|
Berke Negri posted:As far as I can tell they're just lying unless some bullshit GOP backed bill died in Congress the past week and it isn't showing on my cursory phone Google search. No see, they believe it's bad business to pay women less and thus the government has no role in mandating it. We're pro equal pay! Just don't use the government to get it.
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Everyone knows that third party candidates aren't viable because everyone knows that third party candidates aren't viable. Third party candidates aren't viable because of the math of how we run elections. Which is why it is perfectly logical to vote for the centrist democratic candidate rather than live under the far right pretenders to the throne. What we really need is a con-con. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Other than the first two, I thought the police did most of this stuff on their own. Oh its all about political will. Police generally don't like dealing with the homeless (who like nitrile gloves?) and there are some communities where the political will is to let the homeless live there and the cops ignore them (comparatively).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:Are you really naive enough to think that hate speech laws wouldn't also be abused by the whims of those in power? Define hate speech broadly enough, and suddenly they have another tool they can use against people who disagree with them. I think it's quite likely that hate speech against conservative Christians would be punished at a much higher rate than hate speech against Muslims in many areas. Define jaywalking broadly enough, and suddenly they have another tool they can use against people who disagree with them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
My campaign only accepts donations from "The American as Apple Pie Corp" an American business, my opponent has been accepting donations from just anyone, probably including terrorists! The American as Apple Pie Corp is a privately held company and you have no right to try and intimate the owners, whoever they may be.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Besides playing with fire it's flat wrong to respond to words with violence. I don't know about Canada but Holocaust deniers in western Europe have been hit with multi-year sentences for speech or writing. I do know Canada used to have the power to fine or take down writers and websites. Supporters can be cute and claim that's not violent but it's no different than putting your hand over the mouth of a protestor. The U.S. principles of fighting words and obscenity have been weakened over time thanks in part to the internet and I'd like it to stay that way. Where are you getting the idea that the internet has legally weakened the fighting words doctrine? Also, here's a bit more complete way to describe those that support restricting hate speech (but you did a cute job): The ALA, a pro-1st amendment organization posted:The argument depriving hate speech of constitutional protection challenges the so-called “absolutist” interpretation of the First Amendment. Traditionally, this interpretation held that all but a narrowly defined spectrum of speech (libel, fighting words, obscenity) falls under the protection of the First Amendment. The argument for limiting hate speech and hate propaganda generally follows one of two lines: first, that hate speech is a form of “fighting words”, words that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite...” (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire); second, that hate speech precipitates a conflict between the rights of free expression and equality, or, in constitutional terms, between the First and Fourteenth Amendments. There can be no racial and gender equality where the majority uses harmful forms of speech to maintain a racist and sexist social structure.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It's totally revealing and unsurprising one of your examples doesn't even count as hate speech. Go gently caress yourself. And fighting words has nothing to do with "imminent threat". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire quote:There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. It is not exactly that big of a legal reach to argue that hate speech can by its "very utterance inflict injury". Edit: I get what you're saying with the current state of the law, I'm just pointing out that its not fighting words where we get "imminent threat" as a concept from, but from the later case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio dealing with speech advocating lawless action. You screaming "friend of the family" in the street isn't protected speech (unless you go through the motions to make your screaming political I guess), but you advocating for reintroducing slavery through armed rebellion is. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:This "sticks and stones" argument is complete bullshit--because when its practitioners start gathering a following and that following actively starts changing laws (whether local, state, or federal) to include said hate speech, then yes, it does loving hurt. A lot. If you're looking for an example, just look at all the goddamn gay marriage bans that were enshrined in state constitutions on the grounds that "gay sex is icky". No the black people choose to get upset when I call them negro at the store. Its not my problem, it's those people's problem. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Telling black people I don't think they should be allowed to get married, or that they're going to hell, or that I hate them, can all be construed as hate speech, and none of it has any effect on them beyond what they allow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
poop device posted:If we're doing truck chat can we talk about the Amarok? Imagine a politician trying to ride in one of those campaign style. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I did that because it IS a simple jump from hate speech to hate speech enshrined in laws. Its your own drat fault for "getting emotional" when I criticize your loving awful cooking, you crazy bitch! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:That'd fall under my repudiation of fighting words in general and the courts have been very unkind to it the last 100 years. It's a effectively turned into a legal dead end. You realize 1942 was less than 100 years ago right? Also, if you're going to claim any censorious act is violence, then you do believe that no speech should ever be restricted? Do you think it is ok to violently restrict my speech, just because others might mistake it for truth and injure themselves with that mistake?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:The solution to bad speech is more speech, since you asked. That's a fine solution when both speakers have equal power and institutional privilege. But then again, are you against US libel laws?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Nope. It's the only the solution regardless of whether it satisfies you because the alternative is never acceptable. Violence is only acceptable in kind. So in your mind, are the Patriot Guard Riders committing violence against the Westboro Baptist Church by limiting their speech?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Or you could just have a long period of voting. Which is the status quo now! Early voting isn't always as easy as voting. Besides... 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:My point is that you pretty much said any one who pays attention or is active in politics has to be middle class which is dumb bullshit and also totally against the basics of socialism I think there's a distinction to be made between someone saying that there are many institutional reasons that the middle class can be more politically engaged and someone saying absent that repression of the lower class the middle class would still be more politically engaged (which I agree wouldn't be very socialist). Edit: we live in a weird time where I'm unsure if the middle class is technically Bourgeoisie anymore or just are convinced they still are so as to keep acting like they are. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The means of production have changed. Would you explain how because someone is cleaning up the McDonald's floor rather than a factory floor, the dichotomy is no longer relevant?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:With the rise of the super-wealthy as a class unto themselves in the 150 years since Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto, I can't help but feel that identifying everyone as either proletariat or bourgeoisie just isn't suitable for today's political enviroment. Proletarians labor, bourgeoise own the means of production, and this new class manipulates the production system without contributing anything themselves. Bourgeoise are the managers. The new class are the CEOs. Bourgeoise own a franchise of McDonalds, the new class are the ones profiting from the percentages of McDonalds franchises worldwide. Bourgeoise might be a consultant for a bank. The new class is an investment banker that makes money off other companies. I mean, J.P. Morgan is pretty much the arch-type of the super wealthy and it was only 10 years after Marx died that J.P. Morgan and the Rothschilds bailed out the U.S. Treasury. Personally. I'm pretty sure Marx was talking about the super wealthy when he was talking about the Bourgeoisie.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I wonder how much of going after the Export-Import Bank is just to spite Boeing for moving to Chicago.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Here is the annual report of the ExIm bank if anyone cares: http://www.exim.gov/about/library/reports/annualreports/2013/annual-report-2013.pdfquote:The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), an independent federal government agency, operates at no cost to U.S. taxpayers. Look at how much wasted profit there is!  Edit: even worse!!!! quote:Ex-Im Bank sent $1.057 billion to the U.S. Treasury – an all-time record – for deficit reduction. That amount was the “negative subsidy” (profit) from interest and fees collected from our customers above and beyond the Bank’s operating expenses of administrative costs and prudent reserve requirements. Paying down the debt, nooooo! Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:As much as I love Hunter Thompson nothing he wrote there wasn't anything anyone with a modicum of common sense didn't already know at the time, nice as it was for someone in whatever part of the "serious" media ESPN occupies to have written. And yet, only one member of congress voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists because as she put it, "It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September 11 events—anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration." I'm wondering if hindsight is a bit of a factor here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Yes, because the US congress is a bastion of courage and independent thought. And I could quote you the dumb polling from the American people, or the numerous "experts" discussing how quick and easy this will all be. The point I'm saying is: comes along bort posted:nothing he wrote there wasn't anything anyone with a modicum of common sense didn't already know at the time Just isn't true. Hell, his death toll is off by 10x in that article and he was using the best information at the time. Sure, maybe you were so wise that you foresaw all this, but there were a ton of people with common sense who didn't. Not within 24 hours of the attacks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:In Montessori schools, when one kid bullies another, the victim is taught to stand up for themselves. It's awesome seeing a barely conscious four year old get their block castle knocked over and have them say "You can't do that, it's my castle" completely bewildering the jerk who knocked it over. And if a kid is too disruptive they can just send that kid to public schools! Its win-win! Edit: Public school do have more resources to deal with disruptive behavior.... 
Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Those aren't for use specific to the student population, they are best-practices for emergency quarantine establishment during a bioterrorism or epidemiological event. That might be a good excuse, but that's what that school district wants to use it for: quote:The district intends to deploy the MRAP solely as a rescue vehicle. “When we have an emergency at a school, we’ve got to get in and save kids,” said [ Joe Florentino, a captain with the department]. Because if there's a fire, we need police tearing down a wall with an MRAP. I'm pretty sure none of the MRAPs given to PDs are NBC kitted anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Thats the excuse that got them funded. Doesn't matter what schools want them for, Congress determines why they'll get it and provides oversight if they misappropriate Congressional assets. That's not why the 1033 Program exists. quote:In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, Congress authorized the transfer of excess DOD personal property to federal and state agencies for use in counter-drug activities. Congress later passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997; this act allows all law enforcement agencies to acquire property for bona fide law enforcement purposes that assist in their arrest and apprehension mission. Preference is given to counter-drug and counter-terrorism requests. Those vehicles aren't equipped for "bio-terrorism" or CDC quarantine or whatever other fantasies anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:The best is when you get beaten so bad you actually can't manage to stand up for a short period and then get in trouble for 'skipping your next class' when you're just curled up and praying nothing's broken. And the school punishes you for lying about getting beaten. "Nobody likes a tattle-tail"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Amergin posted:When they're old enough to know what sexual orientation even means? Late high school? College? Hahaha. Wow, you really need to get outside more if you think most people learned what sexual orientation was during late high school or college.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:It's really the most peculiar thing about this argument. If being gay is a choice, why would someone choose to be gay in our society? Getting ostracized by your peers, states not recognizing same-sex marriages, hospitals not recognizing gay spouses when it comes to visitation rights, etc. That doesn't sound like a cool choice to me. But then again I didn't choose to be straight. I'm sure Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover just wanted the attention 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Amergin of all people knows that attention seeking is a human need.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Shlomo Palestein posted:Yeah an awful lot of people the past several pages don't know what Amergin is. Right but now we're back to the circlejerk over if D&D is a circlejerk if we don't answer every single troll with  At least all these dumb arguments are actually US political topics. Also to the person that brought up Palin, well without the video its not an exciting story.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Shlomo Palestein posted:^^ That's fair. It's difficult to assess whether "the game" should be discussed or if we should all just take it at face value (since it leads to more linear discussion). I suppose my replying is partially adding to the problem, so I apologize. No I'm all in favor of the meta-discussion too, but I think you're right to conclude that we all walk away with no obligations to  . The only person anyone is going to convince on D&D is themselves.Anyone getting upset at "idiots" on the internet must lead a sheltered life (in so much as the amount of stupidity on the internet would kill them). Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Everyone's education has equal priority. But the system you suggested (giving the bully 1-on-1 time with instructors and additional parent-teacher conferences) actually gives priority to the bully over the other 35+ kids stuck with one teacher because they're dumb enough to behave.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:A kid with behavioral problems requires more guidance and discipline than kids without? You don't say! Why doesn't the kid with math problems or social problems deserve less help than a kid with disruptive behavioral problems? Or the kid who has behavioral problems but isn't disruptive to the entire class, that kid doesn't get the extra help either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's how individual education plans work. If a kid is disruptive he needs more attention, not less. If you get butthurt about them taking resources despite it not being fair, welcome to the Republican party I guess. Its about a prioritization of resources that puts kids who commit disruptive or violent acts in the classroom ahead of even equally traumatized kids who don't act out aggressively. In an ideal world, we'd have strong support teams for every kid and every child would get an individual education plan. But that's not reality. I'm not saying I have the solution, and we all know that suspensions are dumb as gently caress, but by prioritizing help for those who are most violent you will inevitably push less disruptive but equally needy kids away from help. My Imaginary GF posted:Worse than doing nothing? Those are the three realistic policy options for bullying with this Congress. I don't think we need congressional action on bullying reform. That seems firmly doable within existing law. Edit: or did you mean to bully congress? If so, I'm all in favor of fining the parents or estates of members of congress for mental health harms inflicted.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:My grandpa disciplined me with a belt a couple of times when I was a kid. Strange to think he might go to prison for doing that these days. Actually corporal punishment is legal in all 50 states. The Red states in this map allow corporal punishment at school or at home. The blue states only at home. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:That march is pretty interesting. Apparently they're working with smaller organizations to get protests going all over the country and abroad as well. They're expecting multiple hundreds of thousands to turn out. I mean, I hope you'll be using a carbon neutral form of transportation since the protest sure as hell isn't going to do anything helpful for the climate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:It creates political pressure to some degree and that's better than nothing. Just like 350.org did to keep us below the "tipping point" of 350 ppm of co2. Current level: 391 ppm I'm just saying the political impact might be outweighed by the carbon impact of protesting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:If Clinton wins the election all she'll do is spend 4-8 years kowtowing to the far right like Obama did. What the Democratic party desperately needs is a left-wing firebreather, like Bernie Sanders but younger. Warren may fit the bill but she still ain't running, so gently caress it, I'm voting SPUSA. You call it kowtowing, and yet the far right calls it "impeachable socialism".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
^ Good to see Rasmussen already unskewing the 2016 polls for us. Cheekio posted:I don't know why people act like votes don't count, until every blue senator is a Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders, there's plenty of work to be done even in a state that's a complete lock. Tell that to the people voting for Wendy Davis.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:I'm very disappointed that universal health care wasn't passed and Obama continued/escalated the spying/torture/drone strikes that started under Bush. But see, I have a fantasy of a Republican party that existed in the past, and well Obama is like a moderate in that fantasy party! Comparing Obama to existing Republican moderates like McCain or Boehner is unfair! Edit: someone post that map of where we'd be at war if McCain was president.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 01:30
|
|