Author Topic: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man  (Read 108416 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1575 on: March 09, 2018, 01:56:40 PM »
That's the pharma-bro douche-waffle?
What, don't you recognize him?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25344
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1576 on: March 09, 2018, 02:14:59 PM »
Haven't been paying attention to the case, and it's not getting hardly any media coverage up here.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1577 on: March 09, 2018, 02:25:02 PM »
Hell, I didn't even know the case was happening, much less that he'd been convicted. I just remember a guy who goes out of his way to be America's biggest asshole. This dude really got off on making everybody angry. That's what makes this so gratifying.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 418
  • Gender: Female
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1578 on: March 09, 2018, 02:54:34 PM »
That's the pharma-bro douche-waffle?
What, don't you recognize him?


Today mothers everywhere be like, "Happy Belated International Women's Day!"   :metal

Seriously, this guy is as ugly on the inside as he is on the outside. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20328
  • Gender: Male
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1579 on: March 12, 2018, 12:30:13 PM »
That's the pharma-bro douche-waffle?
What, don't you recognize him?


Today mothers everywhere be like, "Happy Belated International Women's Day!"   :metal

Seriously, this guy is as ugly on the inside as he is on the outside.

He sometimes reminds me of this guy from Brooklyn 99, but he's nowhere near as funny or likable. 


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14148
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1580 on: March 13, 2018, 08:39:12 AM »
???  He doesn't look anything like Andy Samberg.  ???

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1581 on: April 04, 2018, 10:46:27 AM »
I snipped this from the Trump thread because it's off topic, but philosophically it is something that's been very much on my mind of late.

Thanks for that, Stadler.  I see now that I've been equating infractions and misdemeanors.  Learn something new every day.

So it must be that illegal immigrants aren't afforded the same legal rights after arrest as citizens because if illegal entry is a misdemeanor, it doesn't seem to be unusual to be kept in detention centers for over a year.
Well, they should be.  There are certain rights that are afforded only to citizens - right to vote springs to mind - but generally the protections of the Constitution DO extend to illegal immigrants.  Whether they are enforced - as el Barto is pointing out - is another matter altogether.
Nominally the protections of the Constitution apply to illegal immigrants. However, if the current evolution of law offers up exceptions, makes it impossible to know if, when and how they're being applied, and removes any recourse for the person affected, do they really apply?

The reason I've been thinking about this is because of how it relates to police shootings. At a statutory level the police can't just shoot anybody they want for any reason they want. It's a crime and we put them on trial. Yet if the law has (d)evolved to a point that the burden of proof makes an acquittal a near certainty, is it actually illegal? I've argued with my brother about this, as he'll say with complete certainty that it's legal for the police to execute citizens. The sensible part of me is bothered by inflammatory rhetoric, and the logical part of me understands that it's not actually correct at a statutory level. Yet I have a problem when the practical upshot of it is that they can and do without repercussions.

So I guess the upshot of this is whether legality is a function of what the law says, or the way the law is administered?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14148
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1582 on: April 05, 2018, 09:45:41 AM »
I snipped this from the Trump thread because it's off topic, but philosophically it is something that's been very much on my mind of late.

Thanks for that, Stadler.  I see now that I've been equating infractions and misdemeanors.  Learn something new every day.

So it must be that illegal immigrants aren't afforded the same legal rights after arrest as citizens because if illegal entry is a misdemeanor, it doesn't seem to be unusual to be kept in detention centers for over a year.
Well, they should be.  There are certain rights that are afforded only to citizens - right to vote springs to mind - but generally the protections of the Constitution DO extend to illegal immigrants.  Whether they are enforced - as el Barto is pointing out - is another matter altogether.
Nominally the protections of the Constitution apply to illegal immigrants. However, if the current evolution of law offers up exceptions, makes it impossible to know if, when and how they're being applied, and removes any recourse for the person affected, do they really apply?

The reason I've been thinking about this is because of how it relates to police shootings. At a statutory level the police can't just shoot anybody they want for any reason they want. It's a crime and we put them on trial. Yet if the law has (d)evolved to a point that the burden of proof makes an acquittal a near certainty, is it actually illegal? I've argued with my brother about this, as he'll say with complete certainty that it's legal for the police to execute citizens. The sensible part of me is bothered by inflammatory rhetoric, and the logical part of me understands that it's not actually correct at a statutory level. Yet I have a problem when the practical upshot of it is that they can and do without repercussions.

So I guess the upshot of this is whether legality is a function of what the law says, or the way the law is administered?

I've been thinking about this a lot since you posted it.  I think it's an important thought and goes to the way our system works.   I've made no bones that I am a process guy, and I stand by that.  Not because it's "my way" or "I agree with it", but because it provides an objective standard.  You may not like that standard, but it is what it is, and we all know it going in.  That's what laws do.   We're not necessarily supposed to "like" them, just understand them and accept them as the standard to be used when we adjudicate disputes between two people/entities. 

I think in your example, it's really down to what you mean by "legality".   If you mean "constitutionally", it's the way the law is written.  In certain cases, the courts might use the way the law is administered as part of that analysis, but it's not determinative, and they are not required to.   We've talked about this before, I think, when discussing Scalia; the "administration" becomes a way for the court to revise their thinking without having a real substantive rationale for doing so. 

I understand the broadness of the interpretations and I understand the issues that that raises.  What will likely happen is that it won't go to a court, and "change" will happen the way the process should work.  Some legislator somewhere will take umbrage from a cop claiming for the nth time that the Pez dispenser "looked like a gun" and that he "feared for his life", and promote legislation to close that loophole.  It's not going to be easy, though, because at the end of the day, no one will say it out loud, but I believe the thinking is, if we radically change that standard, in order to keep our cops relatively safe, we will have to make a shit ton of other changes that we aren't prepared to do.   

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1583 on: April 05, 2018, 10:50:37 AM »
Well, your answer is completely unsatisfying.  :lol

Not because it isn't clear, or isn't reasonable. It's unsatisfying because the process you rely upon is flawed the same way as the problem I've raised. I don't see any difference between "No. You're not allowed to do that. Although we have no means of stopping you or punishing you if you do." and "Sure, the mechanism is in place to address this concern and that's the way to deal with it, although the practical reality is that it isn't going to happen in a million years."

I'll also throw out that I've never seen the SCOTUS give any consideration into the practical application of a law. In fact they tend to steer very clear of it. "The law says what it says. Potential, even obvious abuses, aren't our concern." Quite frankly, that's a big part of the reason we're in the situation we're in. Graham, the decision at hand, is a fine example.

I guess at a larger level this is just frustrating to me because the nature of the system we've created has degraded to a point where it has become less and less repairable. We're seeing an increase in cases where there's very clearly a problem, but there are so many underlying facets, rules, decisions, that it becomes impossible to unravel the issues to address what's broken. In a completely unrelated case I posted a while back an excerpt from a federal judge's ruling that describes the problem we're increasingly facing.

Quote from: Colleen McMahon
The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and procedures that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusions a secret.

What are we supposed to do when the process becomes unworkable, and the flaws continue to manifest themselves?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20328
  • Gender: Male
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1584 on: April 10, 2018, 12:48:00 PM »
Anyone watching Zuckerberg's testimony right now?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14148
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1585 on: April 10, 2018, 02:28:22 PM »
Yup.

There are a lot of Senators that don't know the first thing about tech.  :)

Oh and the attractive dark haired girl photo bombing his every word needs to put some eye-drops in.  Her blinking is almost distracting.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 02:37:51 PM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14148
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1586 on: April 10, 2018, 03:32:04 PM »
Well, your answer is completely unsatisfying.  :lol

Not because it isn't clear, or isn't reasonable. It's unsatisfying because the process you rely upon is flawed the same way as the problem I've raised. I don't see any difference between "No. You're not allowed to do that. Although we have no means of stopping you or punishing you if you do." and "Sure, the mechanism is in place to address this concern and that's the way to deal with it, although the practical reality is that it isn't going to happen in a million years."

I'll also throw out that I've never seen the SCOTUS give any consideration into the practical application of a law. In fact they tend to steer very clear of it. "The law says what it says. Potential, even obvious abuses, aren't our concern." Quite frankly, that's a big part of the reason we're in the situation we're in. Graham, the decision at hand, is a fine example.

I guess at a larger level this is just frustrating to me because the nature of the system we've created has degraded to a point where it has become less and less repairable. We're seeing an increase in cases where there's very clearly a problem, but there are so many underlying facets, rules, decisions, that it becomes impossible to unravel the issues to address what's broken. In a completely unrelated case I posted a while back an excerpt from a federal judge's ruling that describes the problem we're increasingly facing.

I'm sorry for the delay in responding; I forget this is here and not below.

I'm struggling to understand where you think this has gone off the rails. I don't want to assume, because it IS a complex situation. But that the court doesn't apply to the real world is supposed to be a GOOD thing, in that it leaves that to the people who's job it is to do so (Congress).   Is your beef more properly with Congress?   I go both ways about Congress; part of me thinks they're (it's) corrupt and broken, but part of me realizes IT'S not corrupt and broken, WE are.    With very few exceptions, I'm increasingly of the opinion that we don't WANT answers.  We don't WANT solutions.  We want LEVERAGE. 

I'm off topic now, but for all the "love" and "inclusiveness" that we supposedly have - talking about our "journey" and "centering ourselves" and blah blah fucking blah, but there's an awful lot of hate in an awful lot of people that claim to simply want "peace and love".  We've reduced ourselves to one big giant zero-sum game, and life doesn't work that way, unfortunately (well, from my point of view, fortunately). 

Quote
Quote from: Colleen McMahon
The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and procedures that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusions a secret.

What are we supposed to do when the process becomes unworkable, and the flaws continue to manifest themselves?

Not a joke: find people that are willing to re-learn the system so that it is workable.  I don't know if you're familiar or not, but this is a part of my theory on the pendulum. 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1587 on: April 11, 2018, 09:39:53 AM »
Well, your answer is completely unsatisfying.  :lol

Not because it isn't clear, or isn't reasonable. It's unsatisfying because the process you rely upon is flawed the same way as the problem I've raised. I don't see any difference between "No. You're not allowed to do that. Although we have no means of stopping you or punishing you if you do." and "Sure, the mechanism is in place to address this concern and that's the way to deal with it, although the practical reality is that it isn't going to happen in a million years."

I'll also throw out that I've never seen the SCOTUS give any consideration into the practical application of a law. In fact they tend to steer very clear of it. "The law says what it says. Potential, even obvious abuses, aren't our concern." Quite frankly, that's a big part of the reason we're in the situation we're in. Graham, the decision at hand, is a fine example.

I guess at a larger level this is just frustrating to me because the nature of the system we've created has degraded to a point where it has become less and less repairable. We're seeing an increase in cases where there's very clearly a problem, but there are so many underlying facets, rules, decisions, that it becomes impossible to unravel the issues to address what's broken. In a completely unrelated case I posted a while back an excerpt from a federal judge's ruling that describes the problem we're increasingly facing.

I'm sorry for the delay in responding; I forget this is here and not below.

I'm struggling to understand where you think this has gone off the rails. I don't want to assume, because it IS a complex situation. But that the court doesn't apply to the real world is supposed to be a GOOD thing, in that it leaves that to the people who's job it is to do so (Congress).  Is your beef more properly with Congress?   I go both ways about Congress; part of me thinks they're (it's) corrupt and broken, but part of me realizes IT'S not corrupt and broken, WE are.    With very few exceptions, I'm increasingly of the opinion that we don't WANT answers.  We don't WANT solutions.  We want LEVERAGE. 

I'm off topic now, but for all the "love" and "inclusiveness" that we supposedly have - talking about our "journey" and "centering ourselves" and blah blah fucking blah, but there's an awful lot of hate in an awful lot of people that claim to simply want "peace and love".  We've reduced ourselves to one big giant zero-sum game, and life doesn't work that way, unfortunately (well, from my point of view, fortunately). 

Quote
Quote from: Colleen McMahon
The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and procedures that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusions a secret.

What are we supposed to do when the process becomes unworkable, and the flaws continue to manifest themselves?

Not a joke: find people that are willing to re-learn the system so that it is workable.  I don't know if you're familiar or not, but this is a part of my theory on the pendulum.
My beef is with the entire system that has evolved over the last 250 years. That includes Congress, We the People, the judiciary, the president and his appointees, and the rules and regs that all of the above have created over the years. I've always used a computer as the analogy for what we've become. Every few years you end up having to reinstall Windows (or in the modern version, factory reset). It starts out fast and effective. Over time you're installing and uninstalling stuff. You're accumulating unneeded garbage. You're tweaking this and unknowingly buggering that. Eventually it just becomes slow and corrupt. I think this is what has happened to the framework of our political system.

In this case, I just have very little faith that anything can be done to resolve the situation within the framework we've created. It is effectively legal for a cop to shoot anybody he wants. Congress has no reason to change anything, as the attempt would be politically ugly. In the old days it'd be "he's soft on crime." The modern version would be "he want's thugs and criminals to rape your children!" The courts have consistently yielded to the police, so it's nearly impossible to convict them, or to sue them. Moreover, even oversight has become a relic, as that lack of oversight is very beneficial to the executive and the legislature for myriad reasons.

As I said, it's a general frustration on my part that we've reached the point we have, and the solution is simply to wait for the situation to fix itself, despite that being a highly improbable scenario.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14148
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1588 on: April 11, 2018, 12:20:58 PM »
Full disclosure, you're going a little broader than I was; I was referring mainly to the court system, and suggesting that perhaps the solution lay beyond.   If you're talking more broadly, I'm actually with you.    Whether you call it the "pendulum theory" or the "windows theory", we're really just talking about the mechanism for the same thing:  a dysfunctional system that has it's priorities and incentives pointed in the wrong direction.   

I'm not sure what the answer is either, but something has to change and change soon.   It's not a matter of "sides" or "parties" any more.  Neither side has all the answers, only some of them, and none of them can be implemented to their fullest without at least some compromise and participation by the other side, and getting that is about as hard as getting humility from Derek Sherinian. 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1589 on: April 11, 2018, 12:38:20 PM »
Full disclosure, you're going a little broader than I was; I was referring mainly to the court system, and suggesting that perhaps the solution lay beyond.   If you're talking more broadly, I'm actually with you.    Whether you call it the "pendulum theory" or the "windows theory", we're really just talking about the mechanism for the same thing:  a dysfunctional system that has it's priorities and incentives pointed in the wrong direction.   

I'm not sure what the answer is either, but something has to change and change soon.   It's not a matter of "sides" or "parties" any more.  Neither side has all the answers, only some of them, and none of them can be implemented to their fullest without at least some compromise and participation by the other side, and getting that is about as hard as getting humility from Derek Sherinian.
A pendulum swings back, though. It balances itself out until it runs out of energy and stalls in the middle. Windows never gets better. It's in a constant state of decay until it just won't run anymore. Then you reinstall or buy a newer version. I'd like to think that the current system of government we play in will start to swing back, but I just can't see it. It only seems to become more and more entrenched in its dysfunction. And unfortunately, despite the fact that everybody knows that the country is dysfunctional, nobody will ever go along with a reboot. We're still the greatest nation on Earth, and all of the problem are the result of the other side. The problem is with them, not the system.

Yeah, part of my problem is frustration on the big, philosophical nature of all of this. Part of it is the reality that we're seeing breakdowns in the system, police shootings are my case in point, and we're not seeing any sort of possible correction. We're seeing things that both make the problem worse and also make it increasingly difficult to resolve.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Lucien

  • James 5:1-5
  • Posts: 4618
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1590 on: April 12, 2018, 02:02:18 AM »
Full disclosure, you're going a little broader than I was; I was referring mainly to the court system, and suggesting that perhaps the solution lay beyond.   If you're talking more broadly, I'm actually with you.    Whether you call it the "pendulum theory" or the "windows theory", we're really just talking about the mechanism for the same thing:  a dysfunctional system that has it's priorities and incentives pointed in the wrong direction.   

I'm not sure what the answer is either, but something has to change and change soon.   It's not a matter of "sides" or "parties" any more.  Neither side has all the answers, only some of them, and none of them can be implemented to their fullest without at least some compromise and participation by the other side, and getting that is about as hard as getting humility from Derek Sherinian.
A pendulum swings back, though. It balances itself out until it runs out of energy and stalls in the middle. Windows never gets better. It's in a constant state of decay until it just won't run anymore. Then you reinstall or buy a newer version. I'd like to think that the current system of government we play in will start to swing back, but I just can't see it. It only seems to become more and more entrenched in its dysfunction. And unfortunately, despite the fact that everybody knows that the country is dysfunctional, nobody will ever go along with a reboot. We're still the greatest nation on Earth, and all of the problem are the result of the other side. The problem is with them, not the system.

Yeah, part of my problem is frustration on the big, philosophical nature of all of this. Part of it is the reality that we're seeing breakdowns in the system, police shootings are my case in point, and we're not seeing any sort of possible correction. We're seeing things that both make the problem worse and also make it increasingly difficult to resolve.

And the people who do advocate for massive change get shot down as not being "realistic". They get told "human nature doesn't work that way", or, my favorite, just getting called "commie fuck" because you think the means of production should be used to give humanity their needs instead of for profiting off their needs.
"Kind of a stupid game, isn't it?" - Calvin

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14148
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1591 on: April 12, 2018, 08:41:12 AM »
Full disclosure, you're going a little broader than I was; I was referring mainly to the court system, and suggesting that perhaps the solution lay beyond.   If you're talking more broadly, I'm actually with you.    Whether you call it the "pendulum theory" or the "windows theory", we're really just talking about the mechanism for the same thing:  a dysfunctional system that has it's priorities and incentives pointed in the wrong direction.   

I'm not sure what the answer is either, but something has to change and change soon.   It's not a matter of "sides" or "parties" any more.  Neither side has all the answers, only some of them, and none of them can be implemented to their fullest without at least some compromise and participation by the other side, and getting that is about as hard as getting humility from Derek Sherinian.
A pendulum swings back, though. It balances itself out until it runs out of energy and stalls in the middle. Windows never gets better. It's in a constant state of decay until it just won't run anymore. Then you reinstall or buy a newer version. I'd like to think that the current system of government we play in will start to swing back, but I just can't see it. It only seems to become more and more entrenched in its dysfunction. And unfortunately, despite the fact that everybody knows that the country is dysfunctional, nobody will ever go along with a reboot. We're still the greatest nation on Earth, and all of the problem are the result of the other side. The problem is with them, not the system.

Yeah, part of my problem is frustration on the big, philosophical nature of all of this. Part of it is the reality that we're seeing breakdowns in the system, police shootings are my case in point, and we're not seeing any sort of possible correction. We're seeing things that both make the problem worse and also make it increasingly difficult to resolve.

And the people who do advocate for massive change get shot down as not being "realistic". They get told "human nature doesn't work that way", or, my favorite, just getting called "commie fuck" because you think the means of production should be used to give humanity their needs instead of for profiting off their needs.

But you recognize that you shifted the game in mid stream, right?   Asking for "massive change" then drilling down to one very specific - and very debatable - solution is flawed from the get-go.   

I'm one of the first to use the "human nature" argument - and I'm sure you know that - but that's about the SPECIFIC change, not the call for change generally.  I'm very much for changing how we interact with the system we have, but I can't say I'm for complete revolution.   I think the system put in place by our Founding Fathers CAN solve this, but it is going to take effort on behalf of the people that are tasked with interacting with the system.    I fully believe that the system we have isn't SUPPOSED to work fluidly with someone like Trump (or Clinton, for that matter) as President. 

TL;DR:  I don't at all think that we need "communism" in order to fix the slightly - relatively speaking - off-kilter delineation of rights under the Constitution and legislative framework of our country. 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1592 on: April 24, 2018, 12:36:12 PM »
Here's an idea. Instead of mandatory minimums for dopers, howabout mandatory maximums for elected officials?
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article209641279.html
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19075
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1593 on: April 24, 2018, 02:20:21 PM »
Here's an idea. Instead of mandatory minimums for dopers, howabout mandatory maximums for elected officials?
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article209641279.html

Sounds good but how do you get an elected official to agree to that  :lol

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6390
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1594 on: June 21, 2018, 12:48:00 PM »
Back in 2006, it was recommended to me that I read John W. Deans book Conservatives Without Conscience, which I did. In the book he frequently cited research done by Bob Altmeyer, a professor and researcher at the University of Manitoba, on authoritarianism. Not in the sense of a political system but as a psychological phenomenon. So I looked the guy up.

What I found was that he'd written a book that summarizes his decades of research in a style that is easy to read for us non-researchers called The Authoritarians. It was fascinating at the time and I really enjoyed it. The last few days, while reading the "Trump 100 Days thread", I've been thinking about that book again (not the John Dean book).

Anyway, it's free for download if anyone is interested.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1595 on: June 25, 2018, 03:55:16 PM »

Also, the homo in that case was a member of a protected class.

EB, not trying to stir the pot, but your tendency to use "the homo" as a referral bothers me. That's the second or third time I've seen that. Why are you phrasing it that way?
Why would it bother you?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 5223
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1596 on: June 25, 2018, 04:37:31 PM »

Also, the homo in that case was a member of a protected class.

EB, not trying to stir the pot, but your tendency to use "the homo" as a referral bothers me. That's the second or third time I've seen that. Why are you phrasing it that way?
Why would it bother you?

Not for nothing, I kind of predicted that response. It just seems like a very... strange? unnecessary? way to point out the gay person. "The homo" - I haven't heard anyone call a gay person 'homo' in many years, and nobody ever says 'homo' in a non-derogatory way. "The homo" makes them sound like less than a person. That's why it bothers me: it's antiquated and only has a negative connotation associated with it. "The homo said this," "the homo said that." I didn't think I'd have to explain that, but you asked... just seems like something only said with the intention of making one's ears (eyes) prickle. It would be like saying, "The faggot was a part of a protected class" - unnecessary and belittling to anybody who might be gay here, if not a little tactless on the whole.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25344
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1597 on: June 25, 2018, 04:54:46 PM »
I'm with Katt on this.  Homo is a pretty harsh slang term, something I would suspect that most gay people would find offensive, and in this day and age, there's no need for it.  It's by no means the equivalent of the n-word, but it's along that path.  I'd say it's on par with midget.  It's not used routinely, and there's just no need for it.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1598 on: June 25, 2018, 06:26:52 PM »
As you may have noticed I have a tendency to use archaic language from time to time. There are a lot of good words that have fallen out of favor and I like to try to be interesting with my writing. I also like to occasionally make a person's "ears prickle." It would seem I was successful. Where we differ is that I don't see anything inherently offensive with homo used as a short form of the much more annoying to type homosexual. (Added to the list of words that magically become offensive when shortened.) I watch a lot of old TV. I'm running through Barney Miller right now. When I see homo used it's not really derogatory, but more reflective that the person using it is a meathead. Since I'm somewhat comfortable that people who read what I write don't think I'm anything close to a meathead the juxtaposition amuses me.

Something else you may have noticed is that I very often push back at people being offended by words absent any context or personal reason. It's a major factor in the dumbing down of our society. Obviously I don't have to quote Carlin to you, but I suspect we both agree with his position on words. Be offended when someone offends. Not when you hear a word that prickles your ears used in a non-harmful way. To this end I do like to push the boundaries a bit and don't really plan to stop. I am what I am. Although for the sake of community harmony I'll be happy to start using queer instead. That's gone back to being an acceptable term.

And since Jingle has chimed in (I thought Midget was one of the good ones?), I'd just like to point out how silly constantly changing terms in search of new euphemisms is. It's another aspect of the dumping of context. I was called out for using retard the other day. This one really bugs me for two reasons. First off, mental retardation is the single best descriptor for the condition you'll ever find. It's inherently neutral and perfectly explains what a person's condition is. Is "slow" offensive in that context? Why or why not? But when you go around dumping one acceptable term in favor of another simply because of the way some might use it, you never get anywhere. I chuckled about the retard thing the other night because the preferred euphemism is already going out of favor. Special needs came and went. Now intellectually disabled is getting thrown around on playgrounds, so comes next? Remember that we switched to retarded because it was humane compared to its predecessor "idiot."

And on a side note, isn't intellectually disabled far more offensive than retarded in the grand scheme of things? Which is worse, "he's a little slow," or "his brain doesn't work?"
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14148
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1599 on: June 25, 2018, 06:39:28 PM »
Not that you need it, not that anyone else cares, but I'm with you 100% on this.   "That homosexual is a moral degenerate" is far more offensive than "Me and about four of my homo friends rocked out to Harry Styles on Friday and it was bomb." 

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30569
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1600 on: June 25, 2018, 06:49:50 PM »
Bart, I appreciate your post. As a father of a um..retarded son, and a step father to a um..homo, I totally get the sensitivity that people have with some of these things. Language develops over time and some words will and should be eradicated from the vernacular. Heck, didn't a long time sportscaster get canned last week for making a comment like "he's out of his cotton picking mind."

My thing is where's the decency? where's the context? I agree the world is too sensitive, but when you and I grew up, the special needs kids were called retarded. Seemed they always put the retarded kids in my homeroom every year when I was a kid. Now as a parent, 9 times out of 10, when I hear the word retard, I don't bat an eye. But every now and then, and I usually have no clue that it's coming, I hear the word, and it totally stings. Not for me, but for my son.

When I read a post, and I see the word homo or retard, I can totally handle it, as they are 9 times out of 10 used simply as a descriptive term. If I judge that they are used in a derogatory way, then my skin crawls. But I am in no way going to try to fry or embarrass a 50 year old man for using a descriptive word that they grew up with.

I am so done with this "gotcha" mentality. We have to be cognizant that what we say may offend people, but even more so on the other side, we have to realize that people generally aren't trying to offend us.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25344
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1601 on: June 25, 2018, 07:03:58 PM »
FWIW, I agree with most of your post EB.  And I agree with most of what TAC had to say.  Some words evolved form acceptable use, to unacceptable use.  IMO, retard and homo are two of those words.  For years/decades, they were always used in derogatory terms.  Just because you (royal you) don't use the word in an offensive manner doesn't mean someone isn't going to find it offensive just because of it's use - regardless of how it's used.  Look I say "retarded" all the time - about situations, never about people.  Can't remember the last time I used homo.  When there are so many other good and more acceptable words at our disposal, why use one that we know can be taken offensively by some portion of the population.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30569
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1602 on: June 25, 2018, 07:06:28 PM »
I try to ascribe to a common rule of decency. Try not to offend, and try not to be offended.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25344
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1603 on: June 25, 2018, 07:09:00 PM »
I try to ascribe to a common rule of decency. Try not to offend, and try not to be offended.

 :tup
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6640
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1604 on: June 25, 2018, 07:40:19 PM »
I was called out for using retard the other day. This one really bugs me for two reasons. First off, mental retardation is the single best descriptor for the condition you'll ever find. It's inherently neutral and perfectly explains what a person's condition is. Is "slow" offensive in that context? Why or why not? But when you go around dumping one acceptable term in favor of another simply because of the way some might use it, you never get anywhere. I chuckled about the retard thing the other night because the preferred euphemism is already going out of favor. Special needs came and went. Now intellectually disabled is getting thrown around on playgrounds, so comes next? Remember that we switched to retarded because it was humane compared to its predecessor "idiot."

That was me, and I tried very hard to not "call you out" and instead mention it as politely as I could because, as I said in my post, I don't do that as a matter of course.  I also value your posts, and don't want the meaning of your thoughts to be overshadowed by unnecessary words intended to prickle ears.

Incidentally, my wife teaches special ed. Her degree is Masters of Special Education. And after 20 years she isn't even always sure what to call her specialty. To some, the word "special" is inappropriate. It's part of her degree, what the heck is she supposed to say when someone asks what her education is in? I never know what to say when people ask me what my wife does. I default to "she teaches primary intensive support" which is the district's designation. But after that gets me weird looks, I used to then say she teaches "kids with special needs" but was then informed that isn't even appropriate (though of all people my wife has no problem with it) So now it's "she teaches special ed." It seems like the most middle-of-the-road, least offensive answer.

To you last point "And on a side note, isn't intellectually disabled far more offensive than retarded in the grand scheme of things?" kids don't go around on the playground in a mockingly "retarded" voice banging their hand against their chest saying "Durr.... I'm intellectually disabled.' That is your all too inadequate answer to why "retard" is far more offensive. But I gather you know that.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1605 on: June 25, 2018, 07:48:13 PM »
When words evolve out of favor that's fine. It's also when I try to work them in from time to time for a little added flavor. That's not what happened, though. They didn't evolve to the point that they were not longer considered acceptable. Rather we were told that they were no longer acceptable by a handful of people who objected. Moreover, we're also looking at a revolving door of euphemisms as different competing interests take their own preference. Retard wasn't always used as a derogatory term. It was a descriptive term that got co-opted by mean spirited kids, just like "special" did. Personally, I hope it comes full circle, as it really is a much better, and kinder, term than the euphemism de jour. 

I'm not responsible for what might offend others. Christ, in this day and age how could anybody have a discussion if having to constantly filter themselves to accommodate the most easily offended in the room? I exercise some common sense, and try to be decent to the audience I'm speaking to. It's really about the best we can do nowadays.

I mentioned competing interests earlier, and that's an important aspect of this. Right off the bat I can name 3 groups that all have different ideas for what is or is not offensive. Midges, queers, black folk, and Indians (the list grew in the amount of time it took for me to type them out). I've heard criticisms of all of the various terms coming from inside their own group.

I have no idea if Vern Troyer was a midget, a dwarf, or a little person. Not a clue. Some of them feel really strongly about it, though. Seems to me like "little person" would be the worst, but it's apparently preferred by some.

The reclamation of queer is certainly a point of contention. I guarantee that there have been fights in clubs after one gay person used queer in the presence of another.

Persons of color sure do seem to be divided on that label. Personally I think it's too vague. If we're looking for a descriptor should creoles, Mexicans, Indians, and Moroccans all be in the same group?

The people who routinely bitch and moan about the Washington Redskins seem to be a very small percentage of Indians and a whole lot of easily offended coffee drinkers from the PNW.

So if the people we refer to can't agree on how they'd like to be addressed where does that leave the rest of us? In one case I stick with black because it seems to be the most commonly accepted (meaning that it's generally free from outrage). If someone says they prefer something else then I'll try and be considerate. In another I make up a string of random letters beginning with LBG. At least if there's a little bit of humor it might help to assuage the guy who suddenly becomes upset because I didn't get that he's a T who identifies as G and dresses like a J.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30569
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1606 on: June 25, 2018, 07:58:06 PM »
I'm not responsible for what might offend others.

No, you are not, but..

I ..try to be decent to the audience I'm speaking to. It's really about the best we can do nowadays.
...this is 100% truth.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 5223
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1607 on: June 25, 2018, 08:00:08 PM »
I'll finish reading the replies in a bit but I just want to be clear, I wasn't necessarily offended at all, it's just something that caught my eye and made me raise a brow, as in, "Why would someone word something that way if they weren't trying to be provocative?" As far as I've read, EB, you're right, you and I agree on the free usage of words. I use offensive language all the time. I was just curious what the reasoning for it was since it's not something I often read, and when I hear it it's usually used in the context of comedy (was watching Dumb & Dumber a few days ago -- deleted scene has Lloyd calling Harry a homo in a humorous way).

So yeah, good stuff, appreciating the lengthy responses, will get back to reading.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20973
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1608 on: June 25, 2018, 08:10:44 PM »
I was called out for using retard the other day. This one really bugs me for two reasons. First off, mental retardation is the single best descriptor for the condition you'll ever find. It's inherently neutral and perfectly explains what a person's condition is. Is "slow" offensive in that context? Why or why not? But when you go around dumping one acceptable term in favor of another simply because of the way some might use it, you never get anywhere. I chuckled about the retard thing the other night because the preferred euphemism is already going out of favor. Special needs came and went. Now intellectually disabled is getting thrown around on playgrounds, so comes next? Remember that we switched to retarded because it was humane compared to its predecessor "idiot."

That was me, and I tried very hard to not "call you out" and instead mention it as politely as I could because, as I said in my post, I don't do that as a matter of course.  I also value your posts, and don't want the meaning of your thoughts to be overshadowed by unnecessary words intended to prickle ears.

Incidentally, my wife teaches special ed. Her degree is Masters of Special Education. And after 20 years she isn't even always sure what to call her specialty. To some, the word "special" is inappropriate. It's part of her degree, what the heck is she supposed to say when someone asks what her education is in? I never know what to say when people ask me what my wife does. I default to "she teaches primary intensive support" which is the district's designation. But after that gets me weird looks, I used to then say she teaches "kids with special needs" but was then informed that isn't even appropriate (though of all people my wife has no problem with it) So now it's "she teaches special ed." It seems like the most middle-of-the-road, least offensive answer.

To you last point "And on a side note, isn't intellectually disabled far more offensive than retarded in the grand scheme of things?" kids don't go around on the playground in a mockingly "retarded" voice banging their hand against their chest saying "Durr.... I'm intellectually disabled.' That is your all too inadequate answer to why "retard" is far more offensive. But I gather you know that.
Back in the day there was a special ed teacher who hosted a site called Tardblog. This woman would share amusing (at least to her) anecdotes about the kids she worked with, and more often, about the parents that were usually far worse off than the kids. She worked with some severely disabled kids. Not the slower kids we all went to school with. Working in a lower class district she also found many of the parents to be woefully ill-equipped to handle what life presented them.* She caught a lot of flack from other special-ed teachers for calling them tards (and even I won't go there), but she defended it as being in line with her own ethic. Despite her language she was very protective of "her tards." She was fond of them and found a way to regard them that provided here a little humor in an otherwise highly depressing line of work. Far be it from me to judge her for it. 

This goes in line with what I was saying earlier about competing terminology. The fact that your wife doesn't even know what to call her work is very interesting.  (how does she refer to the wee ones?)  In this case I actually do try to be mindful, Tim is about the last person on this forum I'd ever want to offend, but really the best I can do is try to not deliberately offend anyone and explain if I miss the mark from time to time. I'm glad to hear he's OK with my approach.



*A lot of the parents were quite suicidal with varying degrees of proficiency. One parent, I shit you not, tried to kill herself by dressing up as a dear and standing around in the woods on the first day of hunting season. I suppose it goes without saying they also self-medicate a lot:lol



edit: I neglected to address this:
Quote
To you last point "And on a side note, isn't intellectually disabled far more offensive than retarded in the grand scheme of things?" kids don't go around on the playground in a mockingly "retarded" voice banging their hand against their chest saying "Durr.... I'm intellectually disabled.' That is your all too inadequate answer to why "retard" is far more offensive. But I gather you know that.
Oh, I understand why retarded became problematic, as did "special," said in that mocking, Church-Ladyesque tone. That wasn't really my point, though. One word means slowed. Intellectually disabled means "brain doesn't work." To me that's offensive. If people wanted to move on from a term that had been co-opted then I guess I can understand their interest, but at least try to pick something marginally better and less derogatory.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2018, 08:17:00 PM by El Barto »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30569
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1609 on: June 25, 2018, 08:29:35 PM »
  In this case I actually do try to be mindful, Tim is about the last person on this forum I'd ever want to offend, but really the best I can do is try to not deliberately offend anyone and explain if I miss the mark from time to time. I'm glad to hear he's OK with my approach.

I appreciate that, Bart, and I totally agree. With words, it's important to take the context at hand. Like I said, when you and I were kids, that's what they were called. Not good, not bad, just was.

And not pointing this at Bart...
We all have challenges. The best we can always try and do is respect each other. Let's not point fingers every time someone says something off color. It wasn't always off color to some.

But as Bart says, everyone of us misses the mark from time to time. It doesn't mean that is what defines us, or means that some fucking asshole with a camera should be able to post it on a potential viral social media post. That's what I mean about today's "gotcha" mentality. Too many critiques and no solutions.





OK...I venture over to this side of the forum only when a blue moon and too many beers collide.


would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D