For what it's worth, I don't think that people are necessarily reacting to your not liking it, so much as they are reacting to their sense of rejection. When one enthusiastically declaims their love for a book, and another responds, 'eh, it didn't do it for me', it can be tantamount to saying, 'I do not find worth in the things that you found worth in.'
That is a form of rejection, and when argued over becomes a discussion of values. It is one thing to say that two people don't hold the same values, it is another though when, in the heat of discussion, you feel that the other person not only does not hold your values, but will not see them and find them worthy. I really think that humans are socially dependent creatures and this irritates them far more than they realize or want; implicit or explicit rejection.
Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself religious or secular?
Personally, I liked the Chronicles of Narnia at the time, but as I grew up and understood some of the allegories he was making, I found them to be more and more trite. As an adult you're capable of considering something trite much more easily than if you're a child - children simply don't have the experience and therefore the catalog of stories to check against.
I thought Rowling, though, had an entirely different focus than Lewis. She wasn't interested in the metaphysical, but the physical; hers was far more an existentialist point of view - humans are, therefore humans must be the focus of humans. Their doings and choices were far more important than grand otherworldly forces' desires - Potter was not acting within a divine scheme, but within the motivations and lives of real people. That set apart her story, I think, from Tolkien or Lewis or that 'old school' crowd of British writers. Far more James Joyce, really.
In short, I think the two different stories are going to appeal to different audiences, depending on their personal philosophies and life focus. And if you're not sure it's for you, remember that you don't even have to buy it; libraries still do exist, and still do lend books.
Realize that Harry's parents bought it in 1980, making it 1991 when he first attended Hogwarts - but there is no mention of the fall of the Soviet Union. Few of the 'Muggle World' incidents filtered through to the Wizards, though the parallels between the two are interesting and will no doubt support many future theories.
She actually goes so far as to say that the duel held between Dumbledore and Grindelwald was in 1945. And, of course, the prison to which he was sent was 'Nuremgard', a name not far at all from 'Nuremberg', where the trials were held for that war.
She actually goes into some depth regarding the differing viewpoints on how property is transferred. Simply because Harry chooses to sell a thing does not actually remove the ownership, from the Wizard point of view, from it's true owner; the House of Gryffindor. Griphook may have wanted otherwise, and Potter may have pretended otherwise, but that transaction in no way impacted the deeper purpose the sword had been set to.
You can only really say that Griphook got it fair and square if you assume Harry had true ownership. But clearly Godric had other thoughts, far more potent.
Re:Easiest way of realizing that this kind
on
Hotmail vs Goodmail
·
· Score: 1
Well, at what point do people start saying, "You can't route email packets through this backbone server until you pay the protection fee."?
The difficulty with this mentality is that it suddenly becomes in everyone's interest to charge for everything, and then only the biggest systems get paid, because there is a strong economic interest in grouping up. This sort of concentration of power should be avoided at all costs.
Who are you to tell me what I want to use my email account for? If I want to receive newsletters, are you saying I cannot? The problem is not solved by simply saying, "Oh, no more newsletters."
"I don't care one whit for simplicity on this side of complexity, but would give my life for the simplicity on the far side of complexity."
Remember that if hot fuel is piped into a highly insulated area, it will stay hot. It will not automatically cool to the temperature of the surrounding earth. Also, remember that solids have a high thermal capacity. A cool rock won't heat up very easily because you have to pump a lot of energy into compared to what you'd have to pump into a similar volume of, say, water. But once it's warm it won't cool very easily either, because it has a lot more energy it's holding.
Thus, if you pump hot fuel into an insulated underground tank (likely), it will stay hot, regardless of the surrounding - because it's insulated. But assuming some heat bleed, once that surrounding area is heated, it will stay warm and continue to warm the fuel - probably a good reason to insulate the tank. Finally, are these tanks pressurized? I have to imagine that would also affect things.
Are you claiming that I am NOT the same race as they? If not, then why would you regard anything I say as true?
Alright, step back for a moment and look at this statement. In your first question you ask if I am claiming a thing - what, for now is irrelevant. This thing that you ask if I am claiming I am very clearly not claiming - anywhere. (If you dispute this, quote the relevant passage.) But then you proceed to make a causal link between that claim (that you are not the same race as the Chinese) and the fact that I should therefore regard nothing you say as true. This is a standard logical fallacy; "if a exists then b is possible, therefore if a ever exists b always exists." Your logic here is bad.
If that's the case, then you have no reason to discuss anything with me unless you simply like fighting.
You stated an opinion, which I have every right to challenge. Further, even if the evidence you introduce is wrong, that is an independent thing from the logic you are using to reach your conclusions. I have the right to challenge both your evidence and your arguments. It is not simply a matter of 'lik[ing] [to] fight.' It is a matter of challenging someone who is putting forward a belief I find to be erroneous.
If you can't define racism correctly, then you have no business making such accusations. Racism is the belief in the genetic superiority of one race over another.
Let us consult the American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com:
"1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race."
There is nothing in those definitions that suggest someone of a given race might be prejudiced against that same race. So, point in fact, I don't care if you're Chinese, Japanese, Caucasian, Hispanic or whatever. You made a racist remark.
And what "gross generalizations" about a race did I make?
I refer you to:
"... which they relay to us with pristine accuracy when they're not busy trying to poison our citizens, children, and household pets."
"They" is always a good indicator of a generalization. If you think that you're not generalizing about the Chinese people and/or the Republic of China's government, then please tell me if the U.S. Government is for or against the war in Iraq - without making a generalization.
It becomes 'gross' when you start confusing the topic of 'government' versus 'private interest'. The poisoned food, for instance, was not the result of government involvement - if anything, it was the lack of government oversight that allowed it to happen. It was the actions of a private company that caused the problem. But you lump the private company in with the government - the citizens in with the lawmakers; your result is a gross generalization.
Additionally, are you claiming that "Chinese" is a "race"?
I would not be in error to identify 'Chinese' with an ethnicity. You can certainly be racist against Chinese people and not, say, Japanese people. Or racist against Japanese people and not Chinese people. This happens a great deal in those countries, but also in the U.S. where during WWII we saw a great deal of hatred against Japanese people, but not Chinese people. For the purposes of this conversation I think you're going to have a hard time making the case that I'm misusing the term there.
I thought that the poisoned pet food and poisoned children's toys spoke for themselves, so perhaps the case is that no amount of evidence will convince you.
You cited no evidence that this was done by the Chinese government, much less in any premeditated sense - yet you claimed both. You cite no evidence for any of the assumptions you claim. I am not disputing the events you reference, only disputing your linking of them to p
My criticism was of the Chinese government, not the "Chinese people".
Uh-huh.
And how can it be racist? I am the same race as they are.
Leaving aside the fact that the latter statement is totally unsubstantiated, if you do not understand that any gross generalization based on such factors is racist, you have no business making those remarks.
It's really hard to say. It could be a premeditated campaign, or it could be continued sloppiness and incompetence. You choose whichever explanation seems less "racist" to you.
Hehe! I just love how you're using cheap tactics to confuse the issue. Point of fact; in this whole discussion you've offered not one whit of evidence to support your claims. You make broad, sweeping generalizations and then slam other people for rejecting your premises. I think you're a troll, and I hope you're moderated as such. Good day, sirrah!
There is an easier way to fix it; they pay this guy $500M dollars - or twice whatever his total net assets are. Google is in a position to fight him over the name, but they are also in a position to bring him into the fold. Why spend money on court fees if you can just buy him out?
Actually, the reason for that is probably precedence. They want wins against their trademark to discourage future such challenges.
Your labeling of the Chinese people with such malicious intent is both racist and paranoid. I don't suppose you have any facts that the Chinese government is engaged in a premeditated campaign to kill us?
The exact circumstances that we live in are that prison rape is seen as something funny and non-serious. It's seen as a non-problem, or maybe even as "proper justice".
You want to back that up? At all?
Another similar situation to the Catholic Church child abuse scandal would be child abuse scandals in the Protestant churches, such as the Southern Baptists. Why are there no jokes about them?
"A priest, a rabbi and a lawyer are on a plane full of orphan children. They go into the cockpit to find the pilot dead and the plane about to crash. There are only three parachutes. The rabbit says, 'What about the children?' The lawyer responds, 'Screw the children!' The priest says, 'Do you think we have time?'"
