Mrebo

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.

Sometimes intent figures into legality, in which case it could be enough to at least legally void an action. But bad/stupid reasons don’t 100% overlap with illegal reasons. Hating Catholics would be an illegal reason, so in your example, the action would not be legal. Motivated by hate of the individual would be legal, or even hate of his haircut, but motivated by hate of the protected class is not. Hard to prove that in court, though, unless he was dumb enough to talk openly about it.

Intent does figure into legality but thusfar has remained subsidiary to the act itself. There are those who would like to see intent used to invalidate actions that are otherwise legal.

This is an issue raised in the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Justice Kennedy - who is on the side of thinking intent extremely important - suggested there may be “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case” based in part on a statement by a state official.

The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.

EDIT: Also, sometimes depending on the case, actions can be voided not on illegality, but the lack of any reasonable foundation whatsoever, or failure to follow defined process. i.e. if the Secretary of the Interior decided to rename Yellowstone National Park “Zinkeland” one afternoon, he may technically have naming authority, but the act may be void because the defined process for making these changes was not followed. These processes usually exist precisely to avoid people getting wild hairs to do things without much forethought.

True, but I think very different!

Sorry, Possessed.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.

Trident said:

Jeebus said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

So, to even acknowledge that someone is of another race is racist? I hate to be the guy that pulls out the dictionary, but that is not what racism is.

Yes. And more Wikipedia words:

“Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term “racism” does not easily fall under a single definition.”

But I was pointing out “WHY” we’re interested in finding out how 1 race is voting in one way instead of another. I was giving a soft nudge to the idea that the very fact we’re interested in “them” and “us” and “those other guys” is because there’s a basic categorizing going on. There’s a basic thing that is still at work in the background.

If there wasn’t any racism at all? We wouldn’t care less what one group of people was voting on based on the color of their skin. It just wouldn’t be relevant.

Not ever.

Trident, agree on your fundamental point, but think the particular groupings we measure people by are reasonable. What is improper and racist is to assume that demographic stats should persist and apply to any particular member of the group. We do see that kind of racism enabled today, such as where a black conservative is especially maligned or is criticized for “acting white.”

The idea that racism is only about superiority is wrong. Stereotyping by race is racism. There is something silly in insisting upon the importance of race and maintaining it as an important measure, but there are demographic realities. Equality sure isn’t helped by insisting upon the importance of race as some kind of determinant.

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

Shoelaces and sunburns.

Are you lacing up your sunburns or sunburning your shoelaces?

They might be separate issues. Shoelaces won’t stay tied, get knotted, twisted, and frayed. Sunburns are annoying and painful. Worse is I broke my sunglasses the first day I wore them and now my eyes feel singed.

Shoelaces and sunburns.

LOL

I intend to be paranoid.

Dom, I said nothing of the sort. I don’t think my experience, so to speak, was that bad. I raised it to show a common experience of feeling a need to cut someone out. My opinion on the differing nature of siblings and parents was of the same cloth as yours.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I’m wary of putting kids in front of screens, more so handheld devices.

Your kids? Or other people’s kids?

I was speaking, prospectively, of my own, on the view it isn’t healthy for kids in general.

Depends on the kid and the amount and the content.

I wager there are those kids who don’t fare worse in cognitive studies, I intend to play it safe as I can.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I’m wary of putting kids in front of screens, more so handheld devices.

Your kids? Or other people’s kids?

I was speaking, prospectively, of my own, on the view it isn’t healthy for kids in general.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m not opposed to screens. Kids are often a lot quieter when they’re staring at a monitor. I watched a lot of rented video tapes back when I was little and particularly enjoyed the violent ones.

I rest my case.

About what?

The need to limit children’s access to screens.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m not opposed to screens. Kids are often a lot quieter when they’re staring at a monitor. I watched a lot of rented video tapes back when I was little and particularly enjoyed the violent ones.

I rest my case.

I’m wary of putting kids in front of screens, more so handheld devices. And not that I didn’t watch a tremendous amount of TV growing up. I think Sesame Street and Mister Rogers are good for kids. Don’t know about MLP.

Nice to agree with ya, mfm.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:
You’ve got low fucking standards for trolls

QFT.

Well, I reserve the word “troll” for incredibly stupid or incredibly mean-spirited people that senselessly and pointlessly try to worsen people’s experience on the internet.

I think that definition is ridiculously broad 😉

moviefreakedmind said:
You’ve got low fucking standards for trolls

QFT.

To be fair, my phrasing was overbroad, but at least in this case I think my intuition was not inaccurate. And I’m fine - to the extent relatives want to behave properly and have a relationship, I’m willing to accept them.

TV’s Frink said:

I refuse to watch anything involving ice cream if it doesn’t include the Halo Top robot.

Two points: 1. The ice cream at Big Gay Ice Cream is pretty good. 2. I was chastised for bringing home Halo Top (I didn’t realize it was low calorie).

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Anyone who is mad at the Christmas tweet needs to get over it. Pretty sure Jesus chuckled when he read it.

Valid judgment. Many people are too sensitive.

WHAT’S THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?!?!

Oh I think you know!!! 🐶

Frink, parents can mess up in ways that hurt families in a way siblings generally don’t.

suspiciouscoffee said:

She’s a pathological liar and her most recent lie she was caught in was “yes I totally turned in that scholarship application” when she didn’t and that caused a big mess. She fails classes out of sheer laziness and still thinks she’s going to survive going to college and being on school sports teams even though she can’t even do that in high school. Yet she always acts like she’s the goddamn victim. Like, I’ll never be able to tell my parents that I’m gay, because I love them too much to break their hearts like that because I think they’re good people and they mean well, even if I think they’re misguided. My sister, however, seems hellbent on ruining them, and she has far less reason to be afraid because all she is is a lazy ingrate. She’s a bitch, and she can just fuck off.

At the end of the day, it’s her life. She’s hurting herself foremost. Sounds to me like she’s struggling to cope with expectations and doesn’t know how else to deal except lie. Meanwhile, you make great efforts to be strong and not tell your own truths. Understandable you’d be angry she doesn’t also suck it up. My siblings have made mistakes big and small (as I have) but compassion and patience can go a long way. I think you may have greater insight into her struggles than you recognize.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

Sounds harsh. I’ve not spoken to my dad in years but I don’t know how a sister could be so problematic.

Both are human beings?

As an old friend would say: perhaps.

TV’s Frink said:

Anyone who is mad at the Christmas tweet needs to get over it. Pretty sure Jesus chuckled when he read it.

Valid judgment. Many people are too sensitive.

C’mon, mfm, NDT’s framing was obvious. The article is generous in treating NDT as merely naive. He’s allowed, as are you or anyone else, to engage in such rhetoric but that doesn’t negate the trolling quality.