none of the Texans/New Mexicans got hurt.
Try telling that one to Billy Jean down the road; he'll beat your ass so quick..
Mozilla works fine for me. I'd recommend considering using Mozilla 1.7beta (faster than ever) or Firefox for OSX for at least part of your surfing schedule.
That's the problem with Escape from Monkey Island (which I've tried to sweat through but am finding to be boring and ugly as sin). LucasArts went for the gee-whiz factor, and lost the funny, as well as the expressiveness of the characters.
My favorite, so far, is definitely the Discworld adventure game. Expressive characters, clever dialogue, a substantial world, and interesting puzzles combined to make it a heck of a lot of fun. Wouldn't work in 3D. Escape from Monkey Island definitely didn't.
Unforgivable? Iesu Christo, that was the worst part of the book! I mean, yes, continuity and all... but it was more boring even than the appendices, and has caused far, far too many people to put down LotR before having a chance to truly appreciate the otherwise magnificent book.
Modern readers, as a whole, find the whole Tom Bombadil scene painful to read; it would have translated horribly to screen, if at all.
Homophobia unacceptable? You obviously haven't heard of the Savage Nation (finally cancelled when he told a gay caller to get AIDS and die, the fscking bastard), Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or the Christian Coalition, or of the huge numbers of followers these people have. It is even enshrined in the military and its legal system (don't ask, don't tell notwithstanding).
At Waco and Ruby Ridge, the people involved were dealing with armed individuals who were committing crimes. At Waco, especially, they were dealing with armed individuals with a martyrdom complex, holding women and children hostage. I hardly think either of those actions counts as "Nazi" behavior.
A similar example is during this administration. Federal agents stormed a Neo-Nazi stronghold, whose owner was armed with in excess of a hundred guns (I actually believe the total was a thousand, but since I'm too tired to pull up the source I'll underestimate) and millions of rounds of ammunition. They had made similar threats against the government. In this case, since only a few of the members were there and not armed at that moment, there was no bloodshed. (Incidentally, they also found a sodium cyanide bombs... the first WMDs we've found. Well, in Texas... but they're still WMDs!). It was hardly Nazistic to go after those weapons.
As for not hearing of anyone being called unpatriotic, your sample size is pretty small then. For opposing the war in central Florida, I was threatened, called a terrorist, and excoriated in public. I was definitely called unpatriotic. I have heard similar stories from elsewhere in the United States. Heck, look no further than Fox News, or the recent RNC ads.
Even on college campuses you hear the "p-word" thrown around. My collge (NYU) has become steadily more conservative over the last few years, despite its reputation as a conservative haven. Disregarding the personal behavior of the college Republicans (which is offensive and downright rude; shoving people on the street for getting in their way, pushing people off elevators, that sort of thing), the college Republicans have chosen to attack the still mostly liberal/independent crowd for not supporting the war, calling them "unpatriotic" and "in league with the terrorists."
Your personal experiences don't encompass people being called unpatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war. Mine do, and I'm really bloody sick of it.
Re:Sadly, universities have the least free speech.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
He's a conservative idiot and deserves to be laughed at, mocked, and excoriated for the stupidity his positions entail, but I've seen no evidence that he's racist, Nazi, or fascist. Of course, you might just be saying that it's wrong to accuse him of being so... but if you are then I'm going to call you out on it.
Furthermore, pointing out that not all Democrats were informed enough to realize that Iraq probably didn't have weapons of mass destruction, or suggesting that maybe both parties agreed that there was a threat (and quoting the most stupid of the Democrats to point that out, but that's another story) is hardly detestible. It's shallow, ill-thought out, and (as we learned with the centrifuge and mobile bio-weapons story) wildly inaccurate opinion, but it's hardly detestible. Being conservative isn't detestible. It's just cold, unsympathetic, shallow, and misinformed.
If you were to provide one of that guy's posts that said "kill all j00z!!11!!" or "blacks are violent criminals and slavery should be brought back" or even "slavery was good for the slaves," I'd agree with you on the labels you applied. However, by applying the labels you did and saying what you did, you came uncomfortably close to proving his point.
In order to properly attack, you have to understand. The process of understanding involves considering, as well. Or perhaps I'm just speaking too much from my own experience.