The above joke is, in my opinion, beyond tasteless. I heard it from someone I was working for many years ago when there was a priest abuse scandal. But it illustrates an important point; there are jokes about priests and children all the time.
My argument is that people should stop joking about it and be outraged about it, as that seems to be the direct route to moving people from joking about it to being outraged about it.
"A fanatic is someone who spends twice as much energy without checking his aim."
Outrage is not the answer. The Buddha recommends the Middle Path, and here I agree with him. To eschew humor in favor of outrage is to eschew your humanity in favor of brimstone. People should be loathe to give up their humor.
I will readily admit I don't have any numbers, so can't form a useful opinion. I will say anecdotally that my experience is that women can be emotionally nasty to each other in a way that men are more often physically nasty, and that that can be just as bad as actual physical coercion. I agree, though, that the ultimate goal is gender-blindness, so long as there is a healthy respect paid to the laws of physics; co-ed prisons, for instance, are problematic because, on average, your common man will be able to enforce his will on the common woman. The first and easiest way to deal with that is separation of genders; you'll solve 80% of your problems. It's the 20% that's a real tough nut to crack.
No, mister strawman. Easy there, pot.
1. Everyone has a human right NOT to be raped
2. Allowing or encouraging rape as a punishment for crime is cruel and thus immoral as well as un-American
Wow. Alright, clearly (1) is true. But I'm not arguing that it is not. Also, in case you didn't catch it, I'm not arguing that (2) is false. Setting aside that the "Un-American" label is pure bandwagon propoganda tactics, NOONE said that rape is a punishment we are allowing or encouraging.
Your problem here - your problem all along - is that you're arguing a point that is entirely different, and only orthogonally related. You can get outraged all you want that a joke about the difference in treatment in a white-collar versus federal prison utilizes rape as a measure of extremness. But the fact of the matter is that the 'rape' aspect is not being supported or encouraged, but being used as a measure of scale. The joke isn't about rape. It's about differential treatment.
And I have a right to criticize you for laughing about it. Doing so demeans and trivializes a crime that in which our society is not only a victim, but also a willing accomplice.
You obviously have a bone to pick here with 'institutionalized rape', and you're stretching in order to pick it. Again, rather than misinterpret what I said to hit your point again, realize that I'm talking about the societal injury being done by treating different criminals differently based on class. It doesn't have to do with rape.
Wait, let me say that one more time, in case you didn't catch it; it isn't about rape.
If you were upset that we treated one crime more severely than another, I'd be with you. If you were arguing over a joke that was actually finding humor in rape, rather than using it to find humor in another situation, I'd be sympathetic to your point of view. But your argument is not discriminating; it's simply hyper-fascinated with this 'rape' aspect. And rather than discuss it, back it, or drop it, you're using ad hominem attacks against me.
I'm definitely anti-rape. Even in prison. But I'm pro-speech, and pro-humor, even dark humor. I'm not pro-status quo, but I'm not pro-theatrics either. So now that you've made your point loud and clear that you think rape is bad, that institutionalized rape is bad, and that any humor mentioning rape is bad, do you have any sort of suggestion or other useful item to add?
The powerless, in this instance, is the numerous victims of prison rape. How is the "satire" helping them?
No, the powerless in this situation is the everyman. The person who, if they ran afoul of the law, would be put into such a prison. The person who, unlike Libby, would not get a presidential pardon. The person for whom this is an actual threat. This 'joke' is there to point out a truth about the situation; you go to prison, even as a man, and you risk rape in a way that you don't risk it nearly anywhere else in society.
What sort of reaction should we have? The high-and-mighty 'outrage' you recommend does not produce a result. You may claim it does, but people have been outraged about the state of prisons forever and a day. There is outrage. There are also jokes. Jokes that let the real fear of the situation - fear born of the outrageous truth - be dealt with, recognized, and publicly talked about.
I think you are putting words in people's mouths when they say that prison rape is itself a joke or that it represents justice. No one is defending these points of view. But there are inequalities in the world, and the joke we're referencing points out one such inequality; a class inequality between privileged 'white collar' offenders and the underclass. You are agitating that the dark humor pointing out this inequality should go, and that it supports a sort of attitude you disagree with. At best, there may be a correlation, but I think that the attitude you suggest neither exists nor, if it exists, is caused by the dark humor you point to.
This is a societal injury. We have a right to laugh about it.
Getting people to take this issue necessitates that we stop treating it like a joke and stop defending those who joke about it.
I recommend this quote; "Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful."
No one is treating rape itself like a joke, like something to be ignored or belittled, and if you can't see what is actually being said with jokes like this you're doing more to inhibit the cause for which you claim to champion than you are doing to help it. There is a reason that the "Free Speech" rights we are extended by the U.S. Constitution are broadly interpreted; speech has many forms. Dark humor is one such form, and it is no more or less valuable than any other form of speech.
It is perhaps not terribly useful to say, "Oh, your point of view is wrong because it doesn't take into account [x] situation which is similar, does not conflict, and also true." No one is saying rape is good, no matter who it is between. Between male on female, male on male, female on female and female on male, I suspect that the latter two account for the least number of rapes. With low incidence comes low concern. Not no concern, but don't get upset if it isn't specifically cited in favor of cutting to the point on what the issue actually is.
The minute that women might be raped by men in prison there would be an almighty outcry
This is so fallacious as to nearly not bear commenting on. Women are raped in prison all the time; generally by the guards. Realize that a rape victim has nowhere to go in prison; complaining about a rape can be more dangerous to your health than submitting to it. You think there would be an almighty outcry? One that would stop the crime? On what do you base this? Because it's not that to date there is a great deal of outcry over women being raped in prison. It's not because of the outcry of men being raped. It's certainly not the outcry over women being raped in general, or violence against women in general. It's hard enough to get accurate reporting on those issues, much less any sort of response.
Rape is a serious crime, whether it's against a man or a woman, but you're mistaking where the joke is. It's not that it's funny he's at risk of this, it's funny (in a schadenfraude sort of way) because his expectation is that he, being white and high class, is above such risks - that they can't or shouldn't happen to him. But oops! Look, there he's gone and done a crime, and now, foolishly, he finds himself in with the other 'riff raff'.
The funny/not-funny thing about this is that there is an expectation that 'white collar' criminals should get it easy, but that that expectation is being changed up. Libby should do hard time - harder than 30 months, in my opinion. And not in a resort prison, but with every single other human we lock up for seriously screwing over other citizens. He should be getting no consideration and no special treatment.
And the really unfunny thing about it is that the truth of the matter is really painful (and according to Strangers in a Strange Land, therefore the only reason to laugh): that rape does occur in prison, to both men and women. They're nasty places no one would want to land in.
Unfortunately, the back and forth bickering and shoving is part and parcel of the democratic system. You can't spend 'just a little more energy' and get a real solution. (If you think you can, I suggest you offer up an example.) Where we have gone off-track is entirely in the arena of oversight and transparency.
The big deal, imho, is not that they are anonymously collecting data, it's that Microsoft is using it to further ensnare the market, taking away privilege from the end user. Look at what you're agreeing to when you buy the OS; first, you must pay for it. Then you must provide space for it to install, and system resources for it to utilize. Now you have to pay additional resources for it to send information to Microsoft. That information is used by Microsoft to make more money, either by selling it on or by using it to alter their practices or to directly target something (such as a DRM violation). You have to give approval for these things, or you have to find an alternative OS. But with each additional demand they place (money, information, usage of resources you're paying for) their cost of doing business is going down, the cost to you is going up and they have more resources to leverage at keeping you where you are.
In some sense this is the classic, "It's expensive to be poor" situation. You have no enumerated rights here. They have every ability to make contractual demands you're not even aware of. They're not beholden to you, but can use your resources for their ends. You have to agree, otherwise what little else you have can be taken away by them. They play on ignorance, lack of capital and their own entrenchment to stay entrenched, and keep you powerless. This is not a happy place for you to be. Get out.
I hear that defense a lot; that delegation is a good thing in any sort of executive. But I think that the very best executives have an idea of the subject matter so that they aren't blindly trusting that person [x] whom they like for some totally unrelated reason actually knows what they're doing in regards to that particular topic. I think to delegate most effectively you have to have some clue as to whats going on; that becomes harder the more disparate stuff you have to delegate. But particularly in a law-making role, I want my candidates to have a clue what they're not only delegating, but regulating.
