|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1373294)
When in doubt, burn Oakland.
Californians will get this. This is apparently always the solution. :rofl: |
I don't remember there being as many whiny bitches in 2000.
I guess there is some kind of facebook petition you can sign to eliminate the electoral college. |
Originally Posted by Erat
(Post 1373323)
I don't remember there being as many whiny bitches in 2000
I guess there is some kind of facebook petition you can sign to eliminate the electoral college.[/QUOTE] oh good, the one tool that protects us from the mob! Yale Professor Makes Midterm Optional For Special Snowflakes Upset By Trump Victory | Tribunist https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwzDC6EXAAEcxZv.jpg |
Midterms have always been optional, as have finals...
|
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 1373422)
Midterms have always been optional, as have finals...
|
Finals were optional at my University, if you had an 'A' average.
As for the fires in Oakland, I thought that was just one of the 4 seasons in California. Earthquake, Drought, Fire, Flood |
Originally Posted by Guardiola
(Post 1373428)
Finals were optional at my University, if you had an 'A' average.
As for the fires in Oakland, I thought that was just one of the 4 seasons in California. Earthquake, Drought, Fire, Flood https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...da666b521a.jpg |
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 1373422)
Midterms have always been optional, as have finals...
|
this series is fun if you're bored:
I like the guy at 18:00 |
lol, dude cries the election wasn't about the issues, but wants Hillary to sue the US because the black vote is only counted at 1/3. Guess this dude hasn't read the Constitution.... This dude is exactly why we have an electoral college, so the vote is representational, not just a bunch of city-folk running things. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XiY9eahno...2BCounties.PNG |
the audio from an old tv program on mental illness, on top of footage from today's youth:
Facebook Post |
CNN left this off their clip: this was a fake interview from a CNN employee... They really have trouble simply reporting the news and not trying to create it. Hitler. |
|
fast forward to 4:15
|
God damn, watching people play poker is boring.
|
instead of helping the homeless, SJWs steal his dog with violence.
Facebook Post |
To be fair, that's not even close to "extreme violence."
People used to speculate that the youth were becoming desensitized to violence as a product of exposure to it by way of television, film, and video games. The exact opposite has happened. Just as looking at a woman in public now constitutes rape, the term "violence" is being applied to actions which hardly constitute it, by people who have never experienced it. |
|
A Vote for Trump Was A Hate Crime | The Huffington Post
We are all still reeling from the shock of the election results. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote yet we now must brace ourselves for a Trump Administration. The more I think about it and see the reactions from all sides, the more this feels like the aftermath of an attack ― a literal attack ― on our communities. The groups that those “deplorables” love to hate and feel threatened by are now under attack: LGBT people, people of color, women, Muslims, the disabled and many others. This election was a hate crime. Not physical but psychological, and one that may well lead to legal and physical manifestations that would very much be categorized as hate crimes. I saw and heard about such pain and fear on social media and personally as we realized Trump would take the election. And it has not let up. I checked on several people who were expressing a level of fear that seem like it could lead to self-harm. I saw friends saying that they desperately needed to seek support at a twelve-step meeting or some other refuge. I saw pleas for self-care and to not let fear overwhelm us. So it was already a concern and after finally being able to get some sleep, a vandalized Hillary bumper sticker welcomed me as I got my car to go grocery shopping this morning. We live in Montclair, NJ, one of the most diverse and progressive places in the state. For the first time in a long time I no longer feel safe. I used to brush off the occasional epithet and frequent misgendering, and have not had to deal with anything overt for some time. I fear that may change, not just at home but as I travel. With a daughter living in Texas and someone who travels for work, this feels very very real. But does calling this vote a hate crime sound extreme? Not if you look at the definition. A hate crime is one motivated by prejudice, fear or intolerance toward an individual’s national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. It is not news that throughout his campaign Trump spend an enormous amount of time spewing hate and vitriol at women, Muslims, Latino and the disabled. Brushing things like sexual assault braggadocio off as “locker room talk” and not seeing him held accountable by his supporters, the GOP or more of the media was at best disappointing. Actually is was infuriating. And embarrassing. We saw protesters at Trump rallies mocked, beaten and arrested. As the crowd cheers along like a mob. So it should come as no surprise that many – not all – but many of the disenfranchised voters supporting Trump felt not only validated but empowered but this victory. Enough to create a climate where they are far less hesitant to act on their hate. I thought about how after eight years of a powerful, effective African-American President with integrity we now will have a President endorsed by the KKK. As we all try to wrap out minds around this new reality, as we approach January and the inauguration of President Trump, I hope that the impact of what this country just let happen sinks in. I think we will only see more fear-mongering, and hostility. I fear that the haters have been handed a sense of empowerment that they will operationalize after years of frustration. We saw it after the Brexit vote, which this is constantly being compared to in the media. I fear for all those who are now clearly in the crosshairs of hatred. I fear for allies who will speak up and protest a Trump regime and all it may bring. I fear we will be hearing about more than bumper sticker vandalism. I fear. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1374310)
after eight years of a powerful, effective African-American President with integrity
|
Originally Posted by rleete
(Post 1374316)
Where the hell were they living? 'cause it sure as hell wasn't in the US.