I will, then, correct and say that I've also known liberals who have read Limbaugh's works and have considered them... and promptly (and properly) rejected them.
Funny, I've yet to meet a single teacher that did that, and I've had maybe four conservative teachers out of dozens. I found those four were most likely to censor speech they disagreed with. Hell, I wrote a four-page diatribe against the U.N. and my teacher who wore an "I love Kofi Annan" pin gave me an A+ on it. Perhaps it's because of my small sample size... or maybe it's because LIBERAL PHILOSOPHIES DEMAND FREE SPEECH!
Whenever I hear "Liberals are against free speech," I'm reminded of the fact that the ACLU often (much to its distaste) collaborates with the ACLJ to defend churches against encroachment by the government, or that it was the ACLU that defended the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie despite the public relations disaster. And really... is there a greater liberal icon than the ACLU?
Actually, I've known a number of liberals that have bought Rush Limbaugh's books in order to understand him and attack him with intelligence. I haven't- I tend to be more likely to read his website- but I've known a goodly number who have.
Conversely, however, I have not yet met or read one conservative who has actually read Al Franken's books (plural; he's written several). Most instantly blast him as "unfunny" or "stupid" or "unpatriotic" and refuse to have anything to do with his intellectual property.
It might be, perhaps, because the liberal philosophies (aside from some of the "politically correct" zealots) inherently demand open-mindedness and understanding the other side. Conservative philosophies, however, often demand no such thing- or actively promote banning opposing viewpoints. Of course, that's just a thought; perhaps there are conservatives I have not met that have read Franken and still oppose his book.
True debaters- those who wish to appeal to the intellect of their listeners/opponents rather than base emotions- will usually attempt to understand the other side's philosophy before they attack it. I propose that although the Internet has a polarizing nature, it has had an equally *de*polarizing nature, by increasing the number of people interested in debate and also those who are interested in intellectually-motivated debate.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I concluded nothing. I'm not the parent of your post. I need defend nothing.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Having read both "The New Thought Police" and "The War Against Boys," I can say they're both completely full of crap. After having read "The War Against Boys," I had a professor whom Sommers attacked. I then proceeded to read her works. Sommers misquoted and outright lied about that professor (Carol Gilligan), her views, and her works. "The New Thought Police" did the same to others. Sommers has been a liar and a scare-monger since day one, and I have no respect for her.
"Blacks are more racist than whites." I'd say they're about equal. As often as I hear an African-American complain about racism and discrimination I hear complaints from white people about "those damn n-(you fill in the rest)" and "reverse racism" and "favoritism."
"Homosexuality is not normal." I may personally agree that it's a sin, etc., but that's neither here nor there. If you don't want to be a homosexual, don't screw other men. If you do, go do so.
"Kids are best parented by a mom and a dad" (spelling corrected for your convenience)- I've known plenty of people who have been raised by homosexual parents who have turned out just fine. I've known a buttload of kids raised by people with views similar to yours (and some similar to mine) who have grown up to be drug-abusers, malingerers, rapists, and now President of the United States. Quite honestly, as long as the parents love the child, I couldn't give a crap about what gender the parents have.
"Tolerance means tolerate." A good point. Just because I respect your right to be an asshole and would defend you vigorously against any attempt to jail you or ban you doesn't mean I have to think you're right.
"Prayer in schools is harmless." No, it isn't. I don't want to be told by "God-fearing Americans" how to worship, and I *don't* want my kids to have to violate one of the most central tenets of Jesus' teachings by praying in public. Being told to pray, or even blindly accepting it, is an insult to them and an insult to my right not to have government touch my religion. You want your kids to pray in school, send them to a private school and leave the rest of us be.
"The Democratic party hates blacks." Where you get off on this fantasy is completely lost on me. It would be equally stupid to say that the Republicans are also inherently racist. Insensitive, cold, anti-American and corruptors of Christianity, sure. But, except for a few bungholes, not racist.
"Black is not a racial slur." It can be, depending on the circumstances. Too bad you think African-American is offensive; I'm very sorry for you. As another poster has pointed out, African modifies American. Trying to enforce "African-American" is stupid, but so is suggesting that "African-American" is "anti-American" or whatever the heck you're trying to get at.