Given the choice between a lackluster industry oligopoly and unmitigated pollution, low recycling rates and massive landfills, I'll take the former. But realize, too, that right now we already have that oligopoly; worse, one might call it a geographic monopoly. You don't get to choose who your garbage company is. Arguably, the reasons you cite is why we're not likely to see rapid change in this department.
Slashdot Mirror
For what it's worth, I don't think that people are necessarily reacting to your not liking it, so much as they are reacting to their sense of rejection. When one enthusiastically declaims their love for a book, and another responds, 'eh, it didn't do it for me', it can be tantamount to saying, 'I do not find worth in the things that you found worth in.' That is a form of rejection, and when argued over becomes a discussion of values. It is one thing to say that two people don't hold the same values, it is another though when, in the heat of discussion, you feel that the other person not only does not hold your values, but will not see them and find them worthy. I really think that humans are socially dependent creatures and this irritates them far more than they realize or want; implicit or explicit rejection.
Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself religious or secular? Personally, I liked the Chronicles of Narnia at the time, but as I grew up and understood some of the allegories he was making, I found them to be more and more trite. As an adult you're capable of considering something trite much more easily than if you're a child - children simply don't have the experience and therefore the catalog of stories to check against. I thought Rowling, though, had an entirely different focus than Lewis. She wasn't interested in the metaphysical, but the physical; hers was far more an existentialist point of view - humans are, therefore humans must be the focus of humans. Their doings and choices were far more important than grand otherworldly forces' desires - Potter was not acting within a divine scheme, but within the motivations and lives of real people. That set apart her story, I think, from Tolkien or Lewis or that 'old school' crowd of British writers. Far more James Joyce, really. In short, I think the two different stories are going to appeal to different audiences, depending on their personal philosophies and life focus. And if you're not sure it's for you, remember that you don't even have to buy it; libraries still do exist, and still do lend books.
Realize that Harry's parents bought it in 1980, making it 1991 when he first attended Hogwarts - but there is no mention of the fall of the Soviet Union. Few of the 'Muggle World' incidents filtered through to the Wizards, though the parallels between the two are interesting and will no doubt support many future theories.
She actually goes so far as to say that the duel held between Dumbledore and Grindelwald was in 1945. And, of course, the prison to which he was sent was 'Nuremgard', a name not far at all from 'Nuremberg', where the trials were held for that war.
She actually goes into some depth regarding the differing viewpoints on how property is transferred. Simply because Harry chooses to sell a thing does not actually remove the ownership, from the Wizard point of view, from it's true owner; the House of Gryffindor. Griphook may have wanted otherwise, and Potter may have pretended otherwise, but that transaction in no way impacted the deeper purpose the sword had been set to.
You can only really say that Griphook got it fair and square if you assume Harry had true ownership. But clearly Godric had other thoughts, far more potent.
Well, at what point do people start saying, "You can't route email packets through this backbone server until you pay the protection fee."?
The difficulty with this mentality is that it suddenly becomes in everyone's interest to charge for everything, and then only the biggest systems get paid, because there is a strong economic interest in grouping up. This sort of concentration of power should be avoided at all costs.
Who are you to tell me what I want to use my email account for? If I want to receive newsletters, are you saying I cannot? The problem is not solved by simply saying, "Oh, no more newsletters."
"I don't care one whit for simplicity on this side of complexity, but would give my life for the simplicity on the far side of complexity."
Remember that if hot fuel is piped into a highly insulated area, it will stay hot. It will not automatically cool to the temperature of the surrounding earth. Also, remember that solids have a high thermal capacity. A cool rock won't heat up very easily because you have to pump a lot of energy into compared to what you'd have to pump into a similar volume of, say, water. But once it's warm it won't cool very easily either, because it has a lot more energy it's holding.
Thus, if you pump hot fuel into an insulated underground tank (likely), it will stay hot, regardless of the surrounding - because it's insulated. But assuming some heat bleed, once that surrounding area is heated, it will stay warm and continue to warm the fuel - probably a good reason to insulate the tank. Finally, are these tanks pressurized? I have to imagine that would also affect things.
Are you claiming that I am NOT the same race as they? If not, then why would you regard anything I say as true?
Alright, step back for a moment and look at this statement. In your first question you ask if I am claiming a thing - what, for now is irrelevant. This thing that you ask if I am claiming I am very clearly not claiming - anywhere. (If you dispute this, quote the relevant passage.) But then you proceed to make a causal link between that claim (that you are not the same race as the Chinese) and the fact that I should therefore regard nothing you say as true. This is a standard logical fallacy; "if a exists then b is possible, therefore if a ever exists b always exists." Your logic here is bad.
If that's the case, then you have no reason to discuss anything with me unless you simply like fighting.
You stated an opinion, which I have every right to challenge. Further, even if the evidence you introduce is wrong, that is an independent thing from the logic you are using to reach your conclusions. I have the right to challenge both your evidence and your arguments. It is not simply a matter of 'lik[ing] [to] fight.' It is a matter of challenging someone who is putting forward a belief I find to be erroneous.
If you can't define racism correctly, then you have no business making such accusations. Racism is the belief in the genetic superiority of one race over another.
Let us consult the American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com:
"1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race."
There is nothing in those definitions that suggest someone of a given race might be prejudiced against that same race. So, point in fact, I don't care if you're Chinese, Japanese, Caucasian, Hispanic or whatever. You made a racist remark.
And what "gross generalizations" about a race did I make?
I refer you to:
"... which they relay to us with pristine accuracy when they're not busy trying to poison our citizens, children, and household pets."
"They" is always a good indicator of a generalization. If you think that you're not generalizing about the Chinese people and/or the Republic of China's government, then please tell me if the U.S. Government is for or against the war in Iraq - without making a generalization.
It becomes 'gross' when you start confusing the topic of 'government' versus 'private interest'. The poisoned food, for instance, was not the result of government involvement - if anything, it was the lack of government oversight that allowed it to happen. It was the actions of a private company that caused the problem. But you lump the private company in with the government - the citizens in with the lawmakers; your result is a gross generalization.
Additionally, are you claiming that "Chinese" is a "race"?
I would not be in error to identify 'Chinese' with an ethnicity. You can certainly be racist against Chinese people and not, say, Japanese people. Or racist against Japanese people and not Chinese people. This happens a great deal in those countries, but also in the U.S. where during WWII we saw a great deal of hatred against Japanese people, but not Chinese people. For the purposes of this conversation I think you're going to have a hard time making the case that I'm misusing the term there.
I thought that the poisoned pet food and poisoned children's toys spoke for themselves, so perhaps the case is that no amount of evidence will convince you.
You cited no evidence that this was done by the Chinese government, much less in any premeditated sense - yet you claimed both. You cite no evidence for any of the assumptions you claim. I am not disputing the events you reference, only disputing your linking of them to p
Uh-huh.
And how can it be racist? I am the same race as they are.Leaving aside the fact that the latter statement is totally unsubstantiated, if you do not understand that any gross generalization based on such factors is racist, you have no business making those remarks.
It's really hard to say. It could be a premeditated campaign, or it could be continued sloppiness and incompetence. You choose whichever explanation seems less "racist" to you.Hehe! I just love how you're using cheap tactics to confuse the issue. Point of fact; in this whole discussion you've offered not one whit of evidence to support your claims. You make broad, sweeping generalizations and then slam other people for rejecting your premises. I think you're a troll, and I hope you're moderated as such. Good day, sirrah!
There is an easier way to fix it; they pay this guy $500M dollars - or twice whatever his total net assets are. Google is in a position to fight him over the name, but they are also in a position to bring him into the fold. Why spend money on court fees if you can just buy him out?
Actually, the reason for that is probably precedence. They want wins against their trademark to discourage future such challenges.
If only I had started... alas, what you ask is entirely impossible.
Your labeling of the Chinese people with such malicious intent is both racist and paranoid. I don't suppose you have any facts that the Chinese government is engaged in a premeditated campaign to kill us?
You want to back that up? At all?
Another similar situation to the Catholic Church child abuse scandal would be child abuse scandals in the Protestant churches, such as the Southern Baptists. Why are there no jokes about them?"A priest, a rabbi and a lawyer are on a plane full of orphan children. They go into the cockpit to find the pilot dead and the plane about to crash. There are only three parachutes. The rabbit says, 'What about the children?' The lawyer responds, 'Screw the children!' The priest says, 'Do you think we have time?'"
