Print

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

[Nikov]

People on food stamps aren't starving. People not on food stamps and qualifying for food stamps also are not starving. Only starving people are starving, not people you assume to be starving because they're on a program to prevent starving.

Truean, we already have self-destructing land mines. They're all the US uses anymore.

[Truean]

People on food stamps aren't starving. People not on food stamps and qualifying for food stamps also are not starving. Only starving people are starving, not people you assume to be starving because they're on a program to prevent starving.

Truean, we already have self-destructing land mines. They're all the US uses anymore.

I dunno Nikov. I've seen a lot of people in this situation. They aren't doing too well. That much we can agree on I think.

We're gonna have to disagree on "starving." I imagine you take that as a literal sense as in "you have no food" and nothing else. Its much wider than that. Sure, you have "food" and so does the homeless guy eating out of the bus station trash can. Starving often means you don't have "enough" food and your body is beginning to go into malnutrition. If you don't subscribe to this definition, then most of the world is doing just fine.... Except of course, it isn't.

To save time, let's just put that I think the opposite of what you do. They are only not starving because of the food stamps and those qualifying for them and not getting them are also starving. Yes, it's once removed. That means it's very very close and if certain people eliminate the one thing keeping them from not being able to afford food, then what?

I suppose if you want to be technical we have "41.8 Million people who cannot get food for themselves in the US without the government's help."

That's better, but not by much, especially given that the government wants to stop helping them get food.... What the hell do you do then?

Pleasure to cross swords with you, as always.
____________________________________________
Self destructing but not homing landmines . Not as cool or effective....

[Angle]

I think it's interesting to think that in theory communism would work better at running an advanced economy because it wouldn't force people into wage slave service sector jobs just to trickle down the wealth.  But in practice communism seems to be pretty good at the initial industrialization of an economy and pretty dismal at running an economy once industrialized.

you mean soviet "communism"? I think that they're political structure is more responsible for those observations than their economic structure is.

[Criptfeind]

You can't really split the politics and economics of such a thing.

[SalmonGod]

I've since learned that certain levels of imperfection are not just "acceptable" but necessary. Always, in everything.

I mostly agree with you, but I also believe that the only way to achieve excellence is by striving for perfection.

[Vector]

Fuck you very much, Barack Obama.

Please note that the second link is to the usual blog, in this case specifically because the transcript of the video has some interesting analysis/interpretation in it.

[Angle]

You can't really split the politics and economics of such a thing.

Split them, maybe not, but you can see a difference between them. The soviet union had an abominable political system- Power belonged to whoever was able to muscle in and take it. How long do you think we'd last with a political sytsem like that? Not 70 years, I'd bet.

[Criptfeind]

Your right, communism is much better at propaganda then democracy. We would have revolted much sooner.

Also, how does this have to do with the first point?

[Virex]

Fuck you very much, Barack Obama.

Please note that the second link is to the usual blog, in this case specifically because the transcript of the video has some interesting analysis/interpretation in it.

It's easy pounding on someone who can't fight back. Also remember that the democrats only have a 56% majority and that the majority of that majority is male (and a majority of that majority is secretly misogynist but they won't admit it). I hope you can kind of see why the president doesn't want to step on the toes of anyone.

[Criptfeind]

Actually that seems to me a lot better then what you would get most times.

[Truean]

On Misogyny and Homophobia:

They exist, plain and simple.

The Video:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The answer that guy in the video should've given is and I quote: "I honestly don't know enough about or have any authority to comment on the term, "war on women" to comment intelligently right now, and I wasn't aware it would be brought up at this event. Tell you what, give me a little bit of time to do some research on the area and check directly with the president and I will get back to you in a meaningful way as soon as possible and I'll even email a considered, intelligent, official response approved by the President himself. Does that sound fair?"

Except even that would've screwed this guy over because it then puts his boss on the spot. Why do you think Obama sent this dude instead of coming himself? To take the hit....

It's kinda interesting watching him squirm. He actually is stuck in a terrible position, because all he is, is a mouthpiece, plain and simple. He can't say anything his masters haven't cleared first and if he does he can easily get fired.

I'm not making excuses for the S.o.B. He screwed up. He screwed up badly. What the hell did he think would happen when he started tap dancing around the issue and silently praying the audience would drop it? How on earth did he think he would dodge that question, especially in a room full of women who care about women's issues. His response sets up so many red flags, I ... I can't be sure but I think ... yes the room now appears downright soviet.... There's red every damn where.... Just add Lenin statues....

Summation: He should've been honest and upfront with these people about the fact that he's not allowed to comment. They would've respected him more, and even though nothing this guy can say will please his bosses, that would've ended up giving him less heat from higher up.

I work in a law firm. Before she retired in frustration the associate lawyer was consistently called "The other secretary" by about.... 40 or 50% of the clients.... It got to her; I know it did. She took it in stride as much as she could because she had to. I personally apologized to her and said I didn't think it was right but we both knew there was shit I could do about it....

This of course brings me to the crux of women's rights issues: what exactly could we do about it, and I have no idea what the answer is. If wages are unequal, then there really isn't an effective remedy, because you'll say "Well just make the wages equal." Businesses will hear, "Lower every guy's wage." *headdesk*. And that's just a concrete problem. You really, really can't make people think differently when they are dead set on not thinking differently. Which of course brings me to....

Names and Insults:
Where do you even begin here.... Guys make fun of other guys by taunting them with feminine names or comparing them to women. Because... clearly... that would be a ... bad thing....? Being female that is? Same thing with homosexuality. And frankly most people don't even realize they are doing it. When pointed out, they have actually said, "that's just something people do."

I'm of course referring to using the world "Gay" as an insult or negative term. "That's so gay," seemingly means "that's so stupid." People don't even think about this much, do it reflexively, etc. When it is pointed out, I've consistently heard "That's not what people mean when they say it," and "there's more than one meaning to gay." They actually defend use of the word in this manner. There is no other minority group you can refer to this way without being clearly shown as a bigot.

How do people not get that this will piss women and gay people off? Connecting the dots is a simple matter. If "gay" used in a sentence means stupid and someone is "gay" then that person is "stupid." I ... just can't imagine why they want you to stop doing that....

There's no possible way I can address the mountain of crap shoveled out on these people for no reason:
I won't even get into sodomy laws, which were only fully and finally decriminalized in 2003 in the United States. You went to jail for being gay. It was said, as a lovely cop out, that we weren't putting people in jail for being gay, but only for "gay conduct" and the law still recognizes this distinction from being gay/doing gay things. Translation, "be gay" just don't ever let yourself show it or act on it....  Repeal of Don't Ask; Don't Tell finally meant you weren't fired from the armed forced for being gay (and that's still kind of a zombie law subject to possible revival from the dead.

It really is kind of a bad situation and damned if I know the answer. Fact is you're fighting prejudice which is a feeling in the back of someone's mind, a taste in their mouth, or a deep seated conviction. Shit if I know how to change that....

I figured Vector might appreciate it if someone attempted to give women's issues some due in this thread.

[Vector]

@Truean: Why yes, I do appreciate it.  Thank you.

There is no other minority group you can refer to this way without being clearly shown as a bigot.

The mentally ill, or physically disabled.

But pretty much no one ever pays attention to that.  Even I have a hard time not using words like "crazy," "lame," and "stupid."  I refuse to use "retarded," though.

I hope you can kind of see why the president doesn't want to step on the toes of anyone.

Any bigoted men, you mean.  Because I'm pretty sure that "women" count as "someone."

[Truean]

There is no other minority group you can refer to this way without being clearly shown as a bigot.

The mentally ill, or physically disabled.

But pretty much no one ever pays attention to that.  Even I have a hard time not using words like "crazy," "lame," and "stupid."  I refuse to use "retarded," though.

You're welcomes.

Good point, I forgot about that. I really shouldn't have though, because I have a friend in a wheelchair. People shout at her and she often replies "I can't walk; I can hear." I guess I just forgot because I don't look at her any differently. Meh.

[Virex]

There is no other minority group you can refer to this way without being clearly shown as a bigot.

The mentally ill, or physically disabled.

But pretty much no one ever pays attention to that.  Even I have a hard time not using words like "crazy," "lame," and "stupid."  I refuse to use "retarded," though.

What about straight, educated, white males?

I hope you can kind of see why the president doesn't want to step on the toes of anyone.

Any bigoted men, you mean.  Because I'm pretty sure that "women" count as "someone."

I was thinking more of politically important factions here, because let's face it, women aren't a politically important faction right now.

[Vector]

What about white males? I don't think insulting them would count?

... "That's so white man?"  Since when is that an insult?

It's not about insulting a group.  It's about referring to a group as an inherently bad, undesirable thing.

I was thinking more of politically important factions here, because let's face it, women aren't a politically important faction right now.

Possibly partially because our president (amongst other people) doesn't attempt to treat them like they're important.