Why do you hate America? You're not considering our economy, our jobs, or security, our future, our domination over the rest of the world. Again, why do you hate America?/snark
Um. Just... Wow. I didn't realize it had got that bad. Red scrawls on my papers were the least of my worries.
I once forgot a homework assignment for the strictest teacher I ever had - 7th grade math; she'd put you on detention for breaking a pencil lead and having to use the sharpener. I went to the office and called my mother to ask her to bring it in before that class and when my mother got there, my math teacher happened to be there as well. Not only did I get it from my math teacher, my mother joined in. That was over 30 years ago; I still remember feeling like a useless little fucktard while the two of them let into me - right there in the hallway in front of the principal's office, kids going from one class to another.
On the other hand, I always run a quick mental check to make sure I have everything I need before I leave for someplace. Maybe it was a good lesson after all.
There's the problem of being falsely accused, but, by and large, the lack of real, tangible, painful consequences from our actions is a big part of the reason why kids today are such little shits. I'm not saying beat the piss out of them, but, as a kid, when I goofed up in school - not honest mistakes, but exceptionally stupid things - our teachers had the liberty to turn those mistakes into painful learning experiences. And we did learn from them. Even the most truculent in my class shaped up after getting the hair at the back of their head tugged by a big burly shop teacher.
At some point, the pendulum will swing back, I hope, and we'll get a little more sensible about discipline, rather than giving kids a useless "time out."
Yes and no. If I wanted to move to Canada - simply an example; no need to discuss their political trending - there's a lengthy process and I might not be granted citizenship even after all of that. However, moving from Maryland to any other state simply requires a U-Haul. Ok, Hawaii needs a little more...
Not really disagreeing, but it occurred to me: if Maryland is "backwards" as far as their stance on gay marriage, couldn't you move? Yes, it's annoying and disruptive, but if Maryland isn't your cup of tea, you could go somewhere else.
In contrast, if all of America jumps the shark - NSA and their 24/7 scanning of all digital comms, for example - where can I go?
So, yeah, State's Rights may give us ass-backwards states - hello Mississippi! - but if the smart people from those states get fed up and move to other states, then those ass-backwards states will suffer for their ignorance.
I did grow up in a religious family: Roman Catholic. Force-fed church every Sunday morning, religion class right after. Got my first communion and confirmation. In fact, I've had all seven sacraments, except for Holy Orders. (I came close to dying, once, so I got Last Rites.)
After graduating from college and getting a taste of the real world, as well as learning more about history, it struck me that religion is a concoction of man intended to control man. Just look at the "conservatives" of today, like Santorum, wielding their bibles as moral cudgels to attack anyone who doesn't toe that line. I'm sorry - or not - but I'd be daft to believe that someone who knew so little about their world could have such insight about the creator of everything. Would you take the word of the pimply-faced-youth at Best Buy about how much you could super-cool and over-clock the latest i7 CPU? Probably not. Same principal: consider the source.
One Native American culture "believes" that a pregnant woman fell through a hole in the sky, some birds helped slow her fall, and that a muskrat dove deep into the water to grab some mud to place on a great turtle's back, which then became mother earth. The woman was lowered onto the turtle's back and gave birth to a son, and it progressed from there to everything we have now. There's more to it, and it's interesting, but it sounds almost as implausible as the Old Testament.
Your social aspect of religion sounds nice, but I can get the benefit of that through my local YMCA - yes, I get the "Christian Association" but there's nothing dogmatically religious about it - or the after-work social groups. My point was that so many people of today still believe that ignorant authors from thousands of years ago could possibly know what "God" wanted, when they couldn't even figure out indoor plumbing.
It seems to be automatic with enclosed things like totes. I don't normally get stopped for receipts at Wal-Mart - and I've gone back to that same Wal-Mart plenty of times since that incident; no further hassles over receipts. 'Course, like I said, my wife won't let me buy totes anymore. If we need one, she goes on her own and leaves me out of it.
To be honest, I can understand their point of view. It's easy to hide a lot of things in a tote. However, in my case, I left the top off, intentionally, the bags were all in view, and I hadn't left the register 20 seconds previously, in full view of Patrick. WTF could I grab and throw in the tote - that I couldn't throw in any Wal-Mart bag just as easily - under those circumstances? It just seemed extra stupid. Of course, Wal-Mart doesn't hire astrophysicists to work as greeters.
Needs work, but still way better than basing our modern lives on stories written either 2000 or 4000+ years ago, by people who could not even fathom gravity; thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe; and thought "blood letting" was "advanced medicine," yet could tell us what "God" wanted.
I still don't get that. Those people knew comparatively nothing, yet we're supposed to hang on their every word about how "God" made all of this and wanted us to behave, yada yada...? Why didn't "God" give them some basic insight into electricity, at least? Heck, metallurgy would've been useful, too. But we're supposed to take their word at face value? Why? It's like listening to the "Mayan 2012" theories: anyone who takes that seriously is uselessly deluded.
And, yet, here we are, in 2012, and we have so many people who still live believe tales from ignorant authors of 2000 or 4000+ years ago. You can take the man out of the stone age, but you can't take the stone age out of the man.
One cat climbing up a tree has nowhere near the impact of Santorum becoming President of the United States.
Unless the cat swallowed some nitro-glycerin! And is perched precariously above an enriched plutonium pile almost at critical-mass! And he loses his grip! And all of this is right outside Washington, DC! eh, a guy can dream - poor cat...
America does not want extremists, or even people who play extremists on TV
Would you call Bush, the W, a moderate? I don't know that we can leave aside the questionable manner in which he "won" both elections, but, certainly, after the first four years, no one could say he wasn't an "extremist." Objectively, anyway.
I'm not trying to troll, but I'm curious why you think this. I voted for Obama last time, but I'm having a hard time justifying his Bush-in-all-but-name policies and would like an honest alternative. Romney's not it. What's wrong with Paul?
They can't -force- you to stop. I had the same thing happen in Wal-Mart, once. I bought a Rubbermaid tote and, with a few bags inside, but the top off because I knew they'd ask to see inside, the greeter guy - Patrick, it said on his name tag - wanted to see my receipt. We went back and forth, I told him I'd just paid for it and that it was my property, now, and he had no business either asking to inspect my property or prevent me from leaving. I ended up calling the police to report being held against my will - they said, "Why don't you just show him the receipt?", fucking sheep - but said they'd send a car over. Eventually, the manager came over, and I asked, "Are you calling me a thief?" He said, "No." I asked, "Am I free to go?" He said, "Yes." And I left. Cops didn't show up before I left, which is good - I probably would've been tazed and arrested for resisting arrest.
My wife won't let me buy totes in Wal-Mart anymore. Apparently, avoiding embarrassment leaving the store is more important than standing up for my rights.
Big, but subtle difference: Mr. Douglass said, essentially, "Leave us alone to prosper or fail on our own - completely, even if it means dying." White man still hasn't done that.
Housing projects, Welfare and food stamps, for example, are, by design, if not by intention, not "leaving them to their own devices," but, rather, creating a sort of self-perpatuating "reservation" to keep poor blacks, among others, incarcerated, without the bars. It's not impossible to rise above that kind of environment and leave it behind, but it's certainly not conducive to engendering success. It doesn't have to be black people, either: all people in the lowest classes are going to have to fight that much more just to get out of the hole dug for them. Those forms of "support" are anything but: they enable people to merely survive when they otherwise would perish, as Mr. Douglass suggested.
I'm sure that seems harsh. Life's harsh: it's not Nature's plan for any of us to live easily. But that's what Mr. Douglass meant. Don't set up artificial barriers for black people, but, also, don't "help" them in ways that just keep them down.
But when you think about why you don't tolerate the intolerance, there's usually a behavioral aspect, likely harmful, behind it, not just a belief / value proposition. For example, like Austin Powers's dad, if you don't like the Dutch, but you keep it to yourself, fine: no harm, no foul. When you act on your intolerance - from mild slurs to outright violence - that's not just holding a viewpoint: it's potentially criminal. Taking a stand against that type of behavior is less "trying to change someone's belief system" than it is policing unacceptable, potentially harmful social behavior.