The above joke is, in my opinion, beyond tasteless. I heard it from someone I was working for many years ago when there was a priest abuse scandal. But it illustrates an important point; there are jokes about priests and children all the time.
My argument is that people should stop joking about it and be outraged about it, as that seems to be the direct route to moving people from joking about it to being outraged about it."A fanatic is someone who spends twice as much energy without checking his aim."
Outrage is not the answer. The Buddha recommends the Middle Path, and here I agree with him. To eschew humor in favor of outrage is to eschew your humanity in favor of brimstone. People should be loathe to give up their humor.
I will readily admit I don't have any numbers, so can't form a useful opinion. I will say anecdotally that my experience is that women can be emotionally nasty to each other in a way that men are more often physically nasty, and that that can be just as bad as actual physical coercion. I agree, though, that the ultimate goal is gender-blindness, so long as there is a healthy respect paid to the laws of physics; co-ed prisons, for instance, are problematic because, on average, your common man will be able to enforce his will on the common woman. The first and easiest way to deal with that is separation of genders; you'll solve 80% of your problems. It's the 20% that's a real tough nut to crack.
Wow. Alright, clearly (1) is true. But I'm not arguing that it is not. Also, in case you didn't catch it, I'm not arguing that (2) is false. Setting aside that the "Un-American" label is pure bandwagon propoganda tactics, NOONE said that rape is a punishment we are allowing or encouraging.
Your problem here - your problem all along - is that you're arguing a point that is entirely different, and only orthogonally related. You can get outraged all you want that a joke about the difference in treatment in a white-collar versus federal prison utilizes rape as a measure of extremness. But the fact of the matter is that the 'rape' aspect is not being supported or encouraged, but being used as a measure of scale. The joke isn't about rape. It's about differential treatment.
And I have a right to criticize you for laughing about it. Doing so demeans and trivializes a crime that in which our society is not only a victim, but also a willing accomplice.You obviously have a bone to pick here with 'institutionalized rape', and you're stretching in order to pick it. Again, rather than misinterpret what I said to hit your point again, realize that I'm talking about the societal injury being done by treating different criminals differently based on class. It doesn't have to do with rape.
Wait, let me say that one more time, in case you didn't catch it; it isn't about rape.
If you were upset that we treated one crime more severely than another, I'd be with you. If you were arguing over a joke that was actually finding humor in rape, rather than using it to find humor in another situation, I'd be sympathetic to your point of view. But your argument is not discriminating; it's simply hyper-fascinated with this 'rape' aspect. And rather than discuss it, back it, or drop it, you're using ad hominem attacks against me.
I'm definitely anti-rape. Even in prison. But I'm pro-speech, and pro-humor, even dark humor. I'm not pro-status quo, but I'm not pro-theatrics either. So now that you've made your point loud and clear that you think rape is bad, that institutionalized rape is bad, and that any humor mentioning rape is bad, do you have any sort of suggestion or other useful item to add?
No, the powerless in this situation is the everyman. The person who, if they ran afoul of the law, would be put into such a prison. The person who, unlike Libby, would not get a presidential pardon. The person for whom this is an actual threat. This 'joke' is there to point out a truth about the situation; you go to prison, even as a man, and you risk rape in a way that you don't risk it nearly anywhere else in society.
What sort of reaction should we have? The high-and-mighty 'outrage' you recommend does not produce a result. You may claim it does, but people have been outraged about the state of prisons forever and a day. There is outrage. There are also jokes. Jokes that let the real fear of the situation - fear born of the outrageous truth - be dealt with, recognized, and publicly talked about.
I think you are putting words in people's mouths when they say that prison rape is itself a joke or that it represents justice. No one is defending these points of view. But there are inequalities in the world, and the joke we're referencing points out one such inequality; a class inequality between privileged 'white collar' offenders and the underclass. You are agitating that the dark humor pointing out this inequality should go, and that it supports a sort of attitude you disagree with. At best, there may be a correlation, but I think that the attitude you suggest neither exists nor, if it exists, is caused by the dark humor you point to.
This is a societal injury. We have a right to laugh about it.
I recommend this quote; "Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful."