"Read 'The New Thought Police.'" Read it. Full of crap. Next?
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
"anti-semitism"
Great label. You might also want to try "racist," or "fascistic," or any other combination of labels. Or, seeing as how you didn't even bother thinking about what you wrote, you might want to try "ill-informed" or "something I disagree with."
I am sick and tired of hearing "anti-semitism" applied to anything even remotely having to do with Israel. Stormfront.org is anti-semitic. Fascists are (usually) anti-semitic. Neo-Nazis are always anti-semitic. Louis Farrakhan is anti-semitic. The people who say 1 |-|4+3 j00z!!!!!11!!! are stupid and anti-semitic. Suggesting that Israel might have had something to do with 9/11, while an idea that I find somewhat stupid and at best ill-informed, is *not* anti-semitic.
If you're going to use labels, be damned sure you're justified in using them.
We do pregenerated characters, or have a pre-game session with character set-up if they have a strong idea in mind and it's compatible.
The thing with GURPS is it's a system, not a book- if you know the system you can pretty much play it by ear. The books are there to help you if you need it, but otherwise the books are best in helping you fill out the holes in your scenario.
With the 3rd edition rules, when in salesman mode my SJGames representative friend points to GURPS Lite, which is a quick-and-dirty version of the system fully compatible with the full 3rd edition. He then says, "All you need to run or understand a game in its most basic form is here. Pretty simple, huh? The books add more detail, more ideas, and more options; however, they're not absolutely necessary to play the game. They're useful, so we really recommend it- any game with the sourcebook will be more complete."
GURPS demos introduce the setting and an example of the general feel of the game. The system takes so little time to explain that the rest just comes quick.
It isn't. A partner and I are writing two new GURPS books due out at the end of 2004; the system is flexible and good for people who have never played an RPG before. I mean, you roll 3 dice, for chrissakes.
At the gaming cons, GURPS dominates, even moreso than D&D. If you'd like to challenge that, bear in mind that I've demoed at four different conventions since August; I'm not an SJGames representative, so my viewpoint isn't biased. I'm just stating a fact: GURPS is ruling at cons.
Yes, D&D will always have a leg up. However, GURPS has not failed by any means.
I count myself as a geek. I tried Linux for a while, and then went back.
For the majority of home users that use dialup, Linux is SOL right from the start. I cannot tell you how many times I tried to get Linux to work with low-cost ISPs- never managed to do it. Didn't work with Sprint DSL either.
Linux is also sorely lacking in game support. WINE is crap, WineX costs extra money and supports most games poorly, and even the games that run natively on Linux run poorly.
KDE is slow, buggy, and kludgy, and doesn't play nicely with Gnome. X Windows is great for serving desktops across a network- horrible for trying to get your @#$!ing video card to work at the resolution you want it to work at.
I may- *may* try Linux again soon. But for PC gamers and for dialup users- huge populations-, Linux isn't ready for the desktop.
I was referring to the more sophisticated guns and sniper rifles. As for the SAMs, I've actually seen some portable SAMs in Florida, and I'm *not* talking about the ones protecting the Lockheed Martin facilities. There are some people who believe they have the right to own them, and have procured them...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, to be fair, they should have provided links to your full statement. Sadly, Slashdot and its editors are usually not fair, especially when they're not particularly concerned with a story.
That doesn't change the fact that I wholeheartedly disagree with you and am ashamed to hold views even remotely similar to yours, but I *do* believe you got shafted on this story.
Here's my response, having read as much of your actual statement that I could stomach:
If you won't bother to read the whole thing, then how the hell do you pretend to know what he's saying?
I did read it. Figure of speech to express contempt. I will refrain from engaging in the same behavior with you, despite the fact that this *is* Slashdot and you appear to have forgotten that fact or have chosen to disregard it and apply a standard of behavior that is not part of expected or even accepted discourse (see below).
You're an idiot.
Ad hominem. Try again.
Figure of speech, once again to express contempt. If you would like to enforce rules of rigorous debate I assure you I can hold my own in that arena. However, seeing as how this is Slashdot and not a high school debate team I choose not to hold myself to those standards because, quite frankly, I have things to do and this person doesn't deserve the constant self-candor and reexamination adherence to strict debate rules, if done properly, demands.
