Print

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

[mainiac]

I don't care about his views being respected. I care about respecting him, as a person, because he is still a human being.

Sure, he is a human being.  He is a human being with the potential for goodness.  But he choses not to use it.

I mean, if you want to set it as the standard that we're all allowed to insult each other for acting in ways that we don't like?

I like the standard that people are judged for their actions.

Anyone on the forums from Louisiana? Their upcoming televised Senate contest debate just got a whole lot more interesting:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/david-duke-qualifies-louisiana-ballot-230160

Well this is... deplorable. 

[Folly]

Since nobody posted a link to anything having her statement,  She doesn't say anything about staying for another hour. The story does sound a bit off, but I'm no professional, so...
But yeah, just because she's a prostitute doesn't mean that her story is automatically thrown away.

That's not her statement, but rather a summary of her statement which is clearly biased against Trump. My own summary was based on her actual words which I heard on CNN, but have yet to find a web link to. And yeah, my summary was a biased in tone as well, but not factually inaccurate.

And yeah, trump pretty much embodies the whole 'I'll sue you!' stereotype and sues for just about every single slight, even cases that would just be thrown out.
Also, interestingly . Doesn't sound like he did or achieved much of anything while doing that. Hardly surprising that he is focusing solely on White House lobbyists, which isn't even the majority of the problem.

Agreed, Trump sues way too much. But a largely baseless accusation about a serious issue like sexual assault, which strongly influences a presidential election, is more than just a simple slight.

[Frumple]

Anyone on the forums from Louisiana? Their upcoming televised Senate contest debate just got a whole lot more interesting:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/david-duke-qualifies-louisiana-ballot-230160

Damnit, marginally colder other swamp. This shit is a fraction of the reason no one likes us.

Though nah, visited a few times (roughly within day trip range of new orleans, iirc, though the last time I was there was before it sunk), but not from it.

Though interestingly enough, duke's apparently recently tweeted he's a fan of assanage and wikileaks. Just throwing that out there >_>

[smjjames]

And yeah, trump pretty much embodies the whole 'I'll sue you!' stereotype and sues for just about every single slight, even cases that would just be thrown out.
Also, interestingly . Doesn't sound like he did or achieved much of anything while doing that. Hardly surprising that he is focusing solely on White House lobbyists, which isn't even the majority of the problem.

Agreed, Trump sues way too much. But a largely baseless accusation about a serious issue like sexual assault, which strongly influences a presidential election, is more than just a simple slight.

What evidence would you need to make the accusations not baseless? Just wondering here.

[Rolepgeek]

I'm not even religious and I still agree with the sentiment "hate the sin, not the sinner".

Listen dude, if an orange is orange, it isn't 'acting orange'. Call a spade a spade, call deplorable people deplorable.

I guess you're right. If someone's a criminal, they're not acting in a criminal fashion, they're a criminal, and should be treated as such. Same with deviants and vagrants. Scum of the earth.

No? People should be treated with decency anyway? Unless it's something that you personally find deplorable? Oh, okay.

People aren't objects. They're people. Period. Separating people into 'good people' and 'bad people' is not how you get egalitarianism.

[smjjames]

Anyone on the forums from Louisiana? Their upcoming televised Senate contest debate just got a whole lot more interesting:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/david-duke-qualifies-louisiana-ballot-230160

Well this is... deplorable. 

In a very ironic way, a historically black university is hosting the debate, not that the university is hosting it, just that it's both hosting and a white supremacist is going to be there.

He polled at 5% and there are five other people ahead of him, so, his chances of becoming a senator are pretty much nonexistent here.

[mainiac]

is not how you get egalitarianism.

Yeah, it's not.  It's complicated how you get egalitarianism.  But know what the first step is?  Telling people to cut that shit out when they act like entitled d-bags.  Or when they support other people in being entitled d-bags.

Fuck man, this is the ultimate kid gloves treatment.  All I'm doing is expressing an opinion about his views.  I'm not calling for any sort of punishment.  But know who did call for punishment?

Someone needs to send a message that people can't just cry 'sexual assault!' at the drop of a hat to satisfy their own goals.

Folly is expressing the view of an entitled douche.  He thinks that the rich and powerful man should have people flock to his defense while the woman should be questioned even though there are countless corroborating statements that yeah, Trump does treat women exactly that way.  It's a horrible, horrible double standard.

So I'm going to stand up for egalitarianism just a tiny bit and say.  No Folly, that shit aint cool.  It's deplorable.

[Frumple]

So the technology's too crude to really mean much, but this is pretty neat regardless. Some folks ran the presidential debates through a program designed to evaluate emotion based on facial expression. The results are kinda' interesting, even if the conditions and sophistication of the software means it's probably not accurate enough to really get much out of it.

[Dorsidwarf]

So the technology's too crude to really mean much, but this is pretty neat regardless. Some folks ran the presidential debates through a program designed to evaluate emotion based on facial expression. The results are kinda' interesting, even if the conditions and sophistication of the software means it's probably not accurate enough to really get much out of it.

I think there's a pretty notable flaw in the analysis that trumps expression is "primarily sad". From what I've seen of Trump, his 'resting' face which he has all the time has a notable turning-down at the sides, which to the robot would probbably look most like all the photos of sad people it's been shown.

[Frumple]

There's notable flaws in all of it, right down to the fact the wrong kind of footage was being fed into the program

[smjjames]

So the technology's too crude to really mean much, but this is pretty neat regardless. Some folks ran the presidential debates through a program designed to evaluate emotion based on facial expression. The results are kinda' interesting, even if the conditions and sophistication of the software means it's probably not accurate enough to really get much out of it.

There's notable flaws in all of it, right down to the fact the wrong kind of footage was being fed into the program

It's certainly interesting at least though.

[Rolan7]

Does anyone have an explanation for the clips where Clinton staffers show their phones to reporters, seemingly feeding them questions?
It happens here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDA_liuy0-o

(She also ends the interview when a Wikileaks thing comes up, but that's fine by me at this point.  Wikileaks in unrepentantly biased, and there's no real reason to trust them.)

[Folly]

What evidence would you need to make the accusations not baseless? Just wondering here.

Video/audio records, witnesses, or DNA evidence are the commonly accepted forms of evidence. And yeah, that sucks for people who are caught alone with sexual assaulters who are clever enough to avoid recording devices and wear a condom. But the alternative is that you live in constant fear that some vindictive person will feel slighted by something you've done and make an unfounded accusation, and after a few years in prison you'll be unable to get a job and forced to go around to all your neighbors and inform them that you are a sexual offender.

These are serious accusations with serious consequences, and that's why yes, actual evidence is required for them to be taken seriously.

[mainiac]

But the alternative is that you live in constant fear that some vindictive person will feel slighted by something you've done and make an unfounded accusation,

It's a bit like how I live in the fear ever since the time one of my coworkers created an elaborate scheme to frame me for my uncle's murder.

Oh wait, no, I just fell asleep halfway through an episode of Columbo.

[smjjames]

Does anyone have an explanation for the clips where Clinton staffers show their phones to reporters, seemingly feeding them questions?
It happens here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDA_liuy0-o

(She also ends the interview when a Wikileaks thing comes up, but that's fine by me at this point.  Wikileaks in unrepentantly biased, and there's no real reason to trust them.)

How do you know that's what the staffer was doing? You can't even see what was on the screen, yes he showed something, but we don't know what.