Cards Against Humanity is like if I got control of a successful e-commerce site
-
Then again, I've read enough of that general kind of drivel that I think I might have hit my lifetime maximum.
Oh, yes, it's definitely drivel. Your instinct was right on. She came across to me as the sort of person who can't imagine any thinking person would disagree with her. But I only have the article to go by, so I don't have any reason to believe that she's encountered thinking people yet.
-
The drivel in those articles is kinda like the magic eye pictures. Either you see it right away for what it is, or you're never going to see it.
-
The domain should have been enough for the drivel detector.
-
I like how the preview instantly conveys that whoever wrote it considers white males to be bigots who don't listen to anyone else.
I didn't see anything in the article that effectively contradicts that impression.
I, however, maintain that someone who manages to drip so much condescension into one clause and one sentence doesn't have an experience to share that will enlighten me, except perhaps as a "how not to" lesson.
I sometimes wonder if they even care about enlightening others. The entire article could be summed up as "Hooray for our side!" without losing anything significant.
She came across to me as the sort of person who can't imagine any thinking person would disagree with her.
Thinking people who disagree get lumped in with the racists/sexists.
-
Ok here's a brainteaser: a person is playing football and gets hurt. Should they:
a) Just fuck off, seriously, they're ruining everybody's enjoyment of the sport.
b) Rest up, get well, we hope to see them back on the field soon.
-
Ok here's a brainteaser: a person is playing football and gets hurt. Should they:
a) Just fuck off, seriously, they're ruining everybody's enjoyment of the sport.
b) Rest up, get well, we hope to see them back on the field soon.<!-- the answer im looking for is "depends which 'football' were talking about here" -->
If it's one, they should roll around for a while, then hop up and grimace, and get back in action. If it's the other, they should take a play off, wait for their teammates to run around for 5 seconds, then get back in the game on the second play, which is about ten minutes later.
-
Where I grew up there were signs on all the shop doors that said “right of admission reserved”. Eventually I realized that was just the South-African way of saying “no black people”.
So firing a client for being obnoxious is the exact same thing as flat-out refusing to serve a customer because of his/her skin color?
@Intercourse said:
Is this place being overrun with SJW's?
No, it's just that we don't have a @morbiuswilters around to scare them off. Regardless, I'll take the new community* over the old, because views expressed on the CS forums tended to fall into a monoculture.
*but not the new forum software over the old
-
No, it's just that we don't have a @morbiuswilters around to scare them off. Regardless, I'll take the new community* over the old, because views expressed on the CS forums tended to fall into a monoculture.
*but not the new forum software over the old
The new community (but not the new forum software over the old) over the old?
I almost want to FOIL that statement.
-
If it's one, they should roll around for a while, then hop up and grimace, and get back in action. If it's the other, they should take a play off, wait for their teammates to run around for 5 seconds, then get back in the game on the second play, which is about ten minutes later.
The injured should also appear to be in as much pain as possible to appeal to the crowd/audience's emotions and to improve Nielsen ratings so that the price for commercials can be jacked up.
-
So firing a client for being obnoxious is the exact same thing as flat-out refusing to serve a customer because of his/her skin color?
Well, if he grew up in South Africa, I'm inclined to believe him about the nature of the euphemism.
...because views expressed on the CS forums tended to fall into a monoculture.
Wait, what? This sounds like confirmation bias. Just like similar complaints about slashdot. The CS culture was as disagreeable as here, just with fewer posts.
-
Everybody likes to point at the hardcore racists and say “I'm not like them” but the truth is, if you could just get over your prejudice you'd find that racists are actually really nice people. They work hard, provide for their family and—if they consider you to be human—would go out of their way to ensure you felt nothing but warmth and acceptance from their community.
-
Everybody likes to point at the hardcore racists and say “I'm not like them” but the truth is, if you could just get over your prejudice you'd find that racists are actually really nice people. They work hard, provide for their family and—if they consider you to be human—would go out of their way to ensure you felt nothing but warmth and acceptance from their community.
Is it bad that I initially interpreted "racists" as people who run race, e.g. marathons?
-
Well, if he grew up in South Africa, I'm inclined to believe him about the nature of the euphemism.
I'm not doubting that. I was insinuating that there's a huge difference between firing a client for being obnoxious and firing a client for being part of a certain group. Particularly in software, where taking on obnoxious clients can mean you will get bogged down in unprofitable work and go out of business.
confirmation bias
This is entirely possible. @dhromed spoke of the Four Champions of Eternal Debate, and the loudest minority may have clouded my perception of the whole.
-
Everybody likes to point at the hardcore racists and say “I'm not like them” but the truth is, if you could just get over your prejudice you'd find that racists are actually really nice people. They work hard, provide for their family and—if they consider you to be human—would go out of their way to ensure you felt nothing but warmth and acceptance from their community.
Is that a second-person "you" or a third-person "you?"
-
Is that a second-person "you" or a third-person "you?"
Wat? "You" is, by definition, second person:
First person: I/we
Second person: You (singular or plural)
Third person: He/she/it/theyI don't understand what you mean by "third-person 'you'". Do you mean generic/impersonal/indefinite "you"? From the context, I would buttume @Buddy was using it generically; I see no reason to think he was referring specifically to your individual interactions with racists.
-
Wat? "You" is, by definition, second person:
First person: I/weSecond person: You (singular or plural)Third person: He/she/it/they
I should have expected this.
I don't understand what you mean by "third-person 'you'". Do you mean generic/impersonal/indefinite "you"?
Yes. Specifically, the case where "you" can be replaced with "one" without changing the overall meaning of the sentence, as in "If one is* in trouble, one should seek help."
From the context, I would buttume @Buddy was using it generically; I see no reason to think he was referring specifically to your individual interactions with racists.
It seemed ambiguous to me, and given that the intended meaning would significantly affect my response, it seemed reasonable to clarify first.
*in b4 "If you is in trouble..."
-
Yes. Specifically, the case where "you" can be replaced with "one" without changing the overall meaning of the sentence, as in "If one is* in trouble, one should seek help."
While this interpretation does have its merits, I think I prefer @hardwaregeek's assertion that you is always second person, as it gives the indefinite form something that use of the word ‘one’ lacks (aside: I considered using ‘one’ but decided not to, for this very reason), which is that it calls the reader out, “hey, this applies to you too”, rather than just impassively discussing an abstracted individual.
Anyway, the point is that I'm not trying to vilify any specific person, just observing that if someone were evil, they probably wouldn't realize it.
-
While this interpretation does have its merits, I think I prefer @hardwaregeek's assertion that you is always second person, as it gives the indefinite form something that use of the word ‘one’ lacks (aside: I considered using ‘one’ but decided not to, for this very reason), which is that it calls the reader out, “hey, this applies to you too”, rather than just impassively discussing an abstracted individual.
It's definitely conjugated in the second-person, even if the impersonal nature makes it feel like it's a third-person statement.
I like abstracted individuals. They make things easier, like frictionless surfaces, dragless air, and Newtonian physics!
Anyway, the point is that I'm not trying to vilify any specific person, just observing that if someone were evil, they probably wouldn't realize it.
Agreed. We all like to think of ourselves as being good people.
-
They make things easier, like frictionless surfaces, dragless air, and Newtonian physics!
And spherical cows!
-
transaction
how are those business transactions going? is it tiring working at the business factory?
-
In other news, I believe that fighting for equality is and should entirely be focused on the changing of systemic problems, including stuff like gay marriage and employment inequality and inequality of service level based on protected characteristics.
I don't think it should be focused on low hanging fruit and internet crusades against individuals with no power or significant influence over those systemic issues.
The second is what people who say they despise SJWs actually have a problem with. The first is something that pretty much everyone supports. working on the first will benefit everyone more, quicker, and with more lasting effects than any amount of the second.
-
In other news, I believe that fighting for equality is and should entirely be focused on the changing of systemic problems, including stuff like gay marriage and employment inequality and inequality of service level based on protected characteristics.
Agreed. Sexual orientation is still not a federally-protected class and we still have states where you can legally be fired just for being gay. If we fix those two issues, we make big steps towards equality.
-
-
@Intercourse said:
make big steps towards equality.
Fuck. Why you gotta be so reasonable*? I came here just to troll you, and here you are saying stuff that I agree with. Damn, and I had some really good ones, too.
*To be clear: I'm really only talking about the fact that I agree with you here. If you were being reasonable but saying things that I disagree with I would probably still troll you. The point is that my restraint isn't because of any respect for what you're actually saying, but because I feel like it would take away from the troll: people would be all “I don't get it, I thought they were on the same side?” and it just wouldn't have as much impact.
-
@Intercourse said:
If we fix those two issues,
Goddamned, another "There ought to be a law" mouth breather.
-
Ok, thanks to @boomzilla, I've figured out a way around this
@Intercourse said:
Agreed. Sexual orientation is still not a federally-protected class and we still have states where you can legally be fired just for being gay. If we fix those two issues, we make big steps towards equality.
We wouldn't need to legislate if people would just stop being dicks to each other in the first place. And even the law changes we've had have lagged behind the social change. They have to, I mean I don't want to go all slippery slope, but if we start getting changes to the law that aren't supported by the majority of the population, we're on some incredibly unsure footing there. And I know how naïve I sound with the whole “everyone just be nice to each other” deal, but I honestly believe that if people could just get where each other are coming from, that their natural human senses of empathy would be enough for us to not see people being fired just for who they are. So next time someone makes you feel like a bad person by telling you how something you might do could hurt them don't get mad, just hear what they're telling you and become a better person.
Ok I think that did it now on to the main event:
@Intercourse said:
I don't get rankled by insignificant disagreements on the internet
Do you feel that having this ability makes you morally superior to someone who does get upset by something you would consider insignificant? Who do you think is the main beneficiary of this ability? Do you think that criticizing people for getting upset on the internet is more likely to decrease the actual occurrence, or just your perception of it?I like how the preview instantly conveys that whoever wrote it considers white males to be bigots who don't listen to anyone else.
This PC bullshit is out of control and needs to be stopped. Since when did it become a crime just to say what people are like?
-
And I know how naïve I sound with the whole “everyone just be nice to each other” deal,
I think you're on the right track. In general, stuff is better if we work it out for ourselves. Formalizing things in law, and then trying to enforce them is TRWTF. You end up with all sorts of perverse consequences. But I'm not sure there's a good way around it at this point.
So next time someone makes you feel like a bad person by telling you how something you might do could hurt them don't get mad, just hear what they're telling you and become a better person.
A big problem with this sort of thing is those people telling me what could be hurting them isn't that they're talking about what hurts them, but telling me how awful I am because of some hypothetical offense taken by a fictitious person based on a tendentious interpretation of something I didn't even say.
Since when did it become a crime just to say what people are like?
+
-
Anyway, the point is that I'm not trying to vilify any specific person, just observing that if someone were evil, they probably wouldn't realize it.
That's true. If you look at history, some of the worst atrocities were committed by people who were sure they were doing the right thing.
-
-
Goddamned, another "There ought to be a law" mouth breather.
Not hardly. I am a libertarian, but I am reasonable enough to realize that when someone in a position of power decides to be a cunt, there should be consequences.
As for marriage, I don't think there should be a law defining it. Get rid of that, and don't allow states to pass laws that oppress and single out minorities and the marriage thing is covered.
For jobs, you should not be able to be fired just for being gay. As for "passable transvestites", I don't know. A person who dresses non-heteronormative could easily cost a company business. Do what you want outside of business hours, but during business hours you have to be at least somewhat normal-looking.
-
@Intercourse said:
I am a libertarian, but
Ah, and the truth comes out. There always a but.
<trollface>
-
-
@Intercourse said:
As for "passable transvestites", I don't know. A person who dresses non-heteronormative could easily cost a company business. Do what you want outside of business hours, but during business hours you have to be at least somewhat normal-looking.
Yeah. Although there is absolutely nothing wrong with a wedding where the bride and all the bridesmaids are wearing suits
@Intercourse said:
As for marriage, I don't think there should be a law defining it. Get rid of that, and don't allow states to pass laws that oppress and single out minorities and the marriage thing is covered.
For jobs, you should not be able to be fired just for being gay.
Agreed on jobs -- I don't care if you're a little green man from Mars as long as you do your job, do it well, and work with your co-workers!Sadly -- the marriage business is a boat we built and are stuck in -- it'd be bloody hard to rip it out, given its deep tendrils into things like the Internal Revenue Code.
-
Although there is absolutely nothing wrong with a wedding where the bride and all the bridesmaids are wearing suits
neither is there anything wrong with one where the groom and men of honor wear dresses.
actually i like the idea of that. i wonder if anyone has done a wedding like that?
-
-
Ah, and the truth comes out. There always a but.
How about this? I am a libertarian, but I am not a total anarchist (pretty fucking close though) and I find that when people are left to their own the majority tends to walk the fuck over the minority. A libertarian errs on the side of liberty, but not necessarily their own.
I also believe that a gay person would be better off not working for a homophobe, but that is another story.
-
Sadly -- the marriage business is a boat we built and are stuck in -- it'd be bloody hard to rip it out, given its deep tendrils into things like the Internal Revenue Code.
Simple solution, get rid of marriage. It is an out-dated, antiquated institution. My wife knows that if there had been a way for us to live together and protect each others best interests (child custody, property rights, etc) without getting married, I sure as hell would not have signed those papers. But, there isn't, so I did.
Tax code means fuckall to us. We have always filed separately anyway.
-
@Intercourse said:
How about this?
I don't like that at all. I'm not finding any fast and easy angles from which to troll you.
-
I don't like that at all. I'm not finding any fast and easy angles from which to troll you.
Being reasonable is a barrier to trolling.
Go big or go home, just start spouting racist bullshit like Mel Gibson during a sobriety check.
-
@Intercourse said:
Being reasonable
Eh, it's probably more about the language you used. Nothing easy to jump on, like the word, "but."
-
I will try to trip up next time, then you can swing for the fences.
-
@Intercourse said:
I will try to trip up next time,
I'm in a wheelchair you insensitive clod! <well, it's a chair that has little wheels on it>
-
-
@Intercourse said:
I find that when people are left to their own the majority tends to walk the fuck over the minority.
So why do you call yourself a libertarian?
Filed under: it looks like we found a @Snooder replacement
-
So why do you call yourself a libertarian?
Libertarian does not mean anarchist. A libertarian errs on the side of liberty, that does not mean the liberty to shit all over minorities.
-
@Intercourse said:
Libertarian does not mean anarchist.
What does anarchy mean to you? It seems you aren't using the same definition as the rest of us.
@Intercourse said:
A libertarian errs on the side of liberty, that does not mean the liberty to shit all over minorities.
If you believe that people if left to themselves will shit all over minorities, how do you see this as compatible with less government generally being better? I'm not giving you a hard time (yet); this was a legitimate question and you haven't answered it.
-
If you believe that people if left to themselves will shit all over minorities, how do you see this as compatible with less government generally being better? I'm not giving you a hard time (yet); this was a legitimate question and you haven't answered it.
He's after a strong enforcer of a very well-delimited set of rights.
-
What does anarchy mean to you?
Absence of government and absolute freedom. What definition do you use?
If you believe that people if left to themselves will shit all over minorities, how do you see this as compatible with less government generally being better?
Meh, I did not spell it out well before. I believe in always erring on the side of personal liberty, but my liberty ends when I impede on the liberty of someone else. Less government being better is generally held as an ideal by all political parties. <yeah, there are exceptions to that, but Democrats and Republicans believe in less government as long as it is less of the government that they disagree with and more of what they do, for a net loss>Libertarians tend to be more genuine about it though.
-
He's after a strong enforcer of a very well-delimited set of rights.
I would agree with that. Also, a very limited government. A libertarian believes that the power of government lies in the consent of the people to be governed. Too many people today believe the opposite of that. It seems like people do not question their government because they believe that is where the power comes from and that our rights are given to us by the government. That annoys me as a person who loves liberty.
-
@Intercourse said:
It seems like people do not question their government except for what the "other guys" do
FTFY
Hash House Harriers - Wikipedia
