|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:No see we'll never completely get rid of bullying, so it's pointless trying, because society of victims. So stop telling my kid to not call other kids "fag" or to stop planting empty bags of pot in other kids' backpacks, you're creating a society of victims. The mere fact that you call kids who get teased a little "victims" shows how you're actively engaged in the wussification of America. I mean, I was bullied as a kid and I turned out fine! 
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I don't even know what "society of victims" means since anti-bullying efforts are trying to reduce the number of victims. See, bullying toughens kids up and we shouldn't always be on the victim's side, sometimes it's good to blame the victim. Sets kids up in the right way to engage in later victim blaming themselves, which improves their confidence in ways that the 'everyone gets a medal' culture can never do. Don't you want to engage in the culture of exclusion and toxic hypermasculinity? Even the names sound awesome! Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A black Mister Fantastic would be awesome, but what I'd really like to see the reaction to is a black Bruce Wayne. Black James Bond.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Better get rid of police too. If the rich can't hold off squatters and thieves with their lone might, then they need too toughen up, we don't want a society of victims Oh, it doesn't work that way when it comes to the nanny state gunning down poors who want your stuff? Only gay teens need to man up? How convenient 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:
The funniest thing is the reference to Will Smith in MiB. So, if he acts like a cool, cocky young man who is thrust into a new world that he finds simultaneously terrifying and super awesome, and regularly makes bad decisions due to temper or impulsiveness. A dude who is not necessarily the smartest or strongest person on his team, and has to be reined in by the older members, but is loyal and comes through with style. Good point, that would be nothing like Johnny Storm. e: The big casting concern is whether or not Reed and Sue will be old enough to credibly function as the mom and dad of the family.  e2: vvv If I remember correctly, didn't the people in charge of Dr Who say some pretty gross stuff about how anything but a white man wasn't "realistic" enough? Mornacale fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Kind of related to black characters- I have an ex who is incredibly upset and had an online and real life meltdown that the new doctor in Dr Who is a white male. She got so hyped up on the idea that the new doctor would be non-white or a woman that when the new season revealed yet another straight white male, she went into a rage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
What's her tumblr?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:e2: vvv If I remember correctly, didn't the people in charge of Dr Who say some pretty gross stuff about how anything but a white man wasn't "realistic" enough? The current head of Doctor Who is a huge loving sexist shitbag so I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was a huge loving racist shitbag as well. I like Peter Capaldi and it's better than continuing Young Cute Doctor but at the same time I also really am disappointed there isn't a woman doctor or a poc doctor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Martha was a doctor. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:Martha was a doctor. Wait, wasn't that Donna?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Wait, wasn't that Donna? Lower case d doctor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:Lower case d doctor. Oh my god that went totally over my head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 03:36
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:I've met the guy in question and can assure you he's 100% in earnest. I wonder how many of these people are walking around in a bubble of fear that everyone who doesn't look like them, or speaks a different language, is out to get them, and how many are walking around in a bubble of fantasy, imagining themselves as untested heroes, waiting for the opportunity to thwart evildoers and bask in the glory and appreciation of the populace. Dave Barry once wrote a funny (of course) essay about the humor-impaired individuals he deals with as a professional humor writer. He included a "test," wherein in he made a joke about Nixon, then asked you to observe your reaction: "Did you think: 'Ha ha! That Nixon sure is a geek, all right!' Or did you think: 'This is offensive, cheap, crude and vicious humor, making fun of a former president of the United States, a major public figure, an internationally recognized elder statesman, just because he is a geek.'" The point was, if you had either of those reactions, you're not humor-impaired, because you at least recognize that it's supposed to be a joke. The number of Freepers who both fail to recognize humor in the statements of others, and fail to recognize the pure ridiculousness of their own statements us staggering. It reminds of Tobias Funke's homosexual innuendo on Arrested Development: how the hell are they not hearing it?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:e2: vvv If I remember correctly, didn't the people in charge of Dr Who say some pretty gross stuff about how anything but a white man wasn't "realistic" enough? If I've heard right, they actually offered the role of the Doctor to Chiwetel Ejiofor. He turned them down to go make movies, and they picked Matt Smith instead as a second choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
V-Men posted:I can't recall if the nerdrage was about race or just Marvel apparently screwing with continuity as it wasn't apparently clear whether Bradley becomes a super soldier before or after Steve Rogers. I'm unsure why continuity matters should ever get anyone upset considering how often it is hosed with, but nerds be nerds. Yeah the selective nerd rage about that was ridiculous, nerds are the worst
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
constantIllusion posted:I'd like to know how "...She has bright, dark eyes and satiny brown skin..." means anything besides black to these people? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 06:10
|
|
constantIllusion posted:I'd like to know how "...She has bright, dark eyes and satiny brown skin..." means anything besides black to these people? My first thought would be, "Wow, they're not particularly good at describing things".
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
So on a forum I frequent, there was an utterly nutty troll. Here's a few of the things the troll (called "flux") said:quote:The future must also take into account - religion. quote:What coincides with empires falling? quote:Why does academia play down the standing stone connection quote:Pagan royalty quote:Please, outline for us where i am wrong? quote:Please don't misinform people. quote:Did Constantine convert to HIS new religion? So yeah, this guy was banned, but his insanity was entertaining enough (and political, I guess? David Icke-style insanity about the British monarchy) that I thought you'd appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
NO LISTEN TO ME posted:The current head of Doctor Who is a huge loving sexist shitbag so I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was a huge loving racist shitbag as well. Apparently they spent a long time considering Richard Ayoade for the role. The only reason he was passed over was cause he'd never done dramatic work. The Dark One posted:Martha was a doctor. And ended up with the only other black person, despite them not sharing a single word of dialogue up to that point. vyelkin posted:If I've heard right, they actually offered the role of the Doctor to Chiwetel Ejiofor. He turned them down to go make movies, and they picked Matt Smith instead as a second choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Apparently they spent a long time considering Richard Ayoade for the role. The only reason he was passed over was cause he'd never done dramatic work. That's really unfair to Matt Smith and you know it  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
No, its completely fair to Matt Smith, and I definitely know it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
WTF, I skip 6 pages to get away from smoker chat and now I come back to a page of Dr Who chat? You guy are worse than the Xbone thread, and that thread loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Apparently they spent a long time considering Richard Ayoade for the role. The only reason he was passed over was cause he'd never done dramatic work. I would have watched the gently caress out of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:So on a forum I frequent, there was an utterly nutty troll. Here's a few of the things the troll (called "flux") said: I love how he reduces every non christian religion to DIRTY HEATHEN PAGANISM. And how paganism is somehow a centralized religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:I love how he reduces every non christian religion to DIRTY HEATHEN PAGANISM. Also the world is ruled by kings and queens. Republics? What is that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
U.T. Raptor posted:My first thought would be Hispanic, or maybe Indian Oh please for the love of god tell me that you guys are joking about this? She is from a District that represents the US southeast...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Maybe he hasn't read the book and has zero context for that description?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:If everyone bullies no one is a victim. Getting away from Dr Who chat; the real answer is that it's not a binary situation. We can easily do both of these things by teaching our kids not to be assholes, but also teaching them that they shouldn't be afraid to stand up for themselves. I think that's the thing a lot of people who post poo poo like that miss about the whole anti-bullying thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
A new crop today!  This was of course followed by mentions of "caddy's" and "the 'hood".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Is employment drug testing that common? No one in my upper middle class white family has ever been drug tested for work to my knowledge. It seems to be something that we exclusively force low-income people to do. How many I-bankers or Wall St types could honestly pass a drug test after a weekend on the town?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Is employment drug testing that common? No one in my upper middle class white family has ever been drug tested for work to my knowledge. It seems to be something that we exclusively force low-income people to do. How many I-bankers or Wall St types could honestly pass a drug test after a weekend on the town? I think its entirely correlated to how much you operate heavy machinery, and/or how close to minimum wage you'll be making. The former makes sense, at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Is employment drug testing that common? No one in my upper middle class white family has ever been drug tested for work to my knowledge. It seems to be something that we exclusively force low-income people to do. How many I-bankers or Wall St types could honestly pass a drug test after a weekend on the town? If you work in Walmart, Kmart, McDonalds, or any other minimum wage dead end job, you're getting a drug test every month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Is employment drug testing that common? No one in my upper middle class white family has ever been drug tested for work to my knowledge. It seems to be something that we exclusively force low-income people to do. How many I-bankers or Wall St types could honestly pass a drug test after a weekend on the town? I mentioned it earlier in this thread (or somewhere else) that the only reason I was tested where I work (small municipality outside of a major city) was for insurance purposes since I have access to City vehicles. We only screen pre-employment and if you get in to an accident. Now that I think about it, I have only been drug tested for public sector jobs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Is employment drug testing that common? No one in my upper middle class white family has ever been drug tested for work to my knowledge. It seems to be something that we exclusively force low-income people to do. How many I-bankers or Wall St types could honestly pass a drug test after a weekend on the town? I had to get one for my aerospace engineering job. Maybe something about safety or just that it's a giant corporation? I have no idea. Also, Wall St types tend to do cocaine, which doesn't stay in your system very long. OAquinas posted:I think its entirely correlated to how much you operate heavy machinery, and/or how close to minimum wage you'll be making. The former makes sense, at least. I don't come anywhere close to heavy machinery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
CowHammer posted:I had to get one for my aerospace engineering job. Maybe something about safety or just that it's a giant corporation? I have no idea. I've worked in a hospital and had to pass a urine test before starting there. I also had to pass a test before starting medical school.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
My follow-up question would be is that is there any evidence that drug testing is an effective (and cost-effective) method for identifying employees who are potentially liable to be hazards in the workplace or otherwise detrimental to the employer? My thought is probably not because I'm assuming that alcohol is way, way, way more the issue and they don't screen for that at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:I've worked in a hospital and had to pass a urine test before starting there. I also had to pass a test before starting medical school. That also makes sense from a certain point of view of "there's a lot of drugs in this building." Regarding the efficacy of drug screenings...I'd be very interested in seeing if there is such a study.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:If you work in Walmart, Kmart, McDonalds, or any other minimum wage dead end job, you're getting a drug test every month. You don't get drug tested every month, but they are near ubiquitous for low end jobs when being hired at any remotely large company. Putting cereal on a shelf is dangerous stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:My follow-up question would be is that is there any evidence that drug testing is an effective (and cost-effective) method for identifying employees who are potentially liable to be hazards in the workplace or otherwise detrimental to the employer? My thought is probably not because I'm assuming that alcohol is way, way, way more the issue and they don't screen for that at all. There is little correlation (outside of operating heavy machinery) that shows that drugs tests help anything other than getting people fired. And from Florida's massive bungled program there is fresh new data that it costs more to drug test welfare recipients that you will save by eliminating those that do drugs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
My last three employers have been universities, in various positions. The only time I was drug tested was when I worked law enforcement (which makes sense, there was also a full background investigation). I did some clerical work when I was a grad student, was a TA and an RA, and now I am a visiting professor--never had a drug test for any of these positions. I had two non-university positions in the past 7 or so years. One was a short term position with a (very small) company that did testing for heavy equipment operators (no drug test). The other was data analysis for a car dealer, that one drug tested (I just played with numbers in Excel all day, never drove their vehicles). FWIW: The law enforcement physical included a breathalyzer, but that would only catch people who drank that morning or heavily the night before I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:42
|
|