If you want to hate the Dutch, we'll all be happy if you just keep it to yourself. If you start throwing bottles at Dutch people or their homes, expect that you'll get some grief in return, if you're caught.
Er, he wore the shirt and tie to school, not the soccer game. In many schools, it's required that you "dress the part" of an athlete representing the school. For football players, they wear their jerseys on the day of the game, or Friday, if it's a Saturday game. Basketball players typically wear shirts and ties on days they have a game. For this guy, it sounds like soccer players also had to wear shirts and ties during school on game days. I don't recall being required to wear anything special on days we had wrestling matches, but wrestling wasn't considered a "showcase" sport in our school.
During his formative years, I told my son, "An idiot keeps making the same mistakes. A smart man learns from his mistakes. A wise man learns from others' mistakes and avoids them." That didn't stop him from making mistakes, but he never made the same mistake twice, nor made obviously avoidable mistakes.
Sometimes you try and you fail. Learn from it and move on.
Isn't the fact that the confrontation took place at all pretty much prima facie that Zimmerman chased Martin in contradiction of the dispatcher? If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, there would have been no confrontation.
"Actions by either side"? This is a false dichotomy. Zimmerman didn't have to get out of his car, against the instructions of the 911 operator. He didn't have to confront Martin. He could've continued his observation, safely in the car, and left Martin alone. After all, Martin was simply walking around in the dark, looking suspicious, but not actually doing anything illegal.
What did Zimmerman think would happen when confronting someone doing nothing wrong, in their own neighborhood? Zimmerman knew there was going to be trouble, even if he had to cause it.
Please don't try to tell us both parties are equally wrong: they're not. Not even close.
I'm not buying what you're selling. I coached high school wrestling for years, dealing with "kids" over 6' regularly. They can mostly certainly be "kids," even at 17 or 18. It depends on their attitude.
If Martin was over 6', built like Mike Tyson, with an attitude to match, then yeah, you might have more of a point. This kid was skinny as a rail, and probably as imposing as a wet noodle. The fact that Zimmerman chased after him says that Zimmerman was not in the least intimidated by Martin, in spite of Martin's height. If it was Ving Rhames, Zimmerman would've kept his ass in the car and let the police handle it.
Are you sure you're not also spinning things, intentionally or otherwise? I haven't even really paid much attention to this case, but I did read that the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue the kid, and that the kid mentioned to his girlfriend that he was concerned about someone following him. Then there was the video that showed no visible marks on Zimmerman as he entered the police station after the incident. Zimmerman also has a rap sheet from previous run-ins with the law. These are all telling, as well, and they help to shape our perception of the event and feelings toward Zimmerman, but you didn't mention them.
Likewise, saying Martin was "6'3"" but leaving out the fact that he was 150 pounds also suggests to me you're trying to paint a particular picture. 6'3" is tall, but 150 pounds for that height says to me, "skinny kid." Zimmerman outweighed the kid by 80 pounds or so. It wouldn't have been a fair fight even if Martin got the first shot in. That's assuming Martin knew how to fight, and the fact that he was that skinny says to me he didn't put much effort into physical training. I'm incorporating my background as a wrestling coach to come to that assumption, but I'd be surprised to read that Martin was some sort of super athlete with extensive martial training.
Given the lack of injuries on Zimmerman, the fact that he didn't heed the 911 dispatcher about not chasing after Martin, that he willingly took on this role of "neighborhood enforcer" - and the fact that Martin's dead as a result of a confrontation that didn't need to happen - I'm inclined to think that Zimmerman was more than half responsible for this tragedy.
"Spinning" happens on both sides, but Zimmerman will at least get to tell his side of the story.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you hate America? You're not considering our economy, our jobs, or security, our future, our domination over the rest of the world. Again, why do you hate America? /snark
I'm an American and I approve this message.
I feel a strange sense of rage, just reading "who regularly solutions". No. Just don't. Bad rogue!