No one is treating rape itself like a joke, like something to be ignored or belittled, and if you can't see what is actually being said with jokes like this you're doing more to inhibit the cause for which you claim to champion than you are doing to help it. There is a reason that the "Free Speech" rights we are extended by the U.S. Constitution are broadly interpreted; speech has many forms. Dark humor is one such form, and it is no more or less valuable than any other form of speech.
It is perhaps not terribly useful to say, "Oh, your point of view is wrong because it doesn't take into account [x] situation which is similar, does not conflict, and also true." No one is saying rape is good, no matter who it is between. Between male on female, male on male, female on female and female on male, I suspect that the latter two account for the least number of rapes. With low incidence comes low concern. Not no concern, but don't get upset if it isn't specifically cited in favor of cutting to the point on what the issue actually is.
This is so fallacious as to nearly not bear commenting on. Women are raped in prison all the time; generally by the guards. Realize that a rape victim has nowhere to go in prison; complaining about a rape can be more dangerous to your health than submitting to it. You think there would be an almighty outcry? One that would stop the crime? On what do you base this? Because it's not that to date there is a great deal of outcry over women being raped in prison. It's not because of the outcry of men being raped. It's certainly not the outcry over women being raped in general, or violence against women in general. It's hard enough to get accurate reporting on those issues, much less any sort of response.
Rape is a serious crime, whether it's against a man or a woman, but you're mistaking where the joke is. It's not that it's funny he's at risk of this, it's funny (in a schadenfraude sort of way) because his expectation is that he, being white and high class, is above such risks - that they can't or shouldn't happen to him. But oops! Look, there he's gone and done a crime, and now, foolishly, he finds himself in with the other 'riff raff'.
The funny/not-funny thing about this is that there is an expectation that 'white collar' criminals should get it easy, but that that expectation is being changed up. Libby should do hard time - harder than 30 months, in my opinion. And not in a resort prison, but with every single other human we lock up for seriously screwing over other citizens. He should be getting no consideration and no special treatment.
And the really unfunny thing about it is that the truth of the matter is really painful (and according to Strangers in a Strange Land, therefore the only reason to laugh): that rape does occur in prison, to both men and women. They're nasty places no one would want to land in.
Who gets to decide how to "just fix it"?
Unfortunately, the back and forth bickering and shoving is part and parcel of the democratic system. You can't spend 'just a little more energy' and get a real solution. (If you think you can, I suggest you offer up an example.) Where we have gone off-track is entirely in the arena of oversight and transparency.
Or, rather, the information.
The big deal, imho, is not that they are anonymously collecting data, it's that Microsoft is using it to further ensnare the market, taking away privilege from the end user. Look at what you're agreeing to when you buy the OS; first, you must pay for it. Then you must provide space for it to install, and system resources for it to utilize. Now you have to pay additional resources for it to send information to Microsoft. That information is used by Microsoft to make more money, either by selling it on or by using it to alter their practices or to directly target something (such as a DRM violation). You have to give approval for these things, or you have to find an alternative OS. But with each additional demand they place (money, information, usage of resources you're paying for) their cost of doing business is going down, the cost to you is going up and they have more resources to leverage at keeping you where you are.
In some sense this is the classic, "It's expensive to be poor" situation. You have no enumerated rights here. They have every ability to make contractual demands you're not even aware of. They're not beholden to you, but can use your resources for their ends. You have to agree, otherwise what little else you have can be taken away by them. They play on ignorance, lack of capital and their own entrenchment to stay entrenched, and keep you powerless. This is not a happy place for you to be. Get out.
I hear that defense a lot; that delegation is a good thing in any sort of executive. But I think that the very best executives have an idea of the subject matter so that they aren't blindly trusting that person [x] whom they like for some totally unrelated reason actually knows what they're doing in regards to that particular topic. I think to delegate most effectively you have to have some clue as to whats going on; that becomes harder the more disparate stuff you have to delegate. But particularly in a law-making role, I want my candidates to have a clue what they're not only delegating, but regulating.
Given the choice between a lackluster industry oligopoly and unmitigated pollution, low recycling rates and massive landfills, I'll take the former. But realize, too, that right now we already have that oligopoly; worse, one might call it a geographic monopoly. You don't get to choose who your garbage company is. Arguably, the reasons you cite is why we're not likely to see rapid change in this department.