Gdanning
1yr ago
You're not saying outright that I have to defer, but your statement "It is that if you are going to criticize contemporary architecture, then it helps to come across as knowing what you are talking about" certainly carries the implication that I ought to be deferring to those with the right vocabulary.
No, saying that you should use the right vocabulary does not mean you should defer to anyone.
As for your local architects, run-of-the-mill architects follow the trends set by elite architects. If your local govt is only building concrete boxes, the fault lies with them, not with the field of architecture. Because governments in other parts of the country seem to be able to build something other than concrete boxes,
Gdanning
1yr ago
Gdanning
1yr ago
But, were that true, wouldn't that be reflected in the Pritzker prize awards? What reflects the institution of the architecture profession better than that?
Gdanning
1yr ago
No, they didn't. Their "point" is infantile. "Why did they mention this guy's political views but not this other guy's religious views" is a terrible argument, because they are different categories. People generally do not condemn the religious views of others; the political views of others is much more fair game. Hence, it is hardly surprising that reviews did not mention Cruise's religious views.* It is no less inane than people claiming racial bias when police crack down on gang violence but not Wall Street fraud.
I would prefer that a filmmaker's views not be mentioned at all, but OP's "argument" is pathetic..
*Assuming that they didn't. But it seems that Rolling Stone -- the very magazine that OP complained of, published this article yesterday.
Gdanning
2yr ago
megacucks
I know it is probably a waste of time to engage with someone who uses such terms, but I would like to suggest the possibility that real men undertake the hard work of trying to get those with power to live up to their ideals. It is children who respond by running away, be it to China or elsewhere, or who take the easy road of engaging in violence. Martin Luther King was a man; Huey Newton was a child. And, not uncoincidentally, King was highly effective, while Newton was counterproductive.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Charged extravagently? Obstruction of an official proceeding seems to be the most serious charge in the indictment. And if you think 6 counts is extravagent, you clearly are not familiar with standard practice.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Well, according to the plea agreement, the sentencing guidelines range was 41 to 51 months. He got 41. So, yes.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Hm, you kind of forgot to mention the gun-shaped object he was pointing toward the police. Does not seem to be particularly comparable.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Well, I guess we have a different idea of what "numerous" means, and if you infer "general dysfunction" from a scene in which there a bunch of children playing, people going to work or walking their dogs,etc, well, I think that is on you.
Gdanning
1yr ago
As I said earlier, I am 100% confident that some Romney supporters voted for him out of anti-black animus, and some Obama supporters voted for him out of anti-white animus. The numbers are probably quite small in both instances. But I disagree that that is the source of the heat.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I already talked about that; I meant what the police believed at the time, because that is all that is relevant to the issue of the arrest.
Gdanning
1yr ago
2020 is Brutalistesque, but 2021 is not Brutalist at all. The point is that "Apparently brutalism is the only acceptable architectural form these days" is clearly incorrect.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I'm not even sure what doctrine they're purportedly expressing.
-
If you don't know what they are trying to say, then how are you so sure it is anti-Catholic
-
Why anti-Catholic, as opposed to anti-Protestant or anti-Eastern Orthodox?
-
Most importantly, let's not forget that there is no reason to think that the performance is actually by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The evidence therefor seems to be zero.
Gdanning
1yr ago
As I said, only some people who are defending Mitt Romney are possibly motivated by anti-black racism. Just as some people who supported Obama were anti-white racists.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Dude, if you think "some of those people" refers to you specifically, that's on you.
Let's review: It is common knowledge that some people here express anti-black animus. Indeed, this site prides itself, and rightfully so, in giving users the freedom to express such sentiments. Indeed, as I understand it, that was one of the reasons for leaving reddit.
Now, OP noted that many people here seem to be very exorcised about Romney, and only Romney, supposedly being treated unfairly during the rough and tumble of a presidential campaign, despite the fact that they don't seem to be particularly enamored of Romney himself. It stands to reason, therefore, that they might be less upset that Romney lost than that Obama won. Now, there are many reasons why one might be opposed to Obama being reelected, but for those people here who display anti-black animus, one would have to willfully ignore human nature not to hypothesize that his race might be a factor. Which, again, does not make them bad people. After all, 100 years ago, most people were far more racist than that, but most people 100 years ago were not bad people; I assume that they were on average just as bad or good as people today.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Because that is not what you said, and if you meant to imply that, you are mistaken; as I explained, there is indeed evidence for my statement. That does not, of course, mean that the statement is necessarily correct. But it is consistent with the evidence.
Gdanning
1yr ago
- I think very few people base their beliefs solely on evidence, nor do I think it's healthy to do so.
Perhaps, that is a red herring. The issue is whether it is unhealthy to base belefs on a complete lack of evidence, or on things that purport to be evidence, but are not.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I have evidence, because I have been on here a while, and just as there are some commenters here who clearly have issues with Jews, there are some who have issues with blacks. Not all, nor even a majority, but some.
And, for the record, I demand evidence for claims that I like. I am not a fan of Justice Alito's jurisprudence, and so it would be great to dismiss him as a "partisan hack," but alas I can't, without evidence. Do you form your beliefs in a different manner?
In 1995 a hearing on terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing, Feinstein recounted how, in the 1970s, she was the target of the New World Liberation Front which first attempted to blow up her home. After the bomb failed to detonate, Feinstein explained, she decided to arm herself.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Well, the article says 25 million. If so, it does indeed balance out. Especially since I would bet that some of those dead troops were Jewish, while none of those Africans were. By the only metric you seem to care about, Bush should be your favorite person!
Gdanning
1yr ago
No, it is not an extremely low bar. Because first there needs to be an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, and its existence has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, there has to be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Although circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the existence of an agreement, And here is what CA jury instructions say about circumstantial evidence:
before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.
Someone visiting a bank might be casing the place, but that is hardly the only reasonable