unixknight
-
Posts
3152 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by unixknight
-
-
2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
Everyone-next time I'm in DC, I'm going out to dinner with @unixknight and his wife. If you don't see me post here for a week, please please please call the police!
Everyone - nix that. I assume no responsibility for what may or may not happen to someone subsequent to having dinner with me and my wife. I also refuse to answer any questions regarding the presence of a bunny suit in my trunk.
1 minute ago, mordorbund said:Judging IS my hobby you insensitive clod!
That's it. I'm calling in the Easter Bunny to protect me. He handles all my light work. -
5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:
If you tell someone that you would prefer not to be called a Mormon, but would rather be called a Latter-day Saint, isn't that a request that any reasonable person would accept? But what happens is then a Born Again Christian (or insert any religion here) comes along and says, "Nah, just call 'em Mormons."
I'll do you one better, because I don't really care if someone says that. In more than one job I've bubbled up to HR that it would be really great if "Jesus Christ" weren't commonly used as an expletive. Has it ever made a difference? Not that I can tell.
That leaves me with two options. I can fret about it or I can do my best to ignore it. I choose the latter.
You're right that reasonable people will behave reasonably... but that's another subjective term. Someone else might find it perfectly reasonable to say those things. Whose version of "reasonable" gets priority? This is why we need to make room for each other.
5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:About my story, offense could easily have been taken about the word my husband used (it is considered a racial slur). Fortunately, the people who were accidentally insulted were very patient. I think the story is perfect for this discussion because not everyone flies off the handle and starts calling people racist. Once he u understood, hubby humbly agreed not to use that term. The people who could have been offended were humble too. As I said there were some less humble "that's not racist...blah, blag, blah"...but the rest of us gave them treatment they deserved....we ignored them. That is what being an adult is about.
That's fine but again, that's not the way we're being encouraged to think by pop culture, is it? You're talking about how reasonable adults handle it. I'm talking about a dangerous cultural trend that's going the other way.
-
6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
Is this what you did in your reckless youth? Sick, sick man.
We all have our hobbies... Don't judge.
-
21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
When I read this story I thought of the scene from Mallrats where Jay and Silent Bob beat up the Easter Bunny.
It got me thinking about the Bunnyman...
-
1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:
I agree that sometimes people use phrases that may be offensive without knowing it. The question then is what do they do when it's pointed out to them.
This recently occurred with my husband on a neighborhood email list. I pointed out the offensive term (as did someone on the list). My husband said, "Oh. I didn't know. Sorry." Then he chose another word to use. No one called him a racist or over reacted including my husband.
There was some push back from people who disagreed that the term was offensive. And wanted to argue, but they were ignored, so the conversation ended.
To me this is a good example of how things can work when people are respectful of one another (and those who choose not to be respectful are ignored. They silence themselves then.)
The problem is this: What's offensive to some is not offensive to others. "Offensive" is a 100% subjective term. It cannot be applied objectively.
So we, as a society, have two options:
- Take every single complaint about offense seriously, and continue to narrow our vocabulary in a vain effort to get to a place here nobody gets offended, ever.
- Progress as a society to the point where people aren't so sensitive that they have to be verbally coddled at every turn. (We actually achieved this at one point, but have been deteriorating for about the last 30 years until here we are... with people being jailed for speech.)
In any case, I don't think the story you've shared here makes the point. In your story, nobody appears to have gotten angry at the term, nobody appears to have been hateful in using it... But that isn't what we see in the media, is it? People are not only failing to behave as adults out there, they're actively being encouraged and rewarded for behaving like children.
-
-
This is another facet of the problem I was griping about in the thread about the constant notifications...
-
4 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:You mean natural disasters happen because people have been disobedient?
Natural disasters happen because we live in a fallen world. It's a facet of an environment that we must live in because we can't live in God's presence in our current state.
So it's not that the cause and effect is: Disobedience results in natural disasters. Things are rather more complex than that.
- Jane_Doe, Anddenex and Midwest LDS
-
2
-
1
-
Actually here's another thought...
When you're listening to the news, or political commentary, etc, and you hear the term "hate speech," mentally replace that with "thoughtcrime" and see if that changes the message in any way.
5 will get you 10 it doesn't.
-
1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:
@unixknight I read 1984...back in 1984 so its been awhile, thank you for refreshing my memory. I should read it again. I like the way Orwell thinks, and agree that we should take his warnings seriously.
I don't disagree with anything that has been said so far, but now I need to do some research on what the other side has to say...then likely I'll do my Tevia thing, Lol.
Always good to look at both sides.
The reason I posted this, and am as passionate as I am on the subject, is because I honestly believe we're heading into a future not unlike Orwell's description. I do believe that much of this stuff is well intentioned, but what people don't understand is that they're forging the very same weapons that will be used against them in the future, and don't realize it.
It's easy to sympathize with the desire to get rid of media that appears to be bigoted or mean spirited, especially when it's aimed at someone that seems vulnerable, or who has been historically downtrodden. That's the better angels of our nature wanting to do something to make the world a better place.
There's two problems with that...
- People aren't always very good at discerning legitimate examples of mean spirited verbal attacks. We see it all the time. If I cite a statistic that says more people die in acts of terror by X group as opposed to Y group, you *know* someone is going to accuse me of being hateful and bigoted against group X. Then they call what I said "hate speech" even if the data I'm citing is factually accurate. So now, instead of discussing a real problem and coming up with real solutions, we're prevented form discussing it at all, and the problem just gets worse.
- What happens when the government, which now has this power to censor and silence, shifts ideology and starts using that power in a wider and wider net? Or what if it's used against the very same people who pushed for giving it that power to begin with? It's easy to give greater power to a government that seems to be on your side, ideologically. But that's never a permanent situation. Analogy: A few years ago I was debating with a friend over the question of whether it would be okay for the military to conduct strikes against American citizens. He was perfectly fine with it, saying that it was a necessary power. (This was during the Obama administration.) I asked him if he would still be comfortable with that when there was eventually a Republican in office. You should have seen his face. That thought had never even occurred to him.
-
That's why this "speech = violence" trend has got to stop.
-
We had the Primary sing before the first speaker, then had a musical number after that.
-
5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:
How are we defining hate speech? And how are we defining thought crime?
Well, thoughtcrime is a concept form Orwell's 1984. From the Wikipedia page on thoughtcrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime:
"thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question Ingsoc, the ruling party."
How can you tell what people think or believe?
"The citizens of Oceania are watched by the Thought Police through the telescreens. Every movement, reflex, facial expression, and reaction is measured by this system, monitored by the Ministry of Love."
"Hate Speech" is defined differently in different jurisdictions, but broadly speaking it's defended as being a measure to prevent bullying, but in actual practice you can be prosecuted for any expression of an opinion, belief or information that violates the current ideology of the state, as it relates to certain demographics. People are being arrested every day in the U.K. for things they have said on Twitter... and not even necessarily in a bullying context.
So one might argue that they're entirely different, based on intent and the specifics of what constitutes "hate crime," but I maintain that in actual practice, they're the same thing. Even in 1984 the Thought Police couldn't literally read minds, but they'd go after people for thoughtcrime based on what they said, their mannerisms, etc. (Or perhaps what they posted on Twitter...)
-
In another thread, I commented that "hate speech" is one step away from "thought crime." I've been thinking about it over the weekend, and I'd like to take that back. Instead, I should have said "hate speech" = "thoughtcrime."
They're not a step apart from each other, they're the same thing.
Disagree? Show me the difference.
-
On 4/20/2019 at 1:15 AM, Maureen said:
The Calgary Flames are out of the playoffs. They were the highest winning team in the Western Conference.
M.
When I'm not rooting for the Caps, I root for the Avalanche.
Should they meet for the Stanley Cup... I dunno what will happen. I'm from the D.C. area, my wife is from Denver...