You're blaming a tool
Straw man. Where does he say Linux is to blame? Or are you just assuming it's in the part of his statement that you didn't bother to read?
"The U.S. Marines are doing it now. And Linux is their little helper."
Blaming Linux, using a standard epithet for collaboration, for participation in the "atrocities."
"I once had high hopes for Linux. I felt sure it could make a real contribution to the success of humanity, now more and more I have my doubts. I have a real and growing fear that if the Mr. Smith's of Linux have their way, in the future they will look back and say "Wasn't it nice that so many smart people worked to hard for free to forge their own chains.""
Blaming the tool for the consequence of (supposedly) less freedom.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you say he's mischaracterizing "the brave men and women of the US armed forces", so I'll just leave it alone and assume it's about as accurate as the rest of your post.
"Sniping experts - there are several here with the Marines - say there may not have been such a 'target-rich' battlefield since the World War II battle for Stalingrad." LA Times again. So if from behind the riflescope Fallouja looks like Stalingrad while the Nazi's lay siege to it, who does that make the U.S. Marine look like that uses the sniper rifle?
"21 year old Marine says of Fallouja "It's a sniper's dream." LA. Times again.
Despicable, just despicable!"
Mischaracterizing armed forces personnel as indiscriminate killers, which is both the denotation and connotation of the preceding words, is offensive to me.
"The Iraqi's who killed and those that mutilated are two separate groups. The four mercenaries were killed by resistance fighters and left on the field. Others mutilated the bodies. Not that anything can justify such behavior, but it could be more easily understood had the press reported on the massacre of 15 Iraqis by the new sheriff in town, the U.S. Marines, on that very same street the week before.
The Marines say they just want a handful of 'bad guys' and for this so far they have killed over 600 people including at least 46 children under 5 . But wait. The real slaughter has not yet begun."
Suggesting that the Marines are engaging of slaughter of Iraqis to support the "rule by terror" he introduces above this paragraph. Again, offensive, and, again, supportive of my contention that he is mischaracterizing the United States Armed Forces.
I read. I responded. You've failed to convince me that I was wrong. He is still an idiot, and I am ashamed to share similar viewpoints on the war with him merely because of the pain of association.
No, but he still has a good point. Denmark's laws are much looser than in, say, Germany, but Germany's bigger. Therefore, Germany's prudishness and lack of respect for freedom of speech and freedom of association end up adversely affecting him. Unfortunately, the EU has no interest in increasing the freedoms afforded to the citizens of its member countries; therefore, Denmark will continue to suffer.
The joys of capitalism. Oh, well... it beats the alternatives.
The difference is none. Europe is "protecting" children and young people- censoring what they are allowed to be exposed to. More importantly, because the censorship is applied to all retailers, it affects what adults can be exposed to as well. The appropriateness of the censorship can be debated all you want, but it is *still censorship*.
I can import Japanese tentacle porn, but by no means does that mean that censorship isn't going on- it just means that the censorship has a "outlet" wherein domestic producers aren't allowed to produce a certain work, but if it comes from overseas, it's just fine and dandy. (Yes, tentacle porn can be produced in the U.S. In fact, pretty much anything can be produced in the U.S. We don't have censorship on the order of the European countries. It is being used to illustrate a point.)
By the way, your obviously trolling and irrelevant crap about the Patriot Act isn't appreciated. Yeah, the USAPATRIOT Act was a POS. But Patriot Act II has not been passed- elements were just incorporated into an intelligence bill, and whatever anti-American biases exist in your mind, it isn't as bad as the Fascists, who raped, pillaged, shut people away in labor camps, and led them to their death simply because they looked different. If you're going to flame away about absolutely irrelevant American politics, know what you're talking about, mmkay?
Here's my response, having read as much of your actual statement that I could stomach:
/not intended for flaming
You're an idiot. An absolute, flaming loony that makes the entire anti-war crowd look bad. You're blaming a tool, specifically designed so that *anyone* can use it, for being used by the military, which, last I checked, is part of anyone. Linux is like uranium- it can be used for great good (nuclear power) or great evil (nuclear destruction). Is anyone attacking God for making uranium? Nobody sane. Is anybody attacking the makers of Linux for making Linux? Nobody sane. You, however, are.