remember that time he closed gitmo? wasn't sure if here or darwin: Facebook Post |
I'm really enjoying this recent trend of people wandering out onto the highway in protest, and then getting hit by cars.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1374368)
I'm really enjoying this recent trend of people wandering out onto the highway in protest, and then getting hit by cars.
|
Any attention is for the "cause"; likes, clicks, seconds on the news,....
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1374368)
I'm really enjoying this recent trend of people wandering out onto the highway in protest, and then getting hit by cars.
then youll like the intro to this: |
The University of Michigan Law School has canceled its Play-Dough event originally designed to help students cope with the trauma of the election resulthttp://milo.yiannopoulos.net/wp-cont...2.22.04-PM.png |
Originally Posted by shuiend
(Post 1374374)
I just do not understand the rational with blocking highways and traffic. It just does not seem like the right way to convert people to your side.
That said, I'm not really sure doing it in the dark was the best idea...but I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone. Not sure if getting hit by a car belongs in a generation wuss thread though. That's pretty metal. |
|
Eh, I'm pretty liberal. There's quite a lot of brainwashing on both sides of the aisle. I think part of the blame sits with how easy it is to be in an echo chamber.
I have quite a few conservative friends, especially among the mechanics I hang out with (a few of whom are vets, some conceal carry, yada yada yada), we disagree on plenty of stuff but actually talk about it. Apparently that's uncommon these days. That fact blows my mind. There's blatant disrespect and dismissal on both sides of the aisle. It's pretty frustrating and pretty much explains why we move from one political deadlock to another...and the need to abolish the 2 party system but hey... |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1374684)
Apparently that's uncommon these days.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1374685)
My hope is that it's not as uncommon as it seems, merely that the advent of the social-distortion amplifier tends to allow voices unwilling to face dissent to drown out the others.
A lot of people are so stuck in their ways that they call out the other side for being hypocrites while failing to see that their own faulty logic. You see that a lot with climate deniers claiming that it's not real science because they use models and aren't open to being wrong and are paid off yada yada yada when in reality all science works by models and they don't understand the models well enough to disagree with what they don't like. On the flip side they argue that climate change scientists have a liberal agenda, when exxon-mobil etc have been studying it for decades and paying off researchers just like phillip morris was. It's honestly hard though. There's such a volume of information and so many terrible sources that it's hard to see what the objective reality is anymore. Not everything comes with a conflict of interest so it's hard to see what folks really want out of what they're writing/claiming. |
shocking: black kids hate white people
Hundreds of students walk out of D.C. area schools to protest Trump | WUSA9.com https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...88092393_o.jpg police and teachers support this truancy and lawlessness. watch the video in the link. lol. |
Really enjoying reading through this thread lol :laugh:
|
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1374698)
Yeah, to be fair, in my mind the silencing of someone with views different than your own is kind of bullshit.
As idiotic as that may sound, it's actually becoming reality in some circles. I've come across blogs written by seemingly normal people who literally make a list of their "privileges" and post it at the top of the page. Some universities now have a formal system in place for students to register their preferred pronouns, and an administrative mechanism for handling cases in which others (be they students, faculty, or staff) fail to properly utilize them. Obviously this only works when the offended party is of the SJW-mindset. Eg: If a feminist blogger says "I need feminism because 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs are male," an objective critic might reply with "Wait, did you just assume the gender of 95% of all Fortunate 500 CEOs? That's transphobic, and I'm offended by that." Obviously, such a reply will not be met gladly. But mark my words: the time is near when private companies will institute policies like this. Don't believe me? Travel back in time to 1955 and show some average office workers a 2015-era corporate handbook.