-
On 4/20/2019 at 6:51 PM, 2ndRateMind said:
Apparently, on one visit to the US, he ended up in Salt Lake City, and subscribed to a tour. His tour guide eventually got round to the topic of the eternal family. 'When you die', she insisted, 'you will be reunited with all your family'. Wag that he is, Fry asked: 'But what happens to you if you've been good all your life?'
That's pretty funny.
My wife and I have a similar joke. We're going to be sealed to each other and our kids next month and the running joke is "Now you're gonna be stuck with me forever! Bwahahahahahahaha!"
Fry is funnier though.
On 4/20/2019 at 6:51 PM, 2ndRateMind said:Families can be fractious things, and often we hurt the most those we love the most. And vice versa. So, is the eternal family, in these days of divorces on demand, family breakdowns, disfellowships and excommunications, unconventional family arrangements, and so on, really a viable concept?
It's a viable concept but it does assume the individual members of the family will remain worthy. That's why I think relatively few families will make it fully intact. That's the reality of fee agency though. They can't be forced, and not all will use their agency to their own benefit.
-
I'm always happy to see the Penguins humiliated.
-
1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:
Hmmm. Liberal that I am, I would not even censor hate speech. I find hate speech as hateful as anyone, but I think it is better expressed, and out in the open, where it can be dealt with by general disgust, than it is suppressed, and secret, where it will fester and infect the social milieu.
I agree completely with the sentiment here. It's been said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. If someone has views that are dumb, immoral or whatever, then by all means let them say it out in the open where those ideas can be challenged in public.
That said, I really don't like the term "hate speech." It's one of those phrases that gets applied to anything people don't like so that it can be censored in places that already have "hate speech" laws.
Besides, "hate speech" is only one step away form "thought crime."
- SpiritDragon, mirkwood, Vort and 2 others
-
5
-
2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:
Okay, perhaps we may have common ground here, but first I need to know what you define as political speech.
- Expressing an opinion. Any opinion.
- Expressing support for an idea, religion, political party, etc.
- Expressing opposition to an idea, religion, political party, etc.
- Discussing facts. Any facts.
- Expressing agreement with someone. Anyone.
- Expressing disagreement with someone. Anyone.
- Proposing a solution to a problem. Any solution, any problem.
That's a start. Maybe I'll think of more things to add later but this should give you a good baseline.
-
-
3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:
I agree that its complicated.
I think sometimes it's complicated, but that doesn't mean we can't come to simple, basic truths. Silencing political speech is wrong. Period. There's no ambiguity there. None. That's not complicated at all. There's no nuance there.
We can talk about nuance in free speech as it pertains to adult material and such, but that isn't political.
-
-
1 minute ago, Vort said:
Pong consoles were all the rage in the early to mid 1970s, but they were too pricey for my family. The 2600 had Breakout, which was like Solitaire Pong. Score!
I don't know how ours ranked in terms of cost or how fancy it was. It was an Odyssey 200 (as opposed to the Odyssey 2, which was cartridge based) and it had 3 variants of Pong built-in. It had two paddles permanently connected by wires. There were dials to adjust difficulty and speed, as well as adjusting the screen position on the TV.
-
3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:
I agree...in a concerned but not condemning way, Lol. See the problem is that the other side uses the same argument to protect pornography...all censorship is wrong they say.
You know how in self defense they warn that any weapon could potentially be used against you...censorship...is the same.
Censorship, government, guns etc....so many things...are like fire. They can save your life or take it.
Agreed. And I'm of two minds when it comes to stuff like free speech vs. porn.
On the one hand, as a Libertarian I have to concede that the rules do apply to all, equally. So if that's what consenting adults want to do, then neither I nor the Government ought to have the authority to prevent it.
At the same time, morally, when I look at what each political side is fighting for what to do with their freedom, it becomes quite clear which side is the true moral side.
Easter Bunny Gets Into A Fight
in Current Events
Posted
Time to schedule a cage match...