|
Post by Amadan on Jun 30, 2017 22:20:57 GMT -5
Who cares what she "really" meant? Let's suppose she just tweeted "Trump has a tiny penis! LOL!"
Vulgar and mean? Yes. A disrespectful way to address the POTUS? Sure.
You (Rob) have acknowledged that nothing about Trump's reaction is justified by Mika Brzezinsk's tweets, so what exactly is your point here? That people are being vulgar and mean to the President on Twitter? Okay. So, what, you want us all to join you in agreeing that people shouldn't be vulgar and mean to the President on Twitter?
I can only agree insofar as that I believe that in a perfect world, no one would be vulgar or mean ever. And that I personally would not Tweet vulgarities at anyone (unless I was really, really pushed over the edge, which has so far never happened).
But while you deny you are equivocating between the two, you seem really determined to keep coming back to how nasty and mean a talk show host was in snarking at a very powerful bully who has been incredibly vile towards her.
I just can't join you up on that high horse. And the conversation still reminds me of the adult punching a child in the face for kicking his shins.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 30, 2017 12:50:05 GMT -5
Rigged. Forced into debt. Worked past exhaustion. Left with nothing.Summary: Truckers carrying shipping containers on the short hops from port to local warehouses in Los Angeles have been systematically exploited by the companies that make up this hidden niche (but vital) segment of the industry. Reminiscent of old "company town" schemes - the abuse is pretty blatant and horrific. It was prompted recently - 2009 in fact - by California mandating that all the old trucks that had previously been used for this kind of shipping be replaced with newer, cleaner ones. That meant the shipping companies had to replace a few hundred million dollars worth of trucks, and came up with the brilliant idea of passing that cost on to the drivers, who basically traded their old trucks in for new ones that they "leased" - and if they ever get fired, which they can be for any reason at any time, they immediately lose the truck and however many years of payments they've put into it. Libertarians have been defending all this as (a) the result of Big Bad Government and its horrible environmental regulations (which forced all the trucking companies to create a system of indebtured servitude in response) and (b) perfectly fine because the drivers (most of them poor, often not English speakers) voluntarily signed the contracts. In (minimal) defense of the trucking companies: their margins are very thin. Those environmental regulations probably did impose unintended consequences in that the shippers had to take drastic measures to stay in business. Creating exploitative near-slavery conditions for their drivers was obviously a bad solution, but it's easy to see how they fell into it, especially since once a few companies were doing it, no one else trying to pay fair wages and offer decent working conditions would be able to compete.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 30, 2017 11:39:26 GMT -5
Disagree. I can freely find fault with both the kid and the adult in your example, just as I can freely find fault with both Trump and those who engage in behavior similar to his. Obviously one disapproves of kids kicking adults in the shins. But if the adult retaliates by punching the kid in the face, and your response is to sigh and shake your head at how badly both of them were behaving, you are really missing the point. Moreover, your tut-tutting at Mika is ridiculous. Oh noes, a talk show host said mean things about the President! How did our national discourse ever fall to this level?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 30, 2017 10:34:11 GMT -5
Okay, so apparently this was what Mika said that set off Trump: Hmmm. Not exactly classy on her part, but then she's a talking head doing her job. But then, they're all (the talking heads) part of the problem, too. Again, your equivocation is bullshit. Yes, she's a talking head. Whether it's talk radio or SNL, that's what talking heads do - they say things that are sometimes rude, outrageous, even borderline slanderous, about public figures. You can disapprove, be disgusted, call them out, wag a finger and tut-tut at them, but they are exercising their free speech and also filling a role society has decided, for better or for worse, it wants to be filled. They are the modern court jesters. Sometimes their "speaking truth to power" is all pretension and bullshit, and you can fairly accuse a lot of them of being no better than the anonymous poo-flinging monkeys on Twitter, but they do what they do and that is their role. The POTUS... has a different role. And daintily sniffing "Oh, it's so very disagreeable that people don't conduct themselves in an appropriate manner when addressing the President on Twitter" when the President is acting like a poo-flinging monkey is missing the continent for the trees. It's like if a kid walked up and kicked an adult in the shins, and the adult proceeded to punch the child in the face, and you said "Gosh, why are these kids so undisciplined and disrespectful nowadays?"
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 29, 2017 13:44:36 GMT -5
A .45 round will go through an engine block. I don't know when or how this idiot stopped a .50 caliber slug with a book, but that was an anomaly. Unless there is more to this story, he was (sadly, literally) too stupid to live.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 29, 2017 12:57:48 GMT -5
Of course it is. That's apparent to anyone who has ever paid any attention to Trump's antics across the last several decades. It's exactly the stuff I expect from him. Sure, I hoped he might moderate his behavior when he actually won the Presidency, but I never thought that would be likely. So he is what he is, unfortunately. And the people who voted for him, who support him, are what they are. Whether they're just fooling themselves in this regard, whether they honestly like this crap from Trump, or whether they realize how bad this is but are willing to put up with it because of other reasons, it doesn't much matter at this point in time. He's unlikely to stop, unless of course everyone stopped criticizing him and started complimenting him (which of course will never happen). But imo, this goes back to what I said during the election: one can choose to either follow Trump into the gutter or not (especially on social media), and I think that choosing to follow him down only gives him more power, only encourages him. And I think a lot of otherwise smart people know this, yet they can't help themselves. To make an example of you, Cass, I'm pretty sure I saw a tweet from you to Trump along the lines of "what the fuck is wrong with you." Did you think better of it and delete it? Apologies if I have this wrong. Regardless, there are people saying such things--and worse--to Trump on twitter, specifically tweeting these things to Trump. As awful as he is, he's still the POTUS. And saying such things isn't accomplishing anything. It is--imo, anyway--only empowering Trump and his defenders. Sometimes--usually, in fact--the high road is really hard. And that sucks. ... I mean, sure, swearing at the President on Twitter is not exactly "taking the high road." But your equivocation is just ridiculous. Taking the high road because it's more effective is legitimate. But just asserting as a moral principle that one should always take the high road ignores the fact that politeness and etiquette serve a purpose, they are not an end in themselves. And sometimes, the situation calls for impolitic responses. I'm not saying profane Tweets are it, or that they accomplish anything. But enough of this bullshit tut-tutting at people who are rude to someone who is in the process of setting shit on fire.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 29, 2017 7:10:52 GMT -5
I'd like to call him a Darwin Award winner, except unfortunately he managed to pass his genes on before he died.
Yes, I know that's cruel, and it's very sad. But people that stupid seriously should not breed.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 26, 2017 13:03:06 GMT -5
Well, literal goddess or not, Wonder Woman has always been superhuman and therefore silly to use as a model for real women.
But you are right, a lot of fandom is geeking out as if this is the first time ever that a kick-ass woman who can throw tanks has ever appeared on film. That said, none have ever been quite this successful before.
Wonder Woman may be the first huge summer blockbuster starring a superheroine (Supergirl didn't do nearly as well) and a lot of fans are understandably hopeful that it will pave the way to Captain Marvel and Black Widow movies. (Yes, they are Marvel characters, but the theory goes that WW will prove that a female hero can pull her own weight in a feature film.)
As a movie? Kind of unfair to compare it to Oscar-bait like Selma and Hurt Locker. They are comparing it to other superhero movies. I think the fact that it was a superhero movie directed by a woman is kind of significant. Let's face it, if WW had bombed, no woman would ever direct a superhero movie again (nor would we likely see another superheroine starring in her own feature film for a long time).
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 25, 2017 19:26:09 GMT -5
Yeah, that doesn't come off as funny, clever trolling, it just reads as "Fuck you, Palestinians."
