CatBus

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

For those that don’t like the term colorblind:

If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?

Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?

By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?

And this is verified how?

what do you mean?

I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…

The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.

Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.

Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.

The claim of being color-blind is nearly always paired with the reality of being bias-blind.

you mean being blind to your own bias? Well, again I ask what the heck should you do? The best I can do is try to ignore skin color as much as possible and hire based on merit, and skills and qualifications. The best accountant gets the job.

Well, the first step is to be as aware as possible of all of your biases. Including the ones you didn’t think you had at first. The very first baby-step is to stop pretending you’re color-blind. Then there’s a matter of engaging with people who specialize in this sort of thing, attend training seminars, talk to people, listen to people, and so on. Yes, sensitivity training may often be an overscripted feel-good exercise even most of the time, but there’s often some nuggets of useful information if you pay attention. Such is any corporate seminar.

The next thing is to do what you can to counteract your biases. Have your hiring decisions done by a team that might be able to balance out each others’ biases. The team’s only consideration is to choose the best accountant – skills merit, qualifications – just like you said, but you may be surprised how often you disagree on such a straightforward thing. Also, teams are helpful in interviews, such as if there’s the bias I’ve seen a million times where every woman is asked to back up her claims of technical expertise, while men are assumed to have been honest on their resumes. All it takes is one interviewer who asks the right questions when the others forget to, and the whole team hears the answer. On top of that, use tiebreakers that counterbalance your acknowledged biases, that sort of thing.

Admitting you’ve been touched by racism is basically admitting you’re an American. People have survived worse.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

For those that don’t like the term colorblind:

If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?

Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?

By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?

And this is verified how?

what do you mean?

I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…

The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.

Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.

Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.

The claim of being color-blind is nearly always paired with the reality of being bias-blind.

DuracellEnergizer said:

So Trump has taken to referring to himself in the third person now?

He was in a transporter accident with Bob Dole. He’s now BrundleTrump. The only way he can become human is to merge with enough humans that the Trump disappears.

SilverWook said:

Bad idea to do it on the company dime.

I dunno. Seems like he’s on the fast track for a cabinet post or ambassadorship.

Warbler said:

All I know is the overwhelming majority of Conservatives/Republicans are against the US Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage.

Yeah, small government conservatism is definitely falling out of favor, I don’t think you’ll get any argument from anyone about that. After all, there were five conservative justices on the court, and only the oldest sided with the Goldwater conservative argument. The four newer appointees all sided with the position of the newer, more dominant conservative ideology. Reagan is revered among conservatives as a matter of tradition, but few conservatives would touch his policies with a ten foot pole these days.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

Was it conservative when it said gays have a Constitutional right to marry?

My understanding is that 1) conservatism values limited federal government; and 2) family law is traditionally left to the individual states. And therefore, if a state were to grant someone that right, the federal government would let them. What would be a federal issue is whether someone who is gay got married in one state but another state didn’t recognize it as legally legitimate.

I think what the Supreme Court said was states had to allow gay marriages. I think they said a state couldn’t ban gay marriage. I am pretty sure that is not Conservative. I also pretty sure Ferris would agree with me.

The father of the modern American conservative movement disagrees with you, so I guess conservatism is a pretty big tent after all.

Barry Goldwater is the father of modern American Conservative movement? What about Reagan?

Reagan was the first president elected under that mantle, Goldwater was the person who more or less created the mantle. It’s like the difference between Obama being the guy who helped pass the ACA, and the people at the Heritage Foundation who more or less created the ACA.

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

Was it conservative when it said gays have a Constitutional right to marry?

My understanding is that 1) conservatism values limited federal government; and 2) family law is traditionally left to the individual states. And therefore, if a state were to grant someone that right, the federal government would let them. What would be a federal issue is whether someone who is gay got married in one state but another state didn’t recognize it as legally legitimate.

I think what the Supreme Court said was states had to allow gay marriages. I think they said a state couldn’t ban gay marriage. I am pretty sure that is not Conservative. I also pretty sure Ferris would agree with me.

The father of the modern American conservative movement disagrees with you, so I guess conservatism is a pretty big tent after all.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

SilverWook said:

Stinky-Dinkins said:

In practical terms, this is an unsolvable problem. If there’s money to be had, someone will be there to have it… The world is full of assholes. Reporting this one piece of shit will do absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things as even if he gets shut down another will simply pop up in the vacuum of his absence. It’s frustrating, and obnoxious, but there’s really nothing you can do to stop it.

I would, however, be all for exposing who this person is (especially if he’s a member of this site, and I think that’s likely). If he sells on eBay, or accepts Paypal, nabbing his personal details shouldn’t be difficult. I’m always game for a good public shaming. We can strip him naked and march him through the streets - really ring the shame bell the whole time just like Game of Thrones. Everyone will see his beaver, his full wonderful beaver.

That sounds a lot like doxxing, and I’m not cool with that. And it opens a whole can of potential legal worms I’m sure Jay doesn’t need or want. It wouldn’t help identifying if they were a member here to begin with.

YOU CAN’T HAVE A WHOLE CAN OF POTENTIAL WORMS SILVERWOOK THAT’S JUST AN EMPTY CAN.

A CAN CAN OF THAT’S JUST WORMS CAN’T HAVE AN WHOLE POTENTIAL YOU EMPTY SILVERWOOK.

No, this project is strictly theatrical OOT. I have to draw the line somewhere – I don’t even do the 1981 revised crawl.

The size of the font, as well as its boldness and apparent color, are dependent on exposure and cropping–and this, I learned, is not consistent from film to film, nor is it even consistent from subtitle to subtitle within the same film. For example, if the subtitle was added, but then the frame was slightly cropped, that would effectively make that subtitle larger and bolder than a subtitle added to a frame that was not cropped. Similarly, the position of the subtitles within the frame could move.

The fonts I came up with were for a specific purpose–to blend when shown in sequence, but not necessarily to be identical side-by-side. They aren’t designed to be authoritative, and they don’t exactly match any subtitle–they’re more like the median representative subtitle.

IIRC, of the fonts I made, Star Wars is boldest, Jedi is less bold, and you could grab the German ROTJ font for what’s probably the least bold of them all. But they are all the same font, with variations in exposure, etc.

Keep in mind that the graphical SUP files for the alien subtitles are based on actual 35mm prints, not from the font files. While the images for Jedi were made by Harmy (who is skilled in such things), the ones for Star Wars were made by me, and have some flaws. Specifically, each individual subtitle should have some color variation within it, the ones for Star Wars don’t have much. This probably gives them more of a clipped, flat feeling (maybe could be interpreted as boldness) that you don’t see in the Jedi ones. Nevertheless they do have all the variation in size, boldness, and even variable letter forms and letter spacing that you can see in the films.

If you want to use the actual subtitles from the films, use the SUP files. They are much better, albeit not flawless (well, maybe the SUP files for Jedi are…). If you want to use the fonts, well, they’re honestly probably good enough for your purposes, and I’m not looking to improve them because they’re good enough for mine.

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

darthrush said:

postmodernist, speech controlling, identity-politics

Trump grabbed these things with both hands and ran the board with them. At the very least, the overwhelming success of identity politics in 2016 guarantees it a long life.

He used identity politics but he sure as hell had no problem advocating for free speech. If there was one thing I liked about trump was that he stood for free speech. That doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s an egotistical, incompetent, unqualified person for president. But he sure as hell doesn’t stand against free speech like the left does.

You must have missed the rally when he told his supporters to beat up some protesters (and then they did), and the things others have already brought up. Trump’s record on free speech is chilling. The left’s record on free speech is generally good, but you can always find exceptions – i.e. someone who doesn’t really get the nuance, and doesn’t see the difference between the (good) prohibition on school-supported prayer and the (bad) prohibition on students praying on their own.

darthrush said:

postmodernist, speech controlling, identity-politics

Trump grabbed these things with both hands and ran the board with them. At the very least, the overwhelming success of identity politics in 2016 guarantees it a long life.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

Was it conservative when it said gays have a Constitutional right to marry?

Yes, “small government” is a central tenet of Reagan-era conservatism (Goldwater, Buckley, etc), of which conservatives like Justice Kennedy (a Reagan appointee) are a prime example. The court’s moderates and liberal joined Kennedy for obvious reasons. The conservatives who opposed it represented the more recent theocratic/autocratic branch of modern conservatism, which rejects the premise of small government either entirely or as it suits them.

The ruling was quintessential conservatism – Goldwater himself could have written the opinion and been happy with it.

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

darth_ender said:

How does a guy who is so far Left get to be so reasonable and willing to listen to other perspectives? 😉

When you’re on the political periphery, you take allies where you can get them, and that means listening.

Also, to be fair, if I didn’t agree (or at least disagree but understand their position) with a handful of Democratic policies, I’d say the charlatans label would work pretty well there too.

chyron8472 said:

darth_ender said:

I could never, ever be a Democrat, but why does the Republican Party have to suck so much?

Similarly, I could never, ever be a Republican, but why does the Democratic Party have to suck so much?

“I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
–Will Rogers

It’s weird how we all can see things so differently. My take on the parties is that we have one conservative pro-business political party that’s kind of horrible, and that’s it. It’s the Democratic Party, the nation’s only remaining political party. We also have a protest party filled with clowns, charlatans, and snake-oil salesmen, but they don’t have any interest in all in government, policy, or really anything other than self-advancement (there are exceptions, but they prove the rule). So until the arrival of a second credible political party, I vote Democratic.

moviefreakedmind said:

Owning a gun also has nothing to do with entertainment. Wanting to shoot some kind of huge, awesome gun at targets at a range (a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment) is different from owning one.

That’s true. If you own a gun and never shoot it, you’re not getting entertainment value at all out of it. Non-shooting gun owners have them strictly for fantasy scenarios and heirlooms.

Three months ago perhaps, this would have been a bombshell. Now, it’s meh. Because if you’ve gone a week without blatant public attempts to obstruct justice, you’re not living in Trump’s America.

yhwx said:

NeverarGreat said:

After all, the right to bear arms is only in the service of a ‘well regulated’ militia.

Hasn’t this been disproven?

Nothing is ever proven. The “it’s all dependent on the well-regulated militia” legal theory lasted a while and is now no longer the standard used by the Supreme Court, which fairly recently recognized an individual right to keep & bear arms that’s not tied to the first clause of the second amendment at all. Legal theories come and go. It’s not science.

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.

That’s covered under fantasy scenarios.

That’s not a fantasy scenario. So people that live over an hour from the nearest police station or in a place like Detroit where the police response time is almost an hour are just fucked?

It is absolutely a fantasy scenario. They are slightly more fucked with a gun than without one, but they get one anyway because the scenario where they are the big hero defending their family gives them a happy, and the scenario where that gun is ultimately used against their family doesn’t even register (although it’s approximately forty times more likely–via suicide, domestic violence, accident, criminal). And that’s not even taking into consideration that criminals are more likely to burglarize a home if they know there are guns in it due to the high resale value/easy transportation of the guns (the sign may look like it says “Protected by Smith & Wesson”, but it really says “Easily-fenced valuables inside”). Now, both scenarios are “lightning strike” rarities–for the most part, guns purchased exclusively for self-defense serve as teddy bears to help people sleep better and don’t ever actually do anything at all. But if you buy a gun to protect your family, you either didn’t consider the odds very realistically, or you don’t like your family very much.

EDIT: To make the picture less bleak, you’re not without options. It’s just that buying a gun is a stupid option. You live in a democracy, you can lobby city hall, your county council and work to get better police protection for you and your neighbors. But it’s a lot less fun, and more work, to be Mr. Smith Goes to Washington than it is to be Dirty Harry.

moviefreakedmind said:

Heirlooms are important; I don’t think anyone’s possessions that they’ve had for decades should be taken away, nor should collections be broken up. Heirloom also implies that it’s an antique, which is important to consider also.

Take for example someone I knew. This wasn’t exactly an heirloom, but it was “my dad just died and holy crap would you look at this?” There were many things he discovered in a little secret basement enclave, many of which were definitely illegal and probably a war crime to actually use. But I’m going to focus on the mortar right now. It was a nice mortar, great example of the period, and so on. The son (bless him) filled his father’s prized mortar with concrete. Now it still looks great on the outside, but is functionally a paperweight. Heirlooms can be similarly decommissioned, if they’re dangerous enough to warrant it.

You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.

That’s covered under fantasy scenarios.

moviefreakedmind said:

If you’re in favor of the government actually confiscating guns from law-abiding owners, there will be a significant amount of violence. A lot of police wouldn’t even enforce such a law.

They wouldn’t be law-abiding if they kept the guns after they were illegal, would they, and police who don’t enforce laws can easily look for more suitable jobs, right? 😉 (snark… kinda)

The complete ban is an ideal end state–I admit implementation isn’t easy and anything in between would be a good start. It could take hundreds of years–no confiscation at all, just the gradual reduction as generations don’t get new guns and the old ones slowly get destroyed. Luckily, the second amendment doesn’t protect any important rights, so nothing’s lost by its repeal. Modern gun ownership is mostly about entertainment, heirlooms, and fantasy scenarios, which can be easily managed via less dangerous means. But with a very rare practical use case of deer and varmints, which is why I’m still fine keeping basic rifles around (Winchesters, not AR-15s). As a Pest Control Amendment, I’m still all for the Second.

EDIT: Admittedly, I agree with the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is why I feel it needs to be repealed ASAP. The amendment doesn’t mention guns at all, just “arms”. As written, it applies equally to handguns, machine guns, longbows, halberds, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and anthrax. The second amendment says you have a right to keep and bear all of these things, all because of well-regulated militias that don’t really exist anymore but kinda sorta live on in the National Guard to some degree. With that interpretation, it’s a dangerously idiotic amendment, but frankly the other interpretations I’ve seen seem very preciously crafted with the purpose of reaching saner conclusions, rather than just interpreting it as written. The only thing protecting us from the full impact of this amendment is five justices looking the other way, and that may not last.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)

I’m sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.

Screw semi-auto, I’m for a full-on handgun ban. Plus auto and semi-auto. Plus ammunition. Sure it’s unconstitutional, I’m for repeal.

moviefreakedmind said:

Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.

I think a teensy sliver of blame falls on the Electoral College.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

Jeebus said:

chyron8472 said:

What I want to know is–and I’m asking the conservatives and/or Republicans here–why in God’s name conservatives voted for Donald Trump. Not necessarily against Hillary, as she has more than enough obvious reasons to be thoroughly disliked–but in the primaries.

I know people liked him as a protest candidate against the status quo, but voting for a protest candidate is one thing; voting for Donald Trump is something completely different. So many people knew for the longest time that he cares little for anybody but himself, he’s short tempered, uneducated, listens to conspiracy theorists, and is generally out of touch with the common man.

This is a legitimate question, not a rant nor a flamebait.

I don’t think there are any Trump voters left in here.

No, we don’t even have Trump supporters brilliantly disguising themselves as Bernie supporters anymore. But people may know Trump supporters, have spoken with them in person, etc–probability favors Republicans/Conservatives knowing them, but Democrats may as well.

I met a guy who considered voting for Trump. I have no idea if he actually did or not. He thought it was all an act. A decades-long 24/7 campaign to act like a racist, incoherent asshole with no impulse control. How could a guy like that end up a multi-millionaire*? No, had to be an act. So, between Hillary and this mysterious wild card, he was really torn.

* Hint: The same way most people end up multi-millionaires. They’re born that way.

Also, he may just have been a little on the casually racist side of things (demographic: older working-class divorced white man with some pent up resentment over all kinds of things). But nah, he said that didn’t enter into it. Nosiree. Nope.

And this guy considered himself an independent. All the Republicans I know (in person) voted for Hillary.

I know a woman at work who (unprompted, believe me) told me she would be voting for Trump and then spent ten minutes tearing apart Hillary. I never did find out what Trump brought to the job.

In some ways that’s the same story as mine. Candidate A has two decades of conspiracy theories about her (and maybe there’s a chance one is even true!) and a not-so-great record as a Senator. But Candidate B is a Rorschach test, and when I look at it, I see winning!*

* That or urine-soaked sheets, they look very similar.