|
Post by Optimus on Aug 13, 2020 14:59:59 GMT -5
LOL, I don't see the point given that (free) online porn is a thing?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 13, 2020 12:51:57 GMT -5
I'm sure he can just use the, "I'm not a violent piece of shit, I'm just a peaceful protestor" defense in court. Guaranteed acquittal in the current climate.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 12, 2020 19:08:45 GMT -5
Well, one upside is that it could potentially, significantly reduce nasty comments directed at people.
But, I think the better solution would be for Twitter to shut down permanently as it's basically a festering sore on the ass of humanity at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 12, 2020 12:48:00 GMT -5
This is also funny...and completely unsurprising:
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 11, 2020 15:53:51 GMT -5
Yeah, I was thinking there's no way the Dems could put together a ticket worse than the 2016 one but, well, here we are.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2020 13:44:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2020 10:09:56 GMT -5
Such noble, peaceful protestors. Not a greedy, miserable piece of shit rioter among them, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2020 10:07:58 GMT -5
Gee, how surprising that the people who are oppressing other people's speech and trying to police their supposed thought crimes on social media would also be the ones who feel the most free to speak their minds.
It's shocking, I tell ya.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 9, 2020 16:22:24 GMT -5
As a scientist, I can see both sides of this (not saying that I fully agree with either side, though). I agree that the bolded part above is a really stupid hot take. Linnaeus apparently had a tremendous impact on the field (from what I understand; it's not my research area) for things that have little to nothing to do with his arguably racist beliefs. Kinda dumb to throw the baby out with the bath water. Part of me thinks that if a cure for cancer is ever found, but the person who discovers it posted something questionable on Twitter years before, that SJWs would "cancel" them and refuse to take it. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of naming things after scientists, because that puts the focus on a person rather than the science, which can lead to issues like this. In a way, this situation is somewhat similar to controversies over Confederate monuments. If a scientist was a flaming bigot, then I don't think they should be lionized. We can accept the good scientific ideas they had while also condemning the fact that they held shitty views on fellow groups of humans. These types of controversies can mostly be avoided in the future if we just don't name things after scientists and instead focus on the actual science. But, it can get out of hand, like the recent decision by NASA to rename potentially problematic things like the "Eskimo Nebula." Maybe that's a hugely offensive name to someone somewhere, but I kinda doubt it. Rationally, it's no more "insensitive" than if it'd been called the "American Nebula." But, whatever. I'm not sure anyone could reasonably make a "it's just like calling a football team 'Redskins'" argument; maybe more like calling a team the Blackhawks. Either way, seems much ado about nothing. Thankfully, this kind of bullshit hasn't really hit cognitive science (my field), neuroscience, or psychology much yet. The only controversy over a former "titan" of the field we've had lately is dismantling the once well-regarded career of Hans Eysenck. But, that's not because he was some sort of awful racist or anything like that; it's because he was a monumentally shitty researcher who made absurd empirical claims based on doctored data. retractionwatch.com/2019/10/07/do-we-have-the-will-to-do-anything-about-it-james-heathers-reflects-on-the-eysenck-case/
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 8, 2020 14:57:28 GMT -5
Yeah, his pledge was as idiotic as it was groan-inducing. Automatically painted himself into a corner by limiting the field of possibilities. Had he not done that, he could've selected someone like Andrew Yang, whose stock has skyrocketed on both left and right in the wake of the pandemic given his populist ideas like his "freedom dividend." That would've given his campaign a jolt of youth and some "outsider" street cred.
Or, he could've selected from any number of qualified people, no matter their sex.
But, nope, he had to try to make a sad, transparent move for the "woke" minority of the party and now has made his campaign look even more weak, dithering, and disorganized than it already did.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 7, 2020 19:29:49 GMT -5
"You have not experienced Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon."
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 7, 2020 19:16:43 GMT -5
30 seconds of Googling would've informed that fool that there (apparently) is no "th" sound in Thai.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 6, 2020 21:39:06 GMT -5
BTW, Biden did his usual Biden thing today where he got angry with a reporter for asking him a legitimate question. Reporter brings up the fact that Trump has challenged Biden's mental fitness and has taken a cognitive test of his own (with hilarious and embarassing results), and then asks Biden it clarify if he's taken a cognitive test. Biden then gets angry, asks the reporter (who is black) if he took a test for cocaine (yeah...no negative stereotype there at all, Biden), and then fumbles over his words at the end like a guy who probably needs to take a cognitive test.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 6, 2020 21:29:49 GMT -5
Seems like a Freudian slip on his part. Based on his past behaviour, I think he likely really does believe that all black people alike and, the ones who don't, well..."they ain't black."
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 6, 2020 14:39:34 GMT -5
You've got my vote, Rob.
|
|