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 23, 2017 13:17:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 23, 2017 9:33:16 GMT -5
I get the reasoning, I understand why people think it makes sense. But my issue with this all is that such enhancements don't always seem to be about intent, but rather about how a given crime makes others feel, others who are not the actual victims of the crime, per se. Consider the case in question here. A guy beat a teenager to death with a baseball bat. That's horrific. If it happened, say, in the park near where I live, I would be a little, scared, especially for my kids who play in that park. But because I feel that way, because others feel that way, it shouldn't automatically mean that there was such intent to the act. In this case, the teen was a Muslim, and from what I see, that is the sole basis of people wanting it to be a hate crime, even though the police are saying it appears to be road rage, more than anything else. And that's a problem with hate crime legislation, as a matter of course: people are going to push for its use as a means to placate reactions to heinous actions. Moreover, I see a problem with it insofar as it represents a stick for police/prosecutors to use, a stick that they shouldn't have, imo. If someone commits a crime against an individual or group with the intent to terrorize a group because of who they are--something that would need proof, of course--I think that should be a crime, over and above the initial crime. But bigotry/prejudice/animus on the part of a suspect in a crime isn't nearly enough. And certainly, mere membership in a marginalized group isn't enough. Yet the last appears to be the sole basis for adding "hate crime" to this particular crime. Okay, hold on. I share your concern about arbitrarily calling any crime against a minority a hate crime, but while that kind of politicization is certainly possible, it does not seem to be happening here. "People" (i.e., the victim's family) may be wanting it to be labeled a hate crime, but it does not appear that the police are treating it as one. And honestly, while whenever there is a violent crime with a racial angle, people start invoking the phrase "hate crime," police and prosecutors don't usually jump to that conclusion without any basis beyond the identities of perpetrator and victim.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 22, 2017 16:12:52 GMT -5
So how come the viciousness of the opposition to Obama and the Clintons never made you more sympathetic to them?
As for Trump being "non-wimpy" I think that you are mistaking a total lack of self-awareness and humility for courage. Trump sticks to his guns not because he has a principled position and is determined to weather it out, but because he's simply incapable of imagining that he's wrong or that anyone but a low-life loser could find fault with him.
I do find your admiration of Trump baffling. Other than the obvious fact that he's not a Democrat, he actually subscribes to almost none of the values you claim to profess. The only thing he seems to be doing that actually advances your cause is "Make liberals cry."
As I said before the election (on another board, where I got reamed for it), I might enjoy the schadenfreude of a Trump Presidency, but schadenfreude is piss-poor consolation for watching your government get wrecked.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 22, 2017 11:52:48 GMT -5
If you can't understand why the hunting of humans for something they can't control or change is particularly vile, hate crimes aren't your problem, but something else may be. This is a bad faith argument (the usual insinuation that people who have different opinions are motivated by racism), but I will actually steelman the pro-hate crimes argument here for you. Your problem is that you aren't making the correct argument for hate crimes - it's not because killing someone because of their identity is "particularly vile" (if I were hunting humans because of something they could control or change - say, because they are Democrats, or because they are Cowboys fans, would that be less vile?). I'll help you out. First, we already have "enhancements" for crimes of violence. Premeditated murder is First Degree murder, whereas killing someone accidentally during a fight is some lesser degree, or manslaughter - even though the victim is just as dead in either case. If you kill someone after raping or torturing them, it's likely to be "Murder with Special Circumstances," and a capital charge in some states. So we have plenty of legal precedent for declaring that some murders are "worse" than others. The reason goes back to the motivation that we would like to deter. And historically, violent acts against minority groups have been organized, or at least socially approved, acts of intimidation. An environment in which blacks can be lynched or gays can be beaten served to oppress those groups. The argument against hate crimes legislation is that lynching and beating is already illegal, and the solution was to start enforcing those laws equally. Which is only partially true. The solution also required a systemic, institutional response to make it clear that minority groups were no longer "fair game" and that any attacks targeting them would be given special scrutiny and prosecuted with extra zeal. The mistake of a lot of hate crimes proponents is the mistake you are making - essentially arguing that killing some people is worse than others. That some lives are more valuable than others, that some deaths are more tragic. That is when identity politics obscure the issue of whether hate crimes actually serve their intended purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 18, 2017 7:36:21 GMT -5
Bruce Lee was so damned fast. You can see him repeatedly just waiting for his student to come in, and then landing a punch before his opponent even finished his approach. It must have been a little like fighting the Flash.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 12, 2017 9:01:07 GMT -5
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1260: "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htmThe Catholic Church is really not as bad as a lot of people claim it is. Well, that catechism does say that I and all the non-Catholics here are going to hell (since we are quite aware of the Church's teachings, but have not accepted them). You can soft-peddle that all you like, but ultimately your religion, like most, does say that non-believers are damned, with few exceptions. And while you personally might do nothing more than feel sad about that, it has historically been a pretty strong justification for much more vigorous actions.
|
|