Whatever the injustices the American military is inflicting on Iraq (and you grossly mischaracterize the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces, misused though they may be), that doesn't excuse your childish transference of hostility onto the tools they use. Hell, those tools may be saving the lives of Iraqis- if Linux is being used in targeting or information gathering software, it might have prevented bombs from hitting civilian areas or prevented troops from mistakenly attacking a school.
Quite honestly, I would urge you to shut the *fuck* up. You merely make it easier for those of us who have actually bothered to *think* about this matter to be mischaracterized as sharing the preteen geopolitical beliefs of people like you.
Eh, it was really good dialogue, but the actual battle was far from awe-inspiring. I have to say, though, that's one of my favorite episodes.
Try telling that one to Billy Jean down the road; he'll beat your ass so quick..
Mozilla works fine for me. I'd recommend considering using Mozilla 1.7beta (faster than ever) or Firefox for OSX for at least part of your surfing schedule.
That's the problem with Escape from Monkey Island (which I've tried to sweat through but am finding to be boring and ugly as sin). LucasArts went for the gee-whiz factor, and lost the funny, as well as the expressiveness of the characters.
My favorite, so far, is definitely the Discworld adventure game. Expressive characters, clever dialogue, a substantial world, and interesting puzzles combined to make it a heck of a lot of fun. Wouldn't work in 3D. Escape from Monkey Island definitely didn't.
http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com
It's pretty much just Jeff Vogel, with some beta testers and occasionally an artist.
The games are some of the most entertaining I've ever played.
Unforgivable? Iesu Christo, that was the worst part of the book! I mean, yes, continuity and all... but it was more boring even than the appendices, and has caused far, far too many people to put down LotR before having a chance to truly appreciate the otherwise magnificent book.
Modern readers, as a whole, find the whole Tom Bombadil scene painful to read; it would have translated horribly to screen, if at all.
Homophobia unacceptable? You obviously haven't heard of the Savage Nation (finally cancelled when he told a gay caller to get AIDS and die, the fscking bastard), Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or the Christian Coalition, or of the huge numbers of followers these people have. It is even enshrined in the military and its legal system (don't ask, don't tell notwithstanding).
No, homophobia is still alive and well.
At Waco and Ruby Ridge, the people involved were dealing with armed individuals who were committing crimes. At Waco, especially, they were dealing with armed individuals with a martyrdom complex, holding women and children hostage. I hardly think either of those actions counts as "Nazi" behavior.
A similar example is during this administration. Federal agents stormed a Neo-Nazi stronghold, whose owner was armed with in excess of a hundred guns (I actually believe the total was a thousand, but since I'm too tired to pull up the source I'll underestimate) and millions of rounds of ammunition. They had made similar threats against the government. In this case, since only a few of the members were there and not armed at that moment, there was no bloodshed. (Incidentally, they also found a sodium cyanide bombs... the first WMDs we've found. Well, in Texas... but they're still WMDs!). It was hardly Nazistic to go after those weapons.
As for not hearing of anyone being called unpatriotic, your sample size is pretty small then. For opposing the war in central Florida, I was threatened, called a terrorist, and excoriated in public. I was definitely called unpatriotic. I have heard similar stories from elsewhere in the United States. Heck, look no further than Fox News, or the recent RNC ads.
Even on college campuses you hear the "p-word" thrown around. My collge (NYU) has become steadily more conservative over the last few years, despite its reputation as a conservative haven. Disregarding the personal behavior of the college Republicans (which is offensive and downright rude; shoving people on the street for getting in their way, pushing people off elevators, that sort of thing), the college Republicans have chosen to attack the still mostly liberal/independent crowd for not supporting the war, calling them "unpatriotic" and "in league with the terrorists."
Your personal experiences don't encompass people being called unpatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war. Mine do, and I'm really bloody sick of it.
He's a conservative idiot and deserves to be laughed at, mocked, and excoriated for the stupidity his positions entail, but I've seen no evidence that he's racist, Nazi, or fascist. Of course, you might just be saying that it's wrong to accuse him of being so... but if you are then I'm going to call you out on it.
Furthermore, pointing out that not all Democrats were informed enough to realize that Iraq probably didn't have weapons of mass destruction, or suggesting that maybe both parties agreed that there was a threat (and quoting the most stupid of the Democrats to point that out, but that's another story) is hardly detestible. It's shallow, ill-thought out, and (as we learned with the centrifuge and mobile bio-weapons story) wildly inaccurate opinion, but it's hardly detestible. Being conservative isn't detestible. It's just cold, unsympathetic, shallow, and misinformed.
If you were to provide one of that guy's posts that said "kill all j00z!!11!!" or "blacks are violent criminals and slavery should be brought back" or even "slavery was good for the slaves," I'd agree with you on the labels you applied. However, by applying the labels you did and saying what you did, you came uncomfortably close to proving his point.
In order to properly attack, you have to understand. The process of understanding involves considering, as well. Or perhaps I'm just speaking too much from my own experience.
I will, then, correct and say that I've also known liberals who have read Limbaugh's works and have considered them... and promptly (and properly) rejected them.
Funny, I've yet to meet a single teacher that did that, and I've had maybe four conservative teachers out of dozens. I found those four were most likely to censor speech they disagreed with. Hell, I wrote a four-page diatribe against the U.N. and my teacher who wore an "I love Kofi Annan" pin gave me an A+ on it. Perhaps it's because of my small sample size... or maybe it's because LIBERAL PHILOSOPHIES DEMAND FREE SPEECH!
Whenever I hear "Liberals are against free speech," I'm reminded of the fact that the ACLU often (much to its distaste) collaborates with the ACLJ to defend churches against encroachment by the government, or that it was the ACLU that defended the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie despite the public relations disaster. And really... is there a greater liberal icon than the ACLU?
Actually, I've known a number of liberals that have bought Rush Limbaugh's books in order to understand him and attack him with intelligence. I haven't- I tend to be more likely to read his website- but I've known a goodly number who have.
Conversely, however, I have not yet met or read one conservative who has actually read Al Franken's books (plural; he's written several). Most instantly blast him as "unfunny" or "stupid" or "unpatriotic" and refuse to have anything to do with his intellectual property.
It might be, perhaps, because the liberal philosophies (aside from some of the "politically correct" zealots) inherently demand open-mindedness and understanding the other side. Conservative philosophies, however, often demand no such thing- or actively promote banning opposing viewpoints. Of course, that's just a thought; perhaps there are conservatives I have not met that have read Franken and still oppose his book.
True debaters- those who wish to appeal to the intellect of their listeners/opponents rather than base emotions- will usually attempt to understand the other side's philosophy before they attack it. I propose that although the Internet has a polarizing nature, it has had an equally *de*polarizing nature, by increasing the number of people interested in debate and also those who are interested in intellectually-motivated debate.
I concluded nothing. I'm not the parent of your post. I need defend nothing.
Having read both "The New Thought Police" and "The War Against Boys," I can say they're both completely full of crap. After having read "The War Against Boys," I had a professor whom Sommers attacked. I then proceeded to read her works. Sommers misquoted and outright lied about that professor (Carol Gilligan), her views, and her works. "The New Thought Police" did the same to others. Sommers has been a liar and a scare-monger since day one, and I have no respect for her.
"Blacks are more racist than whites." I'd say they're about equal. As often as I hear an African-American complain about racism and discrimination I hear complaints from white people about "those damn n-(you fill in the rest)" and "reverse racism" and "favoritism."
"Homosexuality is not normal." I may personally agree that it's a sin, etc., but that's neither here nor there. If you don't want to be a homosexual, don't screw other men. If you do, go do so.
"Kids are best parented by a mom and a dad" (spelling corrected for your convenience)- I've known plenty of people who have been raised by homosexual parents who have turned out just fine. I've known a buttload of kids raised by people with views similar to yours (and some similar to mine) who have grown up to be drug-abusers, malingerers, rapists, and now President of the United States. Quite honestly, as long as the parents love the child, I couldn't give a crap about what gender the parents have.
"Tolerance means tolerate." A good point. Just because I respect your right to be an asshole and would defend you vigorously against any attempt to jail you or ban you doesn't mean I have to think you're right.
