darthrush

dahmage said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

And my interest in Thor remains at -1.

So I guess Mala’s going to like this more than you then huh.

LOL

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.

*sigh* 😐

Relevant.

For Christ’s sake.

Warbler has shown nothing that would make you think he is racist and to assume that someone is racist without any evidence is just awful. Half of this race talk is just virtue signaling from the left and does nothing to help solve issues in America.

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?

I must have misunderstood your question. As I understand it, you are asking how you as an individual can not be colorblind, and my answer was simply that you just don’t be racist.

Adywan, thank you so much. Downloading now.

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?

DuracellEnergizer said:

nightstalkerpoet said:

darthrush said:

NeverarGreat said:

towne32 said:

snooker said:

3 or so hours until the next teaser image!

Not if you just fanedit the III into a II. Then just do the same for the I and you’ve really reduced your wait time.

Or you could just imagine watching ESB Revisited. Movies are just tricks of the light, nothing more.

I’m 15 minutes in and I am vastly underwhelmed.

Really? I was happily surprised with the added subtle, tasteful nudity in those first scenes.

I’m sorry, but the clowns were neither subtle nor tasteful. And don’t even get me started on the horn trick. *shudder*

Agreed. I couldn’t get past the light saber penetration scene. Too bloody, too sloppy. I expected better of Adywan.

0/10

NeverarGreat said:

towne32 said:

snooker said:

3 or so hours until the next teaser image!

Not if you just fanedit the III into a II. Then just do the same for the I and you’ve really reduced your wait time.

Or you could just imagine watching ESB Revisited. Movies are just tricks of the light, nothing more.

I’m 15 minutes in and I am vastly underwhelmed.

yhwx said:

Yay! Arguing on the Internet works sometimes!

Of course! When someone is well reasoned and uses actual evidence then you can convince me of anything. I literally change my mind on a dime. I changed my mind on the war on drugs after a week of intensive research. Things like gay marriage took a longer time to tackle since banning it never made since but my religion required that view, so my switch on that issue had to wait for my slow deconversion from certain religious beliefs.

You all completely convinced me a few pages back with hard evidence that Trump obviously won’t stand for free speech if it hurts his feelings. Sometimes I try to give him some credit for something but he finds a way to reaffirm the fact that he is just an egotistical asshole.

sigh

I’m literally trembling with excitement.

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.

CatBus 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?

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.

This is right on point Catbus, and exactly why I say modern republicans are despicable. It’s because they reject the core bedrock of conservatism (government sucks at almost everything so keep it small) and like big government when it benefits their insane desires like an over funded military and infringing on peoples rights to marry who they want or light up a joint.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

And out of the blue…

I favor universal health care. It’s really the conservative way. I could never, ever be a Democrat, but why does the Republican Party have to suck so much? The Grand Old Party should be taken off life support and replaced by a much more respectable and worthy conservative successor.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

I’m not so sure a party that controls the Presidency, the Senate and the House and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court could be accurately described as being on life support.

The constant stupidity and idiocy of the left is what keeps the Republican party on their feet. People like to hate the left. I do too. But when it comes down to it, that is all Republicans are doing…hating the left. They have become an anti party with no actual positive proposals to issues that stick to conservative ideals.

Until the left starts being more reasonable and less easy to hate on, the republican party will have something to hold onto.

But at the end of the day, I think that the left has become a postmodernist, speech controlling, identity-politics driven facet of political ideology and the right has become one of the most hypocritical and inefficient groups in recent history. So all we’re left with is nothing getting done and the left getting made fun of.

moviefreakedmind said:

This guy that I hate from work was talking to me and he brought up Star Wars and how he and his friends watched the Phantom Menace and were going to watch the other two prequels this weekend, to which I responded, “Why?” He said that the prequels are really bad and they’re hilarious to make fun of. I don’t know where this confusion comes from. The prequels are boring. They aren’t even all that bad in a Plan Nine way either. They’re just really, really boring.

Episode 1 is just really, really boring.

Now Attack of the Clones on the other hand…I can have a good time making fun of that for the sheer amount of cringe moments.

yhwx said:

SilverWook said:

Well, I live on the west coast, so I was worried already. 😉

This just continues to prove the fact that the east coast is the best coast.

West Coast for the win.

NeverarGreat said:

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

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.

If you want to ban semi-auto’s, then I always press the question of why not just ban handguns too since they kill more people in the U.S. every year than semi’s? I still have not figured out the gun issue and think that there are convincing things on both sides. For one thing, an actually successful eradication of guns from ALL citizens sounds like a utopia. But the point brought up by the pro-gun side of how criminals will still get the guns illegally has always made sense to me. I need to set aside a few days to mull over some research/data and come to a well reasoned conclusion cause I am still absolutely lost on what to think of this issue.

Other countries have much more stringent gun laws than the US. Take Sweden for example:
http://www.sweden.org.za/gun-laws-in-sweden.html
It is considered a privilege to own a gun in Sweden, and to get one you have to have the proper training and follow stringent safety procedures.

I think this is a far more sensible way to move forward on gun control in the US than just banning handguns. The Republican argument is that guns in the hands of responsible citizens are an essential right, and so enforcing training and safe storage standards is fully in line with this right. After all, the right to bear arms is only in the service of a ‘well regulated’ militia.

That actually sounds very reasonable. If someone wants a gun, I don’t see why they could complain about getting a background check and taking a mandatory safety course. It can literally massacre people so I have no problem with the government enforcing such regulations.

CatBus said:

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.

If you want to ban semi-auto’s, then I always press the question of why not just ban handguns too since they kill more people in the U.S. every year than semi’s? I still have not figured out the gun issue and think that there are convincing things on both sides. For one thing, an actually successful eradication of guns from ALL citizens sounds like a utopia. But the point brought up by the pro-gun side of how criminals will still get the guns illegally has always made sense to me. I need to set aside a few days to mull over some research/data and come to a well reasoned conclusion cause I am still absolutely lost on what to think of this issue.

Darth Ender, I wanted to say that I also share your frustration with the state of this thread and am beyond thrilled to see another moderate conservative speak his mind. It’s very refreshing to have you here and I am right with you on the position of abortion.

DominicCobb said:

Any guy who writes a ten page misogynist manifesto is probably an all around cad. Doubt this was the only reason they fired him.

But yeah of course Google is dumb, they should be hiring more people with regressive ideas about gender, that definitely makes sense.

It is not regressive to assert that men and women have common differences in career interests, which might contribute to differences in men and women who occupy certain job fields.

Washington State. The summer has been delightful 😃

NeverarGreat said:

yhwx said:

NeverarGreat said:

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

More in the Google manifesto saga:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo

Alphabet Inc.’s Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo blasting the web company’s diversity policies, creating a firestorm across Silicon Valley.

James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” A Google representative didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

Google’s Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees on Monday that said portions of the employee’s memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” But he didn’t say if the company was taking action against the employee.

Looks like his criticisms of Google being an ideological echo chamber were, in fact, accurate.

Maybe at the higher, management levels, yes, but at lower levels, I’m sure there’s many like him.

Also, you can sometimes get to a point wheee calling something an echo chamber is ridiculous. For example, if I made a forum where I banned all people who said they were proud eaters of babies, would you call it an ideological echo chamber just because I banned all the baby eaters?

If there were in fact baby eaters who were banned, then yes it is an echo chamber on that issue.

Ok, sure, it technically is an echo chamber on that issue. But I don’t want baby eaters on my forum. Some voices are ok not to allow.

Another Slate Star Codex article, and the author is almost certainly a white male heavily steeped in computer science, but it has graphs and things that I quite appreciate: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/

Yes, I appreciate graphs too but I don’t appreciate this sort of bro culture pseudo-science nonsense.

You determined that it was ‘pseudo-science nonsense’ from nine minutes of reading?

I’m not a trained scientist, so I rely on summaries like this in order to make up my mind about highly complicated topics. Not being a computer scientist, I don’t have a horse in the race. It just makes sense that women and men have differing interests, and this can have an effect on the type of job one gets. Are we a bunch of horrible fascist sexists because the vast majority of the people on this forum are male? Sure a few give the many a bad name, but I hope that we are given more credit than that.

Exactly. It’s not pseudo-science. It’s simply asserting that men and women can sometimes end up having common differences which might be the reason for a disparity between genders in a certain work field, rather than the cause being that of sexism and discrimination. Google is just virtue signaling and had no real reason to fire the guy. Pretty damn pathetic on their part.

yhwx said:

Source on the 2.5% figure?

Glad you asked. Go to the end of this webpage and in the summary/conclusion of the study they compile a general table with the reasons and when you add together the percentages for rape, incest, affecting the mothers life, affecting the fetus’ life, it comes out to 2.5 %.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

TV’s Frink said:

Anyone who is truly pro-life should also support all methods of reducing abortions, including sex-education and wide availability of contraception. Unfortunately, and especially when religion is involved, that’s very often not the case.

How is the term pro-choice limiting and divisive? It’s a legitimate description of the position, which is being in favor of the woman’s right to choose.

Anti-abortion is much more accurate than pro-life.

JEDIT: See also Ryan’s post.

I am truly pro life and support all those other things you said. You have to remember Frink that I am not your typical conservative and religion means nothing to me considering the fact that I am an atheist.

yhwx said:

There is one legitimate problem with the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life”: They cause confusion. I myself sometimes mix up the two terms. Everybody likes life, and everybody likes choice. I know my opinion on the issue but sometimes have to ask myself, which “pro-” label should I identify myself with?

It’s weird.

yhxw here puts it nicely as to why I don’t find the terms very useful and informative. Divisive was not the proper adjective to use.

I often find that the terms pro life and pro choice are really limiting and end up just being divisive. It honestly depends on the situation and I’m probably pro choice about 2.5 % of the time because 2.5 % of abortions are done because of rape or the mothers/fetus’s life is in jeopardy. In those situations I truly believe that the choice to abort the baby should be readily available for all women in such a perilous situation. And this is because the basic tenets of pro life arguments break down in these situations.

"But it was the women’s choice to have that baby in the first place!"
Nope. Not in the case of rape.

"It’s about the baby’s body, not the mothers."
That obviously isn’t the case when her life is put in danger because of the baby.

"If you go through with the pregnancy, then that baby will live!"
Not if the fetus has serious health risks.

That being said, most would still consider me a pro lifer since I happen to hold such a stance on the other 97.5 % cases of abortions.

And usually I find that pro choicers will take the marginal case and use it as an excuse for the other 97 % of abortions. I’m willing to go into those other 97% of them if one understands that I agree on the other 2.5 % of justifiable cases.