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1374698)
It's honestly hard though. There's such a volume of information and so many terrible sources that it's hard to see what the objective reality is anymore.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1374888)
And yet that's precisely the intent of someone who says "I'm offended." When the system works as designed, it's a conversation-ender. "Oh, you're offended by what I said? Well, I must be in the wrong then, and I apologize profusely for my insensitive behavior."
As idiotic as that may sound, it's actually becoming reality in some circles. I've come across blogs written by seemingly normal people who literally make a list of their "privileges" and post it at the top of the page. Some universities now have a formal system in place for students to register their preferred pronouns, and an administrative mechanism for handling cases in which others (be they students, faculty, or staff) fail to properly utilize them. Obviously this only works when the offended party is of the SJW-mindset. Eg: If a feminist blogger says "I need feminism because 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs are male," an objective critic might reply with "Wait, did you just assume the gender of 95% of all Fortunate 500 CEOs? That's transphobic, and I'm offended by that." Obviously, such a reply will not be met gladly. But mark my words: the time is near when private companies will institute policies like this. Don't believe me? Travel back in time to 1955 and show some average office workers a 2015-era corporate handbook. If one compares the present day to the era of my youth, it's become much easier to find verifiable truth if you are objective about analyzing sources, and much easier to find speculative, miscontextualized, or false information which supports and reinforces existing biases if you are not. 30 years ago, you had to live near a major university library in order to have access to the vast supply of pure, legitimate truth which each of us has at our fingertips today. By the same token, you had to attend church or subscribe to badly-mimeographed newsletters to be exposed to the sheer volume of data-manipulation and outright falsehood. The issue I have with it is when folks go around saying that someone's experience/thoughts/identity are invalid. I.e., you're a straight white christian male, you have no right to talk. Well... so much for productive conversation... Re: the feminism and wall street stuff. Well.... that's a weird example because the finance world is often sexist, predatory, and abusive to women. I have a lot of friends that work in finance, a few on wall street and they've seen bizarre disparities in treatment too. So your comment kinda misses that. I kinda see what you're getting at though... but I guess I'll wait for that to happen first since I'd probably just laugh at it. I understand why folks want to have trigger warnings etc because trauma can be real for many people (often PTSD-like), but honestly if you signed up for a literature class you should damn well know that people write about things that weren't so pleasant. I don't get why those are necessary... I am not responsible for your mental health in an academic setting like this. Silencing a viewpoint doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When I wrote about the news and information, I was thinking about the pro-trump websites out of the Balkans that were getting shared like mad with everyone taking all that shit as gospel. Heh. We might agree more than we might have thought earlier. |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1374912)
We all live in our own constructed reality, right?
|
|
Originally Posted by Dann0
(Post 1374932)
I genuinely think that if enough people believe this, and pursue it to its natural outcome, the result is incompatible with civilization. It is an interesting metaphysical idea that when applied to reality becomes toxic.
imma quote Joe's favorite here: To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man. |
|
We have always been at war with eastasia.
Originally Posted by Dann0
(Post 1374932)
I genuinely think that if enough people believe this, and pursue it to its natural outcome, the result is incompatible with civilization. It is an interesting metaphysical idea that when applied to reality becomes toxic.
What I was saying was that folks want others to acknowledge differences in experiences/reality/perception and then basically admit that it disqualifies them and their opinion. The last part is pretty misguided. |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1374698)
It's honestly hard though. There's such a volume of information and so many terrible sources that it's hard to see what the objective reality is anymore. Not everything comes with a conflict of interest so it's hard to see what folks really want out of what they're writing/claiming. |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1374698)
It's honestly hard though. There's such a volume of information and so many terrible sources that it's hard to see what the objective reality is anymore. Not everything comes with a conflict of interest so it's hard to see what folks really want out of what they're writing/claiming.
Originally Posted by hi_im_sean
This is exactly what I was trying to explain to Joe a few months back. But Im not as eloquent.
So two question arise: 1: Should "we" do something about this, and There has always been false information and unverifiable data. Have we reached a point at which we deem the quantity of this information too great, or the people too stupid, to be able to decide for themselves what is valid and what is not, and shoulder the burden of making that decision for them? 2: If so, what should we do and how? If so, should this be implemented at the state level (by repealing the first amendment), or by altruistically implementing censorship at the level where the distribution channels are managed (eg: Verizon, CNN, Google, etc.), thus trusting a few large corporations to make these decisions for us? |
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1375030)
There has always been false information and unverifiable data. Have we reached a point at which we deem the quantity of this information too great, or the people too stupid, to be able to decide for themselves what is valid and what is not, and shoulder the burden of making that decision for them?
If so, should this be implemented at the state level (by repealing the first amendment), or by altruistically implementing censorship at the level where the distribution channels are managed (eg: Verizon, CNN, Google, etc.), thus trusting a few large corporations to make these decisions for us? |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1375035)
I heard FB will weed out the bad stuff for us...
It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced. It's honestly chilling. |
In one of our local district races, one candidate's party sent out a mailer stating that the other candidate had used tax payer dollars to fund a vacation to Hawaii. The accused candidate had never been to Hawaii... I think he ended up losing... Propaganda driven politics...
I don't think there's any repercussion being planned against the accuser. Should there be? Should there not be? Censorship on facebook is completely fine, its a private entity. They will do what makes them the most money. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1375040)
Yeah, that's what scares me...
It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced. It's honestly chilling. The real difference now is the access to information. Original, source data is at your fingertips if you are interested enough to actually dig for it. Likewise, opinion/spin is 24/7 and the number of outlets and access for those outlets is an order of magnitude larger than in the past. The challenge for all of us is to try and not live in our bubbles -- to try and live as individuals. But, it's human nature to seek bubbles and like-minded people . . . it's hard. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1375030)
Agreed.
So two question arise: 1: Should "we" do something about this, and There has always been false information and unverifiable data. Have we reached a point at which we deem the quantity of this information too great, or the people too stupid, to be able to decide for themselves what is valid and what is not, and shoulder the burden of making that decision for them?2: If so, what should we do and how? If so, should this be implemented at the state level (by repealing the first amendment), or by altruistically implementing censorship at the level where the distribution channels are managed (eg: Verizon, CNN, Google, etc.), thus trusting a few large corporations to make these decisions for us? The flip side as you and brain are getting at is that the control of information is vital to censorship and there's too much information to control. The easiest way to do it is to make all media state run, but that's so fucked up and should never be an option in a democracy. I'm not saying you shouldn't have state-media (thought I'm not sure what purpose this would serve), but censorship of information is irresponsible in a democracy. At the same time, the advent of dr.google has made a lot of patently false medical information easily available and has made a lot of people really sick. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone with a GED to be able to sift through all that stuff if they're scared for their health and figure out what's real and what's not. I don't think that there should be spoon feeding, but there are a lot of americans who can't afford to get care (as fucked up as that is) and I don't think they deserve that fate. I guess I should disclose that I'm in med school. It'll make my views on the thing above more clear.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1375035)
I heard FB will weed out the bad stuff for us...
|
Originally Posted by leboeuf
(Post 1375042)
In one of our local district races, one candidate's party sent out a mailer stating that the other candidate had used tax payer dollars to fund a vacation to Hawaii. The accused candidate had never been to Hawaii... I think he ended up losing... Propaganda driven politics...
I don't think there's any repercussion being planned against the accuser. Should there be? Should there not be? Censorship on facebook is completely fine, its a private entity. They will do what makes them the most money.
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1375043)
I think that may be a romanticized view of your parents' generation, honestly. Human beings are what they are. This country in particular has been much more divided in the past -- and limited media has also been more influential on a broader range of the population in the past.
The real difference now is the access to information. Original, source data is at your fingertips if you are interested enough to actually dig for it. Likewise, opinion/spin is 24/7 and the number of outlets and access for those outlets is an order of magnitude larger than in the past. The challenge for all of us is to try and not live in our bubbles -- to try and live as individuals. But, it's human nature to seek bubbles and like-minded people . . . it's hard. The 24/7 news cycle is nuts though. During the election news channels had countdowns for hours and hours and hours to press conferences just going back and forth about what they thought was going to be announced. It's like holy fucking shit, why don't you report on what's going on in the rest of the world for a few hours and then come back to this half an hour before it starts. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1375040)
Yeah, that's what scares me...
It find it difficult to reconcile the fact that my parents' generation fought against censorship, and believed that every voice should be heard. My childrens' generation are now asking for censorship, demanding that some voices be silenced. It's honestly chilling.
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1375043)
I think that may be a romanticized view of your parents' generation, honestly.
The words "melting pot" have been replaced with multiculturalism which is a method of dividing people into us/them groups to allow the politicians to give anyone and everyone an enemy to loathe and fear. This lets your fellow Americans be vilified and their ideas, values, and their very lives be reduced in value. It lets the politicians insulate their constituents from hearing ideas and proposals from the other side because the source is automatically not worthy of consideration. It works. And it will kill us. I was also taught America was based upon self-reliance, rugged individualism, and personal liberty. We don't hear much of those ideas anymore. |
Agreed on the news being filtered drivel. There have been filters on news since it was a town crier, so there is nothing new under the sun. I go to foreign sources for world news because there is no world news in American broadcasting.
|
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 1375062)
Agreed on the news being filtered drivel. There have been filters on news since it was a town crier, so there is nothing new under the sun. I go to foreign sources for world news because there is no world news in American broadcasting.
|
Trump was an okay landlord, but now that he's pres-elect...
Trump Name Removed From Manhattan Condo Complex After Residents' Petition | NBC New York Gold capital letters spelling the president-elect's last name were removed from a high-rise condominium complex in Manhattan Wednesday after hundreds of people signed a petition to have the building drop the moniker. Crews were seen removing the gold-blazoned name on the facade of the building near Lincoln Square formerly known as Trump Place. The three buildings dropped the name of President-elect Donald Trump in favor of their street addresses, 140, 160 and 180 Riverside Boulevard, a spokesman for complex manager and owner Equity Residential said Tuesday. "We are assuming a more neutral building identity that will appeal to all current and future residents," spokesman Marty McKenna said. ... "Our home is our most personal private space, a building we should feel proud of and happy to walk into every day... so... THE TIME HAS COME TO DUMP TRUMP," said Linda Gottlieb, Robert Tessler and Brian Dumont. |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1375064)
Isn't that insane though?
Within the US, NPR is a relatively objective source of news reporting, as is Al Jazeera which, despite its foreign ownership, operates as a commercial entity in this country. BBC, of course, is probably the most reliable English-language broadcast news source, though it, of course, is state-funded and state-operated. What's the alternative, really? Repeal the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Do we only eliminate freedom of speech and of the press, or is it time for the freedom of religion thing to go as well (that way we can legally prosecute people who aren't protestant Christians), and maybe we don't need the freedom of assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. After all, riots start as assemblies, and there's no need to petition the government when we can clearly trust it to think for us. |
I grew up in India (moved here at 11), so grew up watching BBC. I agree that AJ is actually a great source of information even on US issues.
I don't think repealing the first amendment is the answer. I do think you can have fact checked information without quashing the right of folks to speak their minds and opinions. It's when opinion is presented as objective truth where I have issues. But again, then it becomes important to figure out who's doing the fact checking. What do you think of the president-elect's vetting process for the press. Do you think it impinges on freedom of the press? |
Side note: this is pretty interesting.
Do you live in a bubble? Take this quiz to find out | PBS NewsHour |
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
(Post 1375088)
Do you think it impinges on freedom of the press?
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1375095)
Did King Trump somehow decry a law that prevents the press from doing their job?
I was referencing his fondness for media blacklists and denying press credentialing. |
I definitely under no circumstances would want the 1rst amendment repealed.
I simply have no answer for this Joe. That's not to say I haven't thought about it extensively. It seems like every time you come up with an idea to fix it, it require some form of regulation, that in order to work, would rely on the morals and principles of those regulating. To which I find ironic, as you could make the argument that morals and principles, or lack of(normal human behavior), is what put us here to begin with. If the morons that put out the anti 205 ads here in AZ had any morals in this context or (in my eyes of course) the "right" principles, maybe they wouldn't have lied through their teeth and make up fake data to sway things in their favor. And unfortunately confirmation bias is a real thing. So, you make a governing body that ensures the truthfulness of political ads? And who insures they are doing their job correctly, how do we keep money away from them? It just spirals out of control. So the more I think about it, the more I agree with the "pass a test to vote" or other conversations that have been going on here lately. Not that that idea isn't subject to the same issues I just spoke of. ie- who rights the test? |
I think that democracy rests on an educated populace. This might be more of a 'long-game' but I'd prefer to start by ensuring that public schools in rural arkansas are as good as those in yuppie-ville central.
You can teach kids civics whether they want to be rocket scientists or auto mechanics. I'm all for having tech high schools as well. Just because you don't want to be an academic or intellectual doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of what's going on around you or be taught the tools with which to evaluate the world around you. I think the reason people even started talking about tests etc is because our public school system is falling apart and the floor is set so low. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:08 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands