I have to agree with Dzimas. Individualism != entitlement, and the latter is the problem. Everyone is raised being told they're special little cupcakes, and they're not. Most are the same little bastards with different faces.
The other problem with the culture is that the US is a relatively new country, and we aren't that many generations away from using out and out genocide to get our way. Unlike the genocide in Germany not too long ago, there was nobody who cared to say anything about ours, and that culture has continued.
"You have something I want? Fuck you, it's mine, and I'll beat your ass if you say otherwise." Culturally, the US is a barbaric infant.
By explicitly labeling it as a technique used by the right-wing (common right-wing talking point), you did exactly that, whether you intended to or not.
I've heard volcanologists say almost exactly that, since a good number of people have no concept of how cap pressure works.
Was the emphasis on "we" supposed to mean something important? Sounded to me like the writer was using the language in a technically incorrect, but incredibly common (even among those highly educated in anything but English), way and was quoted in that manner.
It's highly unlikely the person being quoted meant the second "we" to actually mean that some human or humans were the sole actors responsible for the loss of glacial endcaps. Be mindful of the edge when borrowing Occam's razor, especially when using it to parse English.
The ice doesn't have to melt, it just has to calve.
Let's talk in terms of inches then. The economic harm to NYC would be incredible, and could conceivably happen within a single person's lifetime.
Do you know how much damage would have to be caused, in both economic and human terms, before the city of New York was abandoned wholesale? Katrina was bad, and they moved back into New Orleans. Unlike New York, most of that city is actually below sea level right this second.
The threat is not zero unless there is no possible way ocean rise can occur within a matter of a century.
Consumer-grade services are crap from most companies and in most industries.
People who buy consumer-grade usually get what they pay for. Paying a bit (or sometimes a lot) more for commercial-grade equipment (again, irrespective of industry) will frequently net you a lot of savings over the lifetime of the product.
Companies screw consumers because consumers are frequently fools who are simply waiting to be parted from their money. Consumers who continue to engage in stupid buying get what they deserve, and prop up predatory companies (or rather, the predatory arm of a given company).
It doesn't, at least not entirely. It contradicts the implied statement that the same thing is not used by partisan hacks outside right-wing circles. It is used by them, probably in about the same proportion, so the edit is more reasonable and much less partisan-hackish than your comment.
Oxford used water on the fire, and you used gasoline. The fire will go out after both. The difference is in the damage.
After reading it for a third time, I get why current plugs are compatible. The author is still a moron though, by confusing the issue with saying current plugs would fall out without a magnetic holder. So would the fucking half-plugs, since the port is completely open to air on one side.
The author is a moron, and is the cause of the confusion.
It's sad that there are people who modded this insightful.
If it meant the plug, then they would have no space savings. You cannot fit a fully-round plug into a half-sized jack. You can, however, reverse that.
Try fitting a cylinder into a hole that is half the width of the cylinder. It doesn't work. Simple logic usage should tell you that, even if that were what the author meant, the author would be wrong.
Just because it's in the article doesn't make it true. If you can fit 9.6211275 mm^2 into a space that is only 4.81056375 mm^2, please let the rest of humanity know how. You'd be instantly wealthy.
I don't believe it's limited to the US either, but I don't have direct experience with polarization in other countries.
It may be as a result of the demographic that chooses to visit, emigrate to, or otherwise interact socially with those in the US, but most foreigners I've met seem far more willing to entertain discussion about things they might disagree with politically.
I'd say the one place that is not true is, as you mentioned, the availability of firearms. That, I'm afraid, is far more culturally entrenched than many other issues, but I've always maintained that violence in American society has little to do with firearm availability and much to do with cultural norms and the non-homogeneity of much of the US.
They couldn't exist the way they do today though, if it were taken more literally. People who worked at the same location could opt to not belong, whereas today you usually cannot work at a job where a union is present without being forced to support that union yourself.
Yes, union supporters will claim that actual free association would allow non-members to derive the benefits of collective bargaining or whatnot. What the use of non-union labor in the face of strikes has shown is that is absolutely untrue. If you're not a member of the bargaining class, a business could offer you less pay, benefits, etc, and choose to let just you go if you were unhappy about the differences (or not hire you at all; no skin off their nose...).
What pisses me off is that people discount xxxxxxxx all together rather than learning the parts of it that make sense.
That's really what people do. It's not just about libertarianism; most people do it with almost anything that can be labeled that they are not personally interested in. Americans, by and large, are narrow-minded and unwilling to learn about anything that strikes them as disagreeing with their worldview in any way. Then they make proclamations that sound completely stupid to anyone with a modicum of education about said topic or group. There are obviously exceptions, but they seem to be fewer and further between as US society becomes more polarized around the competing religions du jour (no, I don't mean that to refer only to actual religions).
It's not about intelligence either. There are lots of intelligent people who can't be bothered to learn about that which they speak so vehemently.
I'll say that. In order for the people in the Tea Party to have a valid point, they cannot WILLINGLY BENEFIT from the programs they publicly oppose.
So anyone who has had taxes deducted from their paycheck their entire life to pay for the programs cannot validly object to those programs unless they kiss all that lifetime of forcibly-collected money goodbye? They should pay for the program, but eschew using it, or else they have no logical reason to complain about it.
Yeah, I don't think a lot of people realize that Medicare takes almost all real property assets upon your death (I am not certain if it is limited by some percentage of the amount the program paid) if you received coverage.
When other people build you a little box and use force to prevent you from working if they possibly can unless you agree to be confined in the little box, most people have no problem using that little box to the fullest when they have the opportunity. It doesn't matter what the pros and cons are if you don't have any real choice but to participate.
Hell, Social Security enrollment is optional (even states that in absolutely zero uncertain terms on the back of the application form), but good luck trying to support yourself normally if you choose not to enroll. That is, assuming your parents didn't choose for you, which they almost universally do. And, unlike most agreements made for minors by their parents, this is one where revocation at the age of majority is not legally recognized.
AT&T used to do that with telephones, and most cable companies still do it with set-top boxes used to decode digital cable signals (but not/really/, honest, you can buy a DVC from another company and use it. Maybe. If we let you.)
There are laws in the USA that prevent many companies from requiring rental (what "licensing" a physical product actually is) of their own equipment in order to access services, but so far as I know none that prevent companies from renting products that are not actually tied to a service they sell.
Actually, I take back what I said. Just woke up, so I misread what I wrote. Your cutting the quote in half helped confuse the issue for me since my brain hadn't engaged yet.
You assumed I meant there was no difference between right & wrong, when what I actually wrote was there's no difference between "right & wrong" and defending your rights. The morality concept is self-evident, rather than being provided by an external force. What is right and what is wrong is pretty easy to see when you are being assaulted.
I actually miswrote what I was thinking. It's understandable given what I actually posted that you'd assume I was religious or otherwise crazy, since that sentence is just plain dumb on its face (the one I wrote).
What I actually meant to write was something along the lines of "in the absence of government, your rights are what you make of them." Right & wrong become pretty apparent when you step back, though there certainly can be a lot of gray area.
No, I don't believe the concept of rights come from a higher power or whoever has the most guns on their side. A good chunk of either camp doesn't believe in rights at all, simply preferring to have someone else tell them what is okay to do on a given day.
Many things have only been part of the world for a tiny part of history, and yet many of those are indisputably true when looked at neutrally. Just because an outlook is developed from societal norms does not make it valid. Many societies were/are indisputably corrupt and unjust. Those who support them and believe wholeheartedly in the application of their norms are still just as wrong when evaluated neutrally.
Just because others believe the king can arbitrarily initiate violence, I am still perfectly justified in defending myself. Anyone who believes I am wrong to do so does not have a rational perspective. Perhaps I was stupid to defend myself, but certainly was not inherently wrong to do so.
Overwhelming force does not make right, but pragmatism is not the point.
In the end, it's a philosophical argument, not a practical one.
In the absence of government (the premise behind "no" inherent rights requires they disappear with government) there is no difference between right & wrong, and the defense of what were previously "rights 'granted' by government." In that case, both definitions of "right" may as well be the same thing.
There are certain morals that are nearly universal, and a point where the concepts of roghts and morality are essentially the same thing. Calling something a right when there's a governing body to protect it and morality when you protect it yourself is silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn I hope that's true.
I have to agree with Dzimas. Individualism != entitlement, and the latter is the problem. Everyone is raised being told they're special little cupcakes, and they're not. Most are the same little bastards with different faces.
The other problem with the culture is that the US is a relatively new country, and we aren't that many generations away from using out and out genocide to get our way. Unlike the genocide in Germany not too long ago, there was nobody who cared to say anything about ours, and that culture has continued.
"You have something I want? Fuck you, it's mine, and I'll beat your ass if you say otherwise." Culturally, the US is a barbaric infant.
By explicitly labeling it as a technique used by the right-wing (common right-wing talking point), you did exactly that, whether you intended to or not.
I've heard volcanologists say almost exactly that, since a good number of people have no concept of how cap pressure works.
Was the emphasis on "we" supposed to mean something important? Sounded to me like the writer was using the language in a technically incorrect, but incredibly common (even among those highly educated in anything but English), way and was quoted in that manner.
It's highly unlikely the person being quoted meant the second "we" to actually mean that some human or humans were the sole actors responsible for the loss of glacial endcaps. Be mindful of the edge when borrowing Occam's razor, especially when using it to parse English.
The ice doesn't have to melt, it just has to calve.
Let's talk in terms of inches then. The economic harm to NYC would be incredible, and could conceivably happen within a single person's lifetime.
Do you know how much damage would have to be caused, in both economic and human terms, before the city of New York was abandoned wholesale? Katrina was bad, and they moved back into New Orleans. Unlike New York, most of that city is actually below sea level right this second.
The threat is not zero unless there is no possible way ocean rise can occur within a matter of a century.
Consumer-grade services are crap from most companies and in most industries.
People who buy consumer-grade usually get what they pay for. Paying a bit (or sometimes a lot) more for commercial-grade equipment (again, irrespective of industry) will frequently net you a lot of savings over the lifetime of the product.
Companies screw consumers because consumers are frequently fools who are simply waiting to be parted from their money. Consumers who continue to engage in stupid buying get what they deserve, and prop up predatory companies (or rather, the predatory arm of a given company).
No, I think that's just a weird form of masturbation.
It doesn't, at least not entirely. It contradicts the implied statement that the same thing is not used by partisan hacks outside right-wing circles. It is used by them, probably in about the same proportion, so the edit is more reasonable and much less partisan-hackish than your comment.
Oxford used water on the fire, and you used gasoline. The fire will go out after both. The difference is in the damage.
After reading it for a third time, I get why current plugs are compatible. The author is still a moron though, by confusing the issue with saying current plugs would fall out without a magnetic holder. So would the fucking half-plugs, since the port is completely open to air on one side.
The author is a moron, and is the cause of the confusion.
It's sad that there are people who modded this insightful.
If it meant the plug, then they would have no space savings. You cannot fit a fully-round plug into a half-sized jack. You can, however, reverse that.
Try fitting a cylinder into a hole that is half the width of the cylinder. It doesn't work. Simple logic usage should tell you that, even if that were what the author meant, the author would be wrong.
Just because it's in the article doesn't make it true. If you can fit 9.6211275 mm^2 into a space that is only 4.81056375 mm^2, please let the rest of humanity know how. You'd be instantly wealthy.
I don't believe it's limited to the US either, but I don't have direct experience with polarization in other countries.
It may be as a result of the demographic that chooses to visit, emigrate to, or otherwise interact socially with those in the US, but most foreigners I've met seem far more willing to entertain discussion about things they might disagree with politically.
I'd say the one place that is not true is, as you mentioned, the availability of firearms. That, I'm afraid, is far more culturally entrenched than many other issues, but I've always maintained that violence in American society has little to do with firearm availability and much to do with cultural norms and the non-homogeneity of much of the US.
I haven't seen a single post attached to this article advocating anything even resembling eliminating government.
Hi, now you've met another one.
They couldn't exist the way they do today though, if it were taken more literally. People who worked at the same location could opt to not belong, whereas today you usually cannot work at a job where a union is present without being forced to support that union yourself.
Yes, union supporters will claim that actual free association would allow non-members to derive the benefits of collective bargaining or whatnot. What the use of non-union labor in the face of strikes has shown is that is absolutely untrue. If you're not a member of the bargaining class, a business could offer you less pay, benefits, etc, and choose to let just you go if you were unhappy about the differences (or not hire you at all; no skin off their nose...).
What pisses me off is that people discount xxxxxxxx all together rather than learning the parts of it that make sense.
That's really what people do. It's not just about libertarianism; most people do it with almost anything that can be labeled that they are not personally interested in. Americans, by and large, are narrow-minded and unwilling to learn about anything that strikes them as disagreeing with their worldview in any way. Then they make proclamations that sound completely stupid to anyone with a modicum of education about said topic or group. There are obviously exceptions, but they seem to be fewer and further between as US society becomes more polarized around the competing religions du jour (no, I don't mean that to refer only to actual religions).
It's not about intelligence either. There are lots of intelligent people who can't be bothered to learn about that which they speak so vehemently.
I'll say that. In order for the people in the Tea Party to have a valid point, they cannot WILLINGLY BENEFIT from the programs they publicly oppose.
So anyone who has had taxes deducted from their paycheck their entire life to pay for the programs cannot validly object to those programs unless they kiss all that lifetime of forcibly-collected money goodbye? They should pay for the program, but eschew using it, or else they have no logical reason to complain about it.
Absolutely brilliant logic on that one. Bravo.
Yeah, I don't think a lot of people realize that Medicare takes almost all real property assets upon your death (I am not certain if it is limited by some percentage of the amount the program paid) if you received coverage.
When other people build you a little box and use force to prevent you from working if they possibly can unless you agree to be confined in the little box, most people have no problem using that little box to the fullest when they have the opportunity. It doesn't matter what the pros and cons are if you don't have any real choice but to participate.
Hell, Social Security enrollment is optional (even states that in absolutely zero uncertain terms on the back of the application form), but good luck trying to support yourself normally if you choose not to enroll. That is, assuming your parents didn't choose for you, which they almost universally do. And, unlike most agreements made for minors by their parents, this is one where revocation at the age of majority is not legally recognized.
AT&T used to do that with telephones, and most cable companies still do it with set-top boxes used to decode digital cable signals (but not /really/, honest, you can buy a DVC from another company and use it. Maybe. If we let you.)
There are laws in the USA that prevent many companies from requiring rental (what "licensing" a physical product actually is) of their own equipment in order to access services, but so far as I know none that prevent companies from renting products that are not actually tied to a service they sell.
No worries. :)
Actually, I take back what I said. Just woke up, so I misread what I wrote. Your cutting the quote in half helped confuse the issue for me since my brain hadn't engaged yet.
You assumed I meant there was no difference between right & wrong, when what I actually wrote was there's no difference between "right & wrong" and defending your rights. The morality concept is self-evident, rather than being provided by an external force. What is right and what is wrong is pretty easy to see when you are being assaulted.
I actually miswrote what I was thinking. It's understandable given what I actually posted that you'd assume I was religious or otherwise crazy, since that sentence is just plain dumb on its face (the one I wrote).
What I actually meant to write was something along the lines of "in the absence of government, your rights are what you make of them." Right & wrong become pretty apparent when you step back, though there certainly can be a lot of gray area.
No, I don't believe the concept of rights come from a higher power or whoever has the most guns on their side. A good chunk of either camp doesn't believe in rights at all, simply preferring to have someone else tell them what is okay to do on a given day.
Many things have only been part of the world for a tiny part of history, and yet many of those are indisputably true when looked at neutrally. Just because an outlook is developed from societal norms does not make it valid. Many societies were/are indisputably corrupt and unjust. Those who support them and believe wholeheartedly in the application of their norms are still just as wrong when evaluated neutrally.
Just because others believe the king can arbitrarily initiate violence, I am still perfectly justified in defending myself. Anyone who believes I am wrong to do so does not have a rational perspective. Perhaps I was stupid to defend myself, but certainly was not inherently wrong to do so.
Overwhelming force does not make right, but pragmatism is not the point.
In the end, it's a philosophical argument, not a practical one.
In the absence of government (the premise behind "no" inherent rights requires they disappear with government) there is no difference between right & wrong, and the defense of what were previously "rights 'granted' by government." In that case, both definitions of "right" may as well be the same thing.
There are certain morals that are nearly universal, and a point where the concepts of roghts and morality are essentially the same thing. Calling something a right when there's a governing body to protect it and morality when you protect it yourself is silly.
Enforcement is questionable. Keeping your rights is ultimately up to you. That's not always possible, but you're never wromg to make the attempt.