Chairchucker

Is calling someone 'Californian' an insult now?

Yeah the story of Lot and his daughters is probs one of the largest examples in the Bible where it's important to understand that much of it is descriptive, rather than prescriptive; this passage is not telling anyone how to live, it's an account of what happened. While many would point to this as an example of God thinking sodomy is bad (hence naming it after the town in question) it's also pretty feasible that the townsfolk were seen as awful because they wanted to do some rapes. Another thing I've seen suggested is that, culturally, one's duty to one's guests is seen as a relatively high priority. Also, y'know, it's a horrible patriarchal society so the two daughters are seen as worth less than the men. Interesting that you take pains to describe the daughters as underage, I see nothing in the text to support that. In any case, the text describes the daughters as each date raping Lot. It is described as their fault because they raped a man they'd gotten drunk to the point of not knowing what is going on, specifically for the purpose of getting themselves pregnant. Also, the Kingdoms which descended, in part, from Lot's daughters raping him, (Moab and Ammon) were apparently looked down upon by their neighbours, in part because they were the product of incest. I suppose it's possible that there are people who read this text and take from it 'yeah it's totally good for men to rape their daughters,' but they would have to misread it about as poorly as you have done. Hmmm don't think what I said was quite as simple as that Bruce, although I'm happy for you to try and find the quote if you'd like. Also I don't think the logic you follow this statement with works at all. I'll see if I can try to explain why. Let's say a school doesn't have a mathematics curriculum. Let's say 'Jane' supports that school having a mathematics curriculum. Does her supporting that school having a mathematics curriculum mean that suddenly, a mathematics curriculum is something that exists? Back to CRT though. As has been mentioned elsewhere, CRT is a uni course. The ban seems to be not on CRT, but on concepts from it. This is the link to the legislation: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=HF 802&ga=89 Did a quick Ctrl+f, and neither CRT nor Critical Race Theory appear, so if they wanted to specifically ban that course, they've messed up a little there. Also, as far as I'm aware there is no teaching that the US was founded 'only' on racism and inequality, but it's important to understand that it was a big part of its founding. Also the USA absolutely has systemic/structural racism, and multiple times when this topic has come up, multiple sources have been provided demonstrating that this is the case, and each time you've gone 'hmmm well let's agree to disagree' so at this point, it's hard to care about your opinion on the subject.

There isn't an attempt to teach it, none of this is true, that's why you can't find a curriculum. It is a bogeyman made up by conservatives for them to do some hand wringing about how 'the left' or 'liberals' hate white people because they are daring to accurately teach (in uni though, not school) that historically, in the USA, minorities have been oppressed by white people. 'you cant ban something in a school if it doesnt exist in some form or another' What are you smoking Bruce, of course you can. There is absolutely nothing that says, when making a rule against something, that it has to be something that is currently going on. Otherwise no new organisation would ever be able to make any rules until someone did the thing they wanted to ban. 'Gee willikers fellas, I'd really like to make murder illegal in this state, but it's newly formed state and no one's done any murders yet, so we'll just have to wait for the first one and then ban it.' See how silly that sounds? That's pretty much what you're proposing here.

It may surprise you to learn that 'Don't worry, they're not voting for the racist liar because of his racism or his lies, they're voting for him because they like that he prevents policies that protect the poor and vulnerable' does not endear his voter base to me.

Yeah, I do seem to remember him occasionally saying that things were taken out of context, but I honestly can't remember any examples where he provided context that justified what he'd said or done. Personally, his record does not inspire me to give him the benefit of the doubt that such context exists. I think the more likely scenario, given everything he's consistently shown about who he is, is that every time he says or does something awful, it's because he's an awful person who says and does awful things.

'Much'? Which ones are you suggesting did not occur?

Might just piggyback onto Lexx's point by reposting a previous partial list of Trump's actions leading up to being voted out: Calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. Insulting a prisoner of war for having been captured Implying a journalist attempting to do her job by asking probing questions was PMSing Responding to an act of violence carried out by his supporters in his name not by condemning their actions, but by saying that the people following him are very passionate and love this country. Mocking a reporter about his congenital joint condition Saying a judge was unable to effectively do his job because of his Mexican heritage. Bragging that his celebrity status enables him to sexually assault women. Dismissing bragging about being able to sexually assault women as ‘locker room banter’. Being the subject of at least 25 separate accusations of sexual misconduct. Implying that some of his accusers were not attractive enough for him to sexually assault. Perpetuating the lie that vaccines cause autism. Asking a black reporter if they can set a meeting up with the Congressional Black Caucus, and if they were friends of hers. Labelling any unflattering news story as ‘fake news’ and calling those media outlets ‘enemy of the American People’. Barring those outlets from press conferences. Implying that in a clash between actual Nazis and Klan members yelling slogans such as ‘Jews will not replace us’ and counter protesters, in which a white supremacist killed one person and injured 19 others with their vehicle, both sides are approximately morally equal, and later saying there were very fine people on both sides. Calling athletes who peacefully protested against police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem 'sons of bitches' and suggesting they should be fired. Implying that media outlets who publish what he characterises as ‘fake news’ might lose their media license. Joking that his vice president wants to kill all gay people. Sharing anti Muslim videos posted by a member of a hate group. Suggesting that the USA should accept more refugees from places like Norway or Asia, rather than African nations. Inspiring a white supremacist website to write that he is more or less on the same page as them with regards to race and immigration. Suggesting it was treasonous not to applaud his speeches. Using a school shooting as an opportunity to criticise FBI investigations into himself. Saying that it was great that China’s president was now President for life, and suggesting that the USA should give that a shot someday. Siding with the leader of a foreign nation over the leaders of his own intelligence agencies. Mocking the testimony of a victim of sexual assault. Praising a congressman for assaulting a reporter. Suggesting that several congresswomen of colour who are American citizens, three of whom were born in the USA, should go back to their own country. Repeatedly downplaying the dangers of a global pandemic. Suggesting the use of untested drugs against the advice of medical professionals. Withholding pandemic aid from states with governors that aren’t ‘grateful enough’. Calling on protestors to violate lockdowns. Publicly speculating about the possible effectiveness of eating or injecting disinfectant to fight a virus. Suggesting he has been treated worse than presidents who were assassinated. Calling a congresswoman ‘Shamu’ and suggesting that she visited every buffet restaurant in the state. Suggesting that a 75 year old peace activist, hospitalised after being shoved by police officers, ‘could be an ANTIFA provocateur’. Sharing a video of one of his supporters yelling ‘white power’. Saying he might not accept the results of an election if he loses. Sending well wishes to someone who was arrested on charges of aiding a sex offender. Calling someone pathetic for accurately saying that a pandemic is widespread. Suggesting that a police officer mistakenly using deadly force is similar to a golfer missing a putt. Encouraging people to vote twice. Refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost an election. Ridiculing a political opponent for heeding the advice of scientists. Saying that people who tried to run a campaign bus of his political rival off the road ‘did nothing wrong’. Falsely declaring himself the winner of an election. Falsely claiming that election fraud has been committed. Urging a crowd at a rally to march to the capitol. Telling the crowd, after they commit domestic terrorism by entering the capitol building, erecting a gallows with the apparent intent to hang his Vice President, entering senate chambers and looting several items, ‘We love you. You’re very special’. Continuing, despite his words already having inspired a right wing terrorist attack on the capitol building, to utter the same rhetoric to cause that attack. Trying to have his Vice President overturn the election.

I don't know the rules around that. Got the impression it were a bit of a barrier. In any case, that's not really what I was talking about. I was talking about how consequences might act as an incentive against future shenanigans.

Just gonna come back to this one. Personally I think, long term, the best thing for most people would be Trump in prison. I think it would be best if he saw some serious consequences, because the more time goes by without consequences for his actions, the more it seems like a good idea for someone to try it again.

Just finished Ms Marvel. The show took a couple episodes to really get going for me, but once it did I thoroughly enjoyed it. Some obvious nods to Kamala's original powers from the comic book that might make those who are annoyed about the change of powers slightly less annoyed. The finale in particular was quite strong, IMO. I'm not entirely the target demographic, (except that I'm in the demographic of 'unabashed MCU fan who will watch absolutely anything and everything they release connected to it for the rest of my life') so younger fans, and fans from Asian immigrant backgrounds, might get even more out of it than I did.

If he had a devoted enough cult, maybe he would've tried to hang on a little harder.

Baymax!, while only being about 40 minutes total in length, (like, 7ish minute episodes?) is quite charming and heartwarming. I liked it, and if you've got Disney+, heck, may as well try out the first episode.

Thought the main point was to criticise the graph and its labels.

I just watched episode one of The Lazarus Project. To caveat: I love time loops and I will watch anything and everything if it contains a time loop, including some dumb Hallmark movie called the 12 Dates of Christmas which I maintain was good because it had a time loop even if there are a bunch of things obviously wrong with it, like being a very predictable Hallmark movie. With that caveat out of the way, The Lazarus Project seems very good so far. The time loop mechanism, while not explicitly laid out exactly how it works, is not the mystery it is in some time loop media, but there's still a degree of mystery as to when it will kick in, and what the flow on effects will be. Has shot up to number 2 on my personal list of 2022's best shows, just behind Moon Knight and in front of Obi Wan Kenobi. (It's entirely possible and even likely that Obi Wan will drop further, because Ms Marvel seems to be heating up, and Only Murders in the Building season 2 is about to start. I'm not certain I see either of them overtaking The Lazarus Project, though, unless that takes a steep dive after episode 1.)

So are you just gonna name every single demographic and say 'we better keep an eye on them'?

Kinda seems odd to single out the BLM marches as being a problem if it's just that there's a non zero number of criminals in their number like literally every other demographic on earth.

Interesting you should mention the BLM protests; I am aware that there was a lot of press around them that made them out to be one step away from re-enacting Mad Max. However, the research suggests otherwise. https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-finds "When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters." "...most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters." One can only speculate why news coverage of these events might have led people to believe that BLM protesters were a bunch of lawless ne'er-do-wells. EDIT: While I'm here, some Australia election news! One of the minor downsides of having one of the better voting systems is that the votes can take a long time to count. We finally have the first senate results - in ACT and NT - and ACT officially have created history in two ways: David Po****(oh dang it they're still censoring the one that means rooster, ey? Gotta sort your word filter out Obsidz) (Born in Zimbabwe, ex Australian Rugby Union captain, captaincy cut short after he was arrested for chaining himself to a coal digger in protest) has officially won a seat in the ACT senate, marking: The first ever Independent senator in the ACT The first time since the introduction of preferential voting that one of the two major parties has been completely voted out of a state or territory. Get rekt, LNP.

Can't view that video in my location so I'll go ahead and assume it's a big nothing burger.

I think she's simply using troglodyte as a synonym for 'living under a rock'. Not 'lesser ethnicity' or whatever else you're trying to read into that.

The ones with Milla Jovovich murdering zombies are all they need to be tbh

EDIT: dammit, posting from another page makes it not show up

I dunno maybe a section of a story involving a character can stand on its own regardless of how you feel about a later story about that character. It's all fiction, just pretend the other stuff isn't canon if it really bothers you that much.

Wow there are way too many posts about a brief camera shake in the flashback section of the first of two forty minute episodes. I didn't notice it and I intend to continue not noticing dumb minutiae like that.

Yes. We should all accept minor inconveniences to our own ability to own a largely unnecessary tool of death if it might mean people's children don't die. It is not remotely complicated, anyone who thinks their rights to unrestricted access to unlimited firearms is too important to try to take action against gun violence is a garbage human being.

It's impossible to know for sure that it can't work because they've never tried it. You might not be able to stop 100% of people getting guns, but it's laughable to suggest that every single one of the teenagers who committed a mass shooting with a gun bought by their mother or their father or aunt or uncle or whatever would definitely have the black market contacts to get a gun. Too many of the arguments against gun control boil down to 'it's not possible to 100% guarantee no one gets murdered anymore so we can't try to take any action', and that's absolute garbage. Road safety laws don't completely eliminate road fatalities, but we don't just throw our hands up and say 'rules don't work, drive how you want!'