Um. Just... Wow. I didn't realize it had got that bad. Red scrawls on my papers were the least of my worries.
I once forgot a homework assignment for the strictest teacher I ever had - 7th grade math; she'd put you on detention for breaking a pencil lead and having to use the sharpener. I went to the office and called my mother to ask her to bring it in before that class and when my mother got there, my math teacher happened to be there as well. Not only did I get it from my math teacher, my mother joined in. That was over 30 years ago; I still remember feeling like a useless little fucktard while the two of them let into me - right there in the hallway in front of the principal's office, kids going from one class to another.
On the other hand, I always run a quick mental check to make sure I have everything I need before I leave for someplace. Maybe it was a good lesson after all.
There's the problem of being falsely accused, but, by and large, the lack of real, tangible, painful consequences from our actions is a big part of the reason why kids today are such little shits. I'm not saying beat the piss out of them, but, as a kid, when I goofed up in school - not honest mistakes, but exceptionally stupid things - our teachers had the liberty to turn those mistakes into painful learning experiences. And we did learn from them. Even the most truculent in my class shaped up after getting the hair at the back of their head tugged by a big burly shop teacher.
At some point, the pendulum will swing back, I hope, and we'll get a little more sensible about discipline, rather than giving kids a useless "time out."
In the meantime, get off my lawn...
Yes and no. If I wanted to move to Canada - simply an example; no need to discuss their political trending - there's a lengthy process and I might not be granted citizenship even after all of that. However, moving from Maryland to any other state simply requires a U-Haul. Ok, Hawaii needs a little more...
Not really disagreeing, but it occurred to me: if Maryland is "backwards" as far as their stance on gay marriage, couldn't you move? Yes, it's annoying and disruptive, but if Maryland isn't your cup of tea, you could go somewhere else.
In contrast, if all of America jumps the shark - NSA and their 24/7 scanning of all digital comms, for example - where can I go?
So, yeah, State's Rights may give us ass-backwards states - hello Mississippi! - but if the smart people from those states get fed up and move to other states, then those ass-backwards states will suffer for their ignorance.
Just a thought...
I did grow up in a religious family: Roman Catholic. Force-fed church every Sunday morning, religion class right after. Got my first communion and confirmation. In fact, I've had all seven sacraments, except for Holy Orders. (I came close to dying, once, so I got Last Rites.)
After graduating from college and getting a taste of the real world, as well as learning more about history, it struck me that religion is a concoction of man intended to control man. Just look at the "conservatives" of today, like Santorum, wielding their bibles as moral cudgels to attack anyone who doesn't toe that line. I'm sorry - or not - but I'd be daft to believe that someone who knew so little about their world could have such insight about the creator of everything. Would you take the word of the pimply-faced-youth at Best Buy about how much you could super-cool and over-clock the latest i7 CPU? Probably not. Same principal: consider the source.
One Native American culture "believes" that a pregnant woman fell through a hole in the sky, some birds helped slow her fall, and that a muskrat dove deep into the water to grab some mud to place on a great turtle's back, which then became mother earth. The woman was lowered onto the turtle's back and gave birth to a son, and it progressed from there to everything we have now. There's more to it, and it's interesting, but it sounds almost as implausible as the Old Testament.
Your social aspect of religion sounds nice, but I can get the benefit of that through my local YMCA - yes, I get the "Christian Association" but there's nothing dogmatically religious about it - or the after-work social groups. My point was that so many people of today still believe that ignorant authors from thousands of years ago could possibly know what "God" wanted, when they couldn't even figure out indoor plumbing.
If I grant your premise, how is that worse than what Obama has been up to? If I had to choose between Obama or Ron Paul, you'd say Obama is better?
It seems to be automatic with enclosed things like totes. I don't normally get stopped for receipts at Wal-Mart - and I've gone back to that same Wal-Mart plenty of times since that incident; no further hassles over receipts. 'Course, like I said, my wife won't let me buy totes anymore. If we need one, she goes on her own and leaves me out of it.
To be honest, I can understand their point of view. It's easy to hide a lot of things in a tote. However, in my case, I left the top off, intentionally, the bags were all in view, and I hadn't left the register 20 seconds previously, in full view of Patrick. WTF could I grab and throw in the tote - that I couldn't throw in any Wal-Mart bag just as easily - under those circumstances? It just seemed extra stupid. Of course, Wal-Mart doesn't hire astrophysicists to work as greeters.
Needs work, but still way better than basing our modern lives on stories written either 2000 or 4000+ years ago, by people who could not even fathom gravity; thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe; and thought "blood letting" was "advanced medicine," yet could tell us what "God" wanted.
I still don't get that. Those people knew comparatively nothing, yet we're supposed to hang on their every word about how "God" made all of this and wanted us to behave, yada yada...? Why didn't "God" give them some basic insight into electricity, at least? Heck, metallurgy would've been useful, too. But we're supposed to take their word at face value? Why? It's like listening to the "Mayan 2012" theories: anyone who takes that seriously is uselessly deluded.
And, yet, here we are, in 2012, and we have so many people who still live believe tales from ignorant authors of 2000 or 4000+ years ago. You can take the man out of the stone age, but you can't take the stone age out of the man.
I'm aware of his fiscal and Constitutional viewpoints, but I was curious about the "dangerous, foolish, ignorant" part.
One cat climbing up a tree has nowhere near the impact of Santorum becoming President of the United States.
Unless the cat swallowed some nitro-glycerin! And is perched precariously above an enriched plutonium pile almost at critical-mass! And he loses his grip! And all of this is right outside Washington, DC! eh, a guy can dream - poor cat...
Would you call Bush, the W, a moderate? I don't know that we can leave aside the questionable manner in which he "won" both elections, but, certainly, after the first four years, no one could say he wasn't an "extremist." Objectively, anyway.
I'm not trying to troll, but I'm curious why you think this. I voted for Obama last time, but I'm having a hard time justifying his Bush-in-all-but-name policies and would like an honest alternative. Romney's not it. What's wrong with Paul?
They can't -force- you to stop. I had the same thing happen in Wal-Mart, once. I bought a Rubbermaid tote and, with a few bags inside, but the top off because I knew they'd ask to see inside, the greeter guy - Patrick, it said on his name tag - wanted to see my receipt. We went back and forth, I told him I'd just paid for it and that it was my property, now, and he had no business either asking to inspect my property or prevent me from leaving. I ended up calling the police to report being held against my will - they said, "Why don't you just show him the receipt?", fucking sheep - but said they'd send a car over. Eventually, the manager came over, and I asked, "Are you calling me a thief?" He said, "No." I asked, "Am I free to go?" He said, "Yes." And I left. Cops didn't show up before I left, which is good - I probably would've been tazed and arrested for resisting arrest.
My wife won't let me buy totes in Wal-Mart anymore. Apparently, avoiding embarrassment leaving the store is more important than standing up for my rights.
Big, but subtle difference: Mr. Douglass said, essentially, "Leave us alone to prosper or fail on our own - completely, even if it means dying." White man still hasn't done that.
Housing projects, Welfare and food stamps, for example, are, by design, if not by intention, not "leaving them to their own devices," but, rather, creating a sort of self-perpatuating "reservation" to keep poor blacks, among others, incarcerated, without the bars. It's not impossible to rise above that kind of environment and leave it behind, but it's certainly not conducive to engendering success. It doesn't have to be black people, either: all people in the lowest classes are going to have to fight that much more just to get out of the hole dug for them. Those forms of "support" are anything but: they enable people to merely survive when they otherwise would perish, as Mr. Douglass suggested.
I'm sure that seems harsh. Life's harsh: it's not Nature's plan for any of us to live easily. But that's what Mr. Douglass meant. Don't set up artificial barriers for black people, but, also, don't "help" them in ways that just keep them down.
But when you think about why you don't tolerate the intolerance, there's usually a behavioral aspect, likely harmful, behind it, not just a belief / value proposition. For example, like Austin Powers's dad, if you don't like the Dutch, but you keep it to yourself, fine: no harm, no foul. When you act on your intolerance - from mild slurs to outright violence - that's not just holding a viewpoint: it's potentially criminal. Taking a stand against that type of behavior is less "trying to change someone's belief system" than it is policing unacceptable, potentially harmful social behavior.
If you want to hate the Dutch, we'll all be happy if you just keep it to yourself. If you start throwing bottles at Dutch people or their homes, expect that you'll get some grief in return, if you're caught.
Er, he wore the shirt and tie to school, not the soccer game. In many schools, it's required that you "dress the part" of an athlete representing the school. For football players, they wear their jerseys on the day of the game, or Friday, if it's a Saturday game. Basketball players typically wear shirts and ties on days they have a game. For this guy, it sounds like soccer players also had to wear shirts and ties during school on game days. I don't recall being required to wear anything special on days we had wrestling matches, but wrestling wasn't considered a "showcase" sport in our school.
During his formative years, I told my son, "An idiot keeps making the same mistakes. A smart man learns from his mistakes. A wise man learns from others' mistakes and avoids them." That didn't stop him from making mistakes, but he never made the same mistake twice, nor made obviously avoidable mistakes.
Sometimes you try and you fail. Learn from it and move on.
Isn't the fact that the confrontation took place at all pretty much prima facie that Zimmerman chased Martin in contradiction of the dispatcher? If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, there would have been no confrontation.
"Actions by either side"? This is a false dichotomy. Zimmerman didn't have to get out of his car, against the instructions of the 911 operator. He didn't have to confront Martin. He could've continued his observation, safely in the car, and left Martin alone. After all, Martin was simply walking around in the dark, looking suspicious, but not actually doing anything illegal.
What did Zimmerman think would happen when confronting someone doing nothing wrong, in their own neighborhood? Zimmerman knew there was going to be trouble, even if he had to cause it.
Please don't try to tell us both parties are equally wrong: they're not. Not even close.
I'm not buying what you're selling. I coached high school wrestling for years, dealing with "kids" over 6' regularly. They can mostly certainly be "kids," even at 17 or 18. It depends on their attitude.
If Martin was over 6', built like Mike Tyson, with an attitude to match, then yeah, you might have more of a point. This kid was skinny as a rail, and probably as imposing as a wet noodle. The fact that Zimmerman chased after him says that Zimmerman was not in the least intimidated by Martin, in spite of Martin's height. If it was Ving Rhames, Zimmerman would've kept his ass in the car and let the police handle it.
Are you sure you're not also spinning things, intentionally or otherwise? I haven't even really paid much attention to this case, but I did read that the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue the kid, and that the kid mentioned to his girlfriend that he was concerned about someone following him. Then there was the video that showed no visible marks on Zimmerman as he entered the police station after the incident. Zimmerman also has a rap sheet from previous run-ins with the law. These are all telling, as well, and they help to shape our perception of the event and feelings toward Zimmerman, but you didn't mention them.
Likewise, saying Martin was "6'3"" but leaving out the fact that he was 150 pounds also suggests to me you're trying to paint a particular picture. 6'3" is tall, but 150 pounds for that height says to me, "skinny kid." Zimmerman outweighed the kid by 80 pounds or so. It wouldn't have been a fair fight even if Martin got the first shot in. That's assuming Martin knew how to fight, and the fact that he was that skinny says to me he didn't put much effort into physical training. I'm incorporating my background as a wrestling coach to come to that assumption, but I'd be surprised to read that Martin was some sort of super athlete with extensive martial training.
Given the lack of injuries on Zimmerman, the fact that he didn't heed the 911 dispatcher about not chasing after Martin, that he willingly took on this role of "neighborhood enforcer" - and the fact that Martin's dead as a result of a confrontation that didn't need to happen - I'm inclined to think that Zimmerman was more than half responsible for this tragedy.
"Spinning" happens on both sides, but Zimmerman will at least get to tell his side of the story.
Ditto. I used to fly at least twice a week. Haven't flown in a couple of years, now. Fuck 'em...