The Weird, Random, and Interesting things that Fit Nowhere Else Thread

[Gorgon]

So apparently the FTC has sent warning letters to a bunch of celebrities about promoting brands without disclosing the relationship. This sounds insane to me. I think it is dumb that people buy stuff because celebrities are into it, but I think it is even dumber that the government feels the need to get involved in it.

A conflict of interest in the life or death decision of choosing the right moisturizer ?

[Gorgon]

I kinda get why they would do that though. Imagine Jennifer Lopez is sponsored by a beauty brand of some sort. She is payed to promote it on social media. The brand becomes commonly associated with her. 

 

Now whatever appearance she makes, the late show, Jimmy Kimmel, whatever. Those broadcasting companies are now actively promoting Jennifer Lopez's beauty brand because of the heavy association between the two. That's why you need disclosure.

[Gromnir]

Isnt that the exact rationale for the various book burnings throughout history?

eh?

 

who are you talking to?

 

what book burnings do you see paralleling the placing o' statues into a museum rather than having 'em public displayed?

 

go ahead and try to take Gromnir's books, or gifted's books?  Constitution protects. at the same time, your link includes burnings of books by private citizens.  such burnings is Protected here in the US, in case you were unaware.  wanna make a political statement by burning the right stuff?  go for it.

 

at the same time, "hide" away books in a government building where folks can voluntarily visit (or not) and still see 'em and read 'em.  one wonders what might we call such a building to house books?  

 

am knowing you think there is a parallel, but you ain't actual making one.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Taking books off the required reading list and banning them are not the same thing by any means. I'm a bit dubious on what can be accomplished forcing students to read books someone other than them thought were important. I think they would be better served being able to choose from a list of 100 or so titles and be tested on those. That's for K-12. The worst thing you can do to a kid is turn reading into a chore.

 

Yes I'm talking about you J.D Salinger. Catcher in the Rye was the worst-book-ever. That is a week of my life I'll never get back!

 

And Dickens, your Great Expectations wasn't so great either... cool plot twist though. Got to hand it to you there.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

Meanwhile the Lenin statue is still there: http://www.saint-petersburg.com/monuments/ploshchad-lenina/   Many have been removed, but not this one, not because most people admire Lenin, but because it's an iconic statue and a pivotal moment in history.

 

Sure, which is why the Andrew Jackson statue in NO isn't going anywhere. It is iconic. 

[Gfted1]

The obvious parallel is, both the public library and public parks (or wherever these statues were), are financed by the state/city. If the rationale is to remove offensive from public view then where is the line drawn? Aside, I honestly had no idea that the Constitution protects books. What other mediums are protected? Paintings? Obviously statues do not enjoy such protection. Sincere question; if enough NA's got together could they force the covering of Mt. Rushmore with a giant curtain, for example?

[Gromnir]

Taking books off the required reading list and banning them are not the same thing by any means. I'm a bit dubious on what can be accomplished forcing students to read books someone other than them thought were important. I think they would be better served being able to choose from a list of 100 or so titles and be tested on those. That's for K-12. The worst thing you can do to a kid is turn reading into a chore.

 

Yes I'm talking about you J.D Salinger. Catcher in the Rye was the worst-book-ever. That is a week of my life I'll never get back!

to be fair, there is Constitutional limitations regarding what books can be exorcised from school reading lists.  is quite ambiguous what such limits is, but most attempts to ban individual books fail in the courts 'cause reasons for doing so is too transparent content-based prohibitions. typical cannot remove books from shelves simply 'cause the state doesn't like the message. one o' the justifications by the courts for defending school/library books from banning is the educational value o' books.

 

even so, the statues and memorials is viewed different than books, for what we would think would be obvious reasons. huckleberry finn may offend or trigger or whatever is the in vogue language o' the day, but while people may be offended by concepts in the book, twain's book gotta be read extreme narrow to be seen as advocating racism.  have somebody at hurlshot's school actual teach advocacy o' racism using huckleberry finn would last 'bout 10 seconds, no? confederate flags (which again, only gained usage during and after the civil war) and statues of folks who is inextricable linked with the perpetuation o' slavery is gonna understandable annoy many.  is the statue o' jefferson davis having an educational purpose?  is the jefferson davis statute in fact being used to educate people 'bout the inadequacy o' a decentralized government in times o' crisis?  is no doubt why you got a grand old statue to show how bad were the situation jefferson davis were facing.  

 

make an enormous statue o' a drinking fountain with the label "colored" 'pon it. do it up in bronze or marble.  maybe have some famous southern politician standing next to the fountain... or not. set it down in the center o' charleston south carolina. private property?  not much the government can do.  thank goodness. but public property?  tell us it represents decades o' southern traditions.  tell us the folks o' charleston shouldn't be able to ask for the removal o' the statue to a museum rather than a park.  even if gifted thinks the statue has educational value, you still thinks folks in charleston should have no say in removal?

 

and yes, statues enjoy same protections as paintings.  gifted's painting or Gromnir's painting enjoys protection. state wanna tell gifted he cant have a statue o' a gold drone displayed in his gallery or home?  such ain't gonna work.  converse, some city hall yutz gives gifted permission to display his statue in the richard j. daley and it not mean we is stuck having to endure gifted's statue in perpetuity. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Hmmm.... books... statues... there were two different conversations right? If not I might have missed something

[Guard Dog]

 

Meanwhile the Lenin statue is still there: http://www.saint-petersburg.com/monuments/ploshchad-lenina/   Many have been removed, but not this one, not because most people admire Lenin, but because it's an iconic statue and a pivotal moment in history.

 

Sure, which is why the Andrew Jackson statue in NO isn't going anywhere. It is iconic. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL7XS_8qgXM

[Hurlshort]

Geez, that 8th grader pulled 1.8 million views on his class project. That's impressive.

[Guard Dog]

OK, after rereading I see where Gfted was going. My mistake.

[Gromnir]

am knowing this is likely to confuse the matter, but we should mention how most o' the relevant first amendment art cases deal with living artists. try and silence a living artist who has already been given permission to display his art is tending to be repugnant to the constitution. artist don't get a perpetual right to display his work, but try and remove a work immediate 'cause o' public response is gonna be troublesome. the first amendment protections is, with a few confusing exceptions, a prohibition on the state in defense o' a speaker's fundamental rights.

 

there is  an implied right (5-4 decision) to receive a speaker's message, and such a right has been used infrequent to protect against the prohibition o' books. the educational value o' books typical outweigh the weak community interest to suppressing vulgarity or offensiveness. however, in cases concerning State (fed, state, local) commision o' a work, located on public property wherein the original artist is deceased, such cases typical die for simple lack o' standing.  the speaker needing protection is not in court to protest.  the message o' the original artist ain't diminished by moving a statue to a museum anymore than is a book diminished by placing it in a library.  prevent removal o' a statue nominal owned by State on public property is a tough case particular with a temporal remote created work o' art and no living speaker/artist to protect.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[redneckdevil]

I'm still pissed the schools banned my favorite books growing up, scary stories to tell in the dark. The art style and stories gave me my love for horror and accepted and finally bonded with my dad with our family times of watching horror movies.

 

Time to go see if I can find those books on amazon

[Raithe]

So because the national park won't let a young-earth creationist collect rocks....

 

Creationist sues the Grand Canyon for religious discrimination

[Guard Dog]

I'm still pissed the schools banned my favorite books growing up, scary stories to tell in the dark. The art style and stories gave me my love for horror and accepted and finally bonded with my dad with our family times of watching horror movies.

 

Time to go see if I can find those books on amazon

What books?

[Guard Dog]

So because the national park won't let a young-earth creationist collect rocks....

 

Creationist sues the Grand Canyon for religious discrimination

Well to be fair they really didn't say WHY his permit was denied. If they do 80 a year and his application is #81 he has no case. Reapply next year. And why would his book cause a stir? If you think it's absurd don't buy it but don't get down on them for trying to sell it.

 

Besides, everyone knows the Grand Canyon was created by Paul Bunyon dragging is double bladed axe behind him as walked to Colorado after cutting down the Mojave Forest.

[ShadySands]

Some of them were pretty scary when I was a young'un

[ShadySands]

 

So because the national park won't let a young-earth creationist collect rocks....

 

Creationist sues the Grand Canyon for religious discrimination

Well to be fair they really didn't say WHY his permit was denied. If they do 80 a year and his application is #81 he has no case. Reapply next year. And why would his book cause a stir? If you think it's absurd don't buy it but don't get down on them for trying to sell it.

 

Besides, everyone knows the Grand Canyon was created by Paul Bunyon dragging is double bladed axe behind him as walked to Colorado after cutting down the Mojave Forest.

 

I thought they said it failed the peer review and that he could get the rocks outside the protected area or somesuch

 

Anyway, it seems weird to spend his life in a field that he doesn't believe the science of and he's constantly trying to debunk. I guess as long as he's happy...

 

 

Edit- But I've been failing my reading rolls lately so I could be totally off

Edited May 20, 2017 by ShadySands

[redneckdevil]

 

I'm still pissed the schools banned my favorite books growing up, scary stories to tell in the dark. The art style and stories gave me my love for horror and accepted and finally bonded with my dad with our family times of watching horror movies.

 

Time to go see if I can find those books on amazon

What books?

https://youtu.be/MvbU1dOz_1c

 

https://youtu.be/k-E2ZlqCThA

 

https://youtu.be/qDmce0e0ce4

 

The art work really added to the atmosphere. This is the kinda stuff I look back on and know in some ways I grew up in an awesome era bc sadly doesn't fly anymore

All good, I got a copy with original artwork and when the time is right, read that to them on Halloween.

[Guard Dog]

I ought ti apply for a permit. When that ask why I'll say at want to glue googly eye on the rocks with a smiley face and a caption that says "I saw the Grand Canyon". If I get approved THEN he can sue!

 

[Guard Dog]

Some of them were pretty scary when I was a young'un

I'd never heard of it until I looked up just now. But friends let me tell you, some of those stories are old. A hell of a lot older than a book from the '80s. It's pretty cool to see them all collected in a book though.

 

Your library banned this RNdevil? I wonder why? I bet they had all of Poe's books. Same kind of thing.

[redneckdevil]

It actually made the most challenged book in school for quite a few years or something like that.

Yeah it was awesome because it introduced me into the older stories when your at an age to only know the generic ones.

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-Scary-Stories-to-Tell-in-the-Dark-banned-If-so-where

Edited May 20, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Raithe]

I can always remember my first attempt to read Bram Stoker's Dracula when I was 8, and getting terrified by Harker's descent into madness and ending up in the asylum after escaping the castle.

[redneckdevil]

That was what I selected for my kids the first horror movie. I thought a great choice because that was the best introduction I could think of for a one of many representation of evil.

[Malcador]

 

Such is the fate of traitors.

That's not an entirely fair characterization. The United States in those days was nothing like it is today. It really was a union of 33 largely independent states by today's standard. The power of the Federal Government was weak compared to today. If you were a citizen of Virginia you were more likely to consider yourself a Virginian than an American. Gen George Thomas was an excellent commander. He served under Grant in the west and won a number of major victories. He was outnumbered at Chickamunga and held against Johnson. He defeated Gen John Bell Hood at Franklin & Nashville, which essentially knocked Tennessee out of the war. He was born in Virginia and chose to remain with the Federal army. You could actually make a case he was more of a traitor to his home and family than Lee was. He lost everything for his choice and even was refused command of the western theater by Lincoln despite Grants suggestion because he was a southerner.

 

If the war did nothing else if forged a national identity where there was not one before. Had slavery been killed in the crib during the ratification of the Constitution, as it should have been, the US would be a very different country today. So different it's difficult to even guess what it would look like.

 

Was sort of aware of that, at least from the tales of Lee just following his state. But, lose a civil war, this kind of thing is what happens. Well the best of what happens, I guess. You could end up being hanged