"Prayer in schools is harmless." No, it isn't. I don't want to be told by "God-fearing Americans" how to worship, and I *don't* want my kids to have to violate one of the most central tenets of Jesus' teachings by praying in public. Being told to pray, or even blindly accepting it, is an insult to them and an insult to my right not to have government touch my religion. You want your kids to pray in school, send them to a private school and leave the rest of us be.
"The Democratic party hates blacks." Where you get off on this fantasy is completely lost on me. It would be equally stupid to say that the Republicans are also inherently racist. Insensitive, cold, anti-American and corruptors of Christianity, sure. But, except for a few bungholes, not racist.
"Black is not a racial slur." It can be, depending on the circumstances. Too bad you think African-American is offensive; I'm very sorry for you. As another poster has pointed out, African modifies American. Trying to enforce "African-American" is stupid, but so is suggesting that "African-American" is "anti-American" or whatever the heck you're trying to get at.
"Read 'The New Thought Police.'" Read it. Full of crap. Next?
"anti-semitism"
Great label. You might also want to try "racist," or "fascistic," or any other combination of labels. Or, seeing as how you didn't even bother thinking about what you wrote, you might want to try "ill-informed" or "something I disagree with."
I am sick and tired of hearing "anti-semitism" applied to anything even remotely having to do with Israel. Stormfront.org is anti-semitic. Fascists are (usually) anti-semitic. Neo-Nazis are always anti-semitic. Louis Farrakhan is anti-semitic. The people who say 1 |-|4+3 j00z!!!!!11!!! are stupid and anti-semitic. Suggesting that Israel might have had something to do with 9/11, while an idea that I find somewhat stupid and at best ill-informed, is *not* anti-semitic.
If you're going to use labels, be damned sure you're justified in using them.
We do pregenerated characters, or have a pre-game session with character set-up if they have a strong idea in mind and it's compatible.
The thing with GURPS is it's a system, not a book- if you know the system you can pretty much play it by ear. The books are there to help you if you need it, but otherwise the books are best in helping you fill out the holes in your scenario.
With the 3rd edition rules, when in salesman mode my SJGames representative friend points to GURPS Lite, which is a quick-and-dirty version of the system fully compatible with the full 3rd edition. He then says, "All you need to run or understand a game in its most basic form is here. Pretty simple, huh? The books add more detail, more ideas, and more options; however, they're not absolutely necessary to play the game. They're useful, so we really recommend it- any game with the sourcebook will be more complete."
GURPS demos introduce the setting and an example of the general feel of the game. The system takes so little time to explain that the rest just comes quick.
It isn't. A partner and I are writing two new GURPS books due out at the end of 2004; the system is flexible and good for people who have never played an RPG before. I mean, you roll 3 dice, for chrissakes.
At the gaming cons, GURPS dominates, even moreso than D&D. If you'd like to challenge that, bear in mind that I've demoed at four different conventions since August; I'm not an SJGames representative, so my viewpoint isn't biased. I'm just stating a fact: GURPS is ruling at cons.
Yes, D&D will always have a leg up. However, GURPS has not failed by any means.
What CompUSA do you go to? I'm in Manhattan and haven't found any of these places... 'course, I could just be really, really unlucky.
I count myself as a geek. I tried Linux for a while, and then went back.
For the majority of home users that use dialup, Linux is SOL right from the start. I cannot tell you how many times I tried to get Linux to work with low-cost ISPs- never managed to do it. Didn't work with Sprint DSL either.
Linux is also sorely lacking in game support. WINE is crap, WineX costs extra money and supports most games poorly, and even the games that run natively on Linux run poorly.
KDE is slow, buggy, and kludgy, and doesn't play nicely with Gnome. X Windows is great for serving desktops across a network- horrible for trying to get your @#$!ing video card to work at the resolution you want it to work at.
I may- *may* try Linux again soon. But for PC gamers and for dialup users- huge populations-, Linux isn't ready for the desktop.
I was referring to the more sophisticated guns and sniper rifles. As for the SAMs, I've actually seen some portable SAMs in Florida, and I'm *not* talking about the ones protecting the Lockheed Martin facilities. There are some people who believe they have the right to own them, and have procured them...