Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

What reason is there to care whether it was atheists or racists, or racist atheists or whatever the fuck. Would it truly be any more abhorrent had it been an atheist?

[Rolan7]

I'm just glad it wasn't associated with my group, because it's heinous and would make the rest of us look bad.
I'm really sorry it happened.

[TripJack]

racists can be atheists too

[TD1]

Atheists can be anything, like theists.

In fact, there are more racist theists than racist atheists!

No, you may not see the respective figures for percentage of the population which is atheistic/theistic.

[Loud Whispers]

Identity politics.

[penguinofhonor]

A good John Oliver segment on transgender issues in America.

He talks about the Kentucky bathroom bill for a bit, and I actually have a couple friends of friends in the video, which is pretty cool.

[itisnotlogical]

Some people are using "religious freedom" as a license to disobey federal law.

"I won't issue licenses to gay people" is discrimination, but "I won't issue licenses to gay people BECAUSE OF MY RELIGION" is not discrimination? Okaaaaay. Man, I wish my country was small so that we could actually unify on an issue. From the USA, it seemed like Ireland just said "Hey, gay people are alright, no reason they can't marry!" And then they voted and gay marriage is now legal in Ireland, problem solved. I'm embarrassed for my country.

[scriver]

Well, your country is supposed to be 50 countries, so...

[Darkmere]

So while everyone's looking at the big, gay, shiny distraction, the Supreme Court overruled anti-pollution legislation saving big business lots of cash (which presumably wound up in court pockets) and keeping the mean old EPA at bay for now.

Possibly tinfoil hat, but the timing is a little suspicious, and those cited numbers smell pretty fishy.

[Descan]

I like how any movement forward on an issue is a "distraction" from any other issues that exist.

[Darkmere]

I like how any movement forward on an issue is a "distraction" from any other issues that exist.

You could have read how I supported the original decision earlier in this thread. That has no bearing on whether or not it was used as misdirection.

Glad you took the time to dump on my motives, though.

[Reelya]

So while everyone's looking at the big, gay, shiny distraction, the Supreme Court overruled anti-pollution legislation saving big business lots of cash (which presumably wound up in court pockets) and keeping the mean old EPA at bay for now.

Possibly tinfoil hat, but the timing is a little suspicious, and those cited numbers smell pretty fishy.

They scrap emission limits on mercury on power plants: pro-capitalists cheer. Then, the same pro-capitalists go all conspiracy theory because low-wattage light bulbs have mercury in them.

Here are two contradictory articles from literally the same site. The first article had a hotlink to the current one:

http://dailysignal.com/2011/01/25/how-many-hazmat-suits-does-it-take-to-change-a-light-bulb/
"How Many Hazmat Suits Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?" due to mercury, which clearly trumps the long-term savings for consumers. The author is a fellow of the Heritage Foundation.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-obamas-energy-regulation/
"Supreme Court Rules Against Obama’s Energy Regulation" where they scoff at the costs involved in reducing mercury emissions. Here, of course, savings for consumers is more important than reducing mercury emissions. And of course their go-to source for comment is someone from the Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation plays both sides of the fence. Here are two contradictory articles by the same fucking author:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/governments-light-bulb-ban-is-just-plain-destructive
" CFLs use high levels of mercury, and exposure to mercury vapor is dangerous if the bulbs are broken."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/the-assault-on-coal-and-american-consumers
" the EPA ignores clinical studies that demonstrate the human body’s ability to protect itself against high levels of mercury."

... apparently this writer at the Heritage Foundation also ignore those same studies when it doesn't suit his case.

[Descan]

I like how any movement forward on an issue is a "distraction" from any other issues that exist.

You could have read how I supported the original decision earlier in this thread. That has no bearing on whether or not it was used as misdirection.

Glad you took the time to dump on my motives, though.

It's still annoying to hear it. Regardless of motives.

[Frumple]

... desc, you do realize that in the US (and presumably elsewhere, of course), it's pretty literally true? Our politicians have a noted tendency to throw people a bone and then use the furor over that to get things passed under the radar. They very much use high visibility talking points as distractions.

Considering how little the SSM legalization actually did from a judicial standpoint, it's disturbingly more likely to be an apt observation. It did give us SSM, but it did it in just about the least robust and expansive way possible. A move forward, but that movement was a shuffle, not a step (albeit a really important shuffle for a lot of people).

Though it's not any movement forward -- those can, and do, happen under the radar as well -- it's just the ones that show signs of actually being distractions, or being taken advantage of by opportunists in the legislature or whatev' to sneak shit past citizens. It's a really damned legitimate concern, and one of pretty significant worry to those who actually are trying to make forward movement.

[Helgoland]

SSM sounds like an especially kinky fetish.