chyron8472

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Not sorry.

If it weren’t for the rules in place here, I would give this the response it deserves.

moviefreakedmind said:

But that is what we are discussing! Discrimination is not always illegal. The basic concept is generally true, but not always. The real target, ultimately, is the intolerance itself, which can manifest in all manner of ways that would be difficult to end without destroying freedom.

Discrimination based on immutable characteristics is illegal.

I’m assuming many people believe said characteristic is not necessarily immutable.

Mrebo said:

Oh hey Frink. Getting the facts right isn’t apologetics.

Puggo, the quote is also in the articles I linked. The context and the understanding is what’s missing from the current discussion. Thus the NYT expressed a different understanding 2 years ago.

dahmage, that’s true. But asking someone to engage in future hacking is different from asking for information that’s already in the hands of shady people.

Consider that asking someone to steal the Pentagon Papers = bad; wanting them published = less bad.

You sound like you’re grasping for reasons why Trump’s public call for Russia to get directly involved in American politics, through shady means and for sinister purposes, isn’t really as bad as it sounds. It’s like you’re saying “If you think about it, he didn’t really say what you think he said, and so he’s really not that bad a guy. Especially compared to Obama.”

I mean, seriously? Come on.

I really liked Scott Bakula’s Archer. He does a really good job of being authoritative yet friendly with his crew, and a good mix of being level-headed and emotionally driven. Also, I love how Trip and Malcolm relate to each other (“keep your shirt on, Lieutenant.”)

Mayweather and Hoshi are also both great, but I really liked T’Pol better before Trellium mucked with her emotions. I used to think that the uncertainty and breathiness in her late-season-3-through-season-4 dialogue was Jolene Blalock trying to convey that constant emotional battle T’Pol now deals with, but then I discovered Blalock’s Ishta in Stargate SG-1 sounds exactly the same, so I don’t know what to make of it.

Mrebo said:

When does Enterprise get [subjective opinion]? The [everything important] of the [unspecified particular] episodes I watched bored me.

I don’t see how you could get a proper recommendation out of this. There is no equivalent Riker-beard event that happens in Enterprise. If you think Commander Shran is boring, I’m not sure what to tell you.

Mrebo said:

It’s well and good to not tolerate intolerance. But that doesn’t mean it always can or should (let alone must) be abolished by law. Criticism and boycotts are two avenues for fighting intolerance.

I see no logical end point in the quest to force people to not be intolerant, without abolishing the rights described in the US’s First Amendment.

Basically this.

Amazon Prime Day starts today at 3pm ET

Handman said:

People are way too eager to call police in this country.

A neighbor (as far as I knew) called the cops on me because I wouldn’t give him information after he angrily demanded it at my doorstep. People are crazy.

Information about what?

I wish Audible would remove the stupid “Only on Audible” ribbon they’ve added to all their exclusive content.

timemeddler said:

Tobar said:

Frankly, these days you’re legitimately better off buying a pre-made system. Individual parts costs are through the roof and so it’s actually cheaper to buy pre-made now.

maybe if they’ve finally started making them with bluray burners.

Fixed.

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

chyron8472 said:
JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

Who the fuck said anything about that?

Yeah. I have no idea where that came from. I think it’s a way of backpedaling the call for people to “respect” discriminatory fundamentalists, which I think is an unjustifiable stance.

I think people should strive to be polite. Some Many MANY people are asshats just because, regardless of whether it might be called for. In general, I think respect and general politeness is a laudable goal. I understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but I don’t, for myself, think stomping around and making a scene is the proper way to get someone offering you a service to give you what you want.

moviefreakedmind said:

Why should the person denied service be expected to respect that service’s choice?

Because life is too short; there are likely other choices; and being respectful in general toward others should be the ideal.

One should be indignant, sure, but throwing a hissy fit just makes them look like a child and accomplishes nothing. And you don’t want to give someone incentive to pee in the soup you asked them to make (a la Fight Club).

JEDIT: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying standing there in the store having a shouting match about it isn’t going to get the customer what they want.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Mrebo said:

Much better value, plus it’s not a Mac.

Oxymoron

I think you mean “redundant”.

flametitan said:

Religious freedom is nonsense.

It’s generally accepted as given that the reason why early European colonists moved here was to pursue religious freedom, and that therefore it is one of the basic tenets the country is founded on. People in the modern age still use that as reasoning that the religious freedom of one can trump the civil rights of another, at least in America.

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

or crèche as we say in America

We do? I don’t say that.

Google:

crèche
kreSH/Submit
noun
noun: crèche; plural noun: crèches
1.
NORTH AMERICAN
a model or tableau representing the scene of Jesus Christ’s birth, displayed in homes or public places at Christmas.
2.
BRITISH
a nursery where babies and young children are cared for during the working day.

We also say “crayfish” - or at least right-thinking Americans do.

America is a big enough place that to say “Americans call soft drinks ‘pop’” ignores the rest of the country that calls it “coke” or “soda”. So I don’t feel bad having heard the word crayfish but more readily identifying them with the words crawfish or crawdad.

But in any case, I say “nativity scene”.

.

.

Mrebo said:

or crèche as we say in America

We do? I don’t say that.

Collipso said:

the problem here is that this

chyron8472 said:

people in these organizations who perceive homosexuality as a harmful lifestyle choice.

is fucking insane

Perhaps, but if they feel it’s a lifestyle that is harmful to children, they’re not really likely to let people who live that lifestyle adopt children from their agency.

I’m not saying it’s fair or that I share the same perception. I’m saying I can, on its face, see the validity of such a perception.

ChainsawAsh said:

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2018/7/11/republicans-vote-license-discriminate-against-lgbt-parents

God Dammit America.

I want to actually read the amendment to the referenced bill, because I want to approach this with a balanced opinion, but this article doesn’t cite it. The article doesn’t at all say what bill it was.

Now, because I live in Oklahoma, I clicked on the link in the article that mentioned Oklahoma passing a law that “let welfare agencies discriminate against same-sex couples who want to foster or adopt children.” The linked-to article then immediately starts out with “Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed into law a bill allowing faith-based adoption and foster care agencies, even those with state contracts, to turn away prospective parents who pose a conflict with their religious beliefs.”

and… Yes? So? They’re faith-based organizations who hold to certain beliefs, and they want to be selective with regard to parents based on certain principles they hold to.

Well okay then. Moving on.

Then they shouldn’t get state contracts.

Do they? Maybe they shouldn’t.

flametitan said:

Why should I be denied the right to adopt, the right to be a parent, because of something that doesn’t interfere with them?

You shouldn’t, if it doesn’t, but they think it does.

For myself, were I in the position, I would not deny you. But I can see the position of people in these organizations who perceive homosexuality as a harmful lifestyle choice. People often compare it to racism, but I don’t really agree with that comparison. As though all discriminatory activity, or selectivity, is created equal.

I do agree that love is love; that people who judge do so out of ignorance of the facts and of the teachings of their own faith; and that even if homosexuality is a sin, it is no more sinful than a myriad of other things people do on a daily basis. And I agree that government support should be called into question.

But I don’t believe a baker should be required to bake a wedding cake for someone if he doesn’t want to do it. Doesn’t matter why he doesn’t want to, but if he doesn’t then he shouldn’t have to. If he faces public backlash for it then so be it. He could face backlash for baking bad cake as easily as baking no cake. JEDIT: At the same time, I think respect should also be a thing. The person providing said service should be able to respectfully decline, and the person denied the service should respect their choice. Either party getting pissy about it is juvenile.

I have a problem. I’m listening to one story, and keep thinking about buying another one. I’ll never catch up with my backlog like this.

ChainsawAsh said:

ChainsawAsh said:

I have to get two cavities filled tomorrow morning. Then go to work afterward.

Uuuuugh.

I was wrong. It was three cavities, across two teeth. I hate life.

Getting cavities filled is not actually as horrible as people make it out to be. If anything, it’s the anxiety beforehand that is worse.

flametitan said:

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2018/7/11/republicans-vote-license-discriminate-against-lgbt-parents

God Dammit America.

I want to actually read the amendment to the referenced bill, because I want to approach this with a balanced opinion, but this article doesn’t cite it. The article doesn’t at all say what bill it was.

Now, because I live in Oklahoma, I clicked on the link in the article that mentioned Oklahoma passing a law that “let welfare agencies discriminate against same-sex couples who want to foster or adopt children.” The linked-to article then immediately starts out with “Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed into law a bill allowing faith-based adoption and foster care agencies, even those with state contracts, to turn away prospective parents who pose a conflict with their religious beliefs.”

and… Yes? So? They’re faith-based organizations who hold to certain beliefs, and they want to be selective with regard to parents based on certain principles they hold to.

Well okay then. Moving on.

I love DS9. Really good for bingeing.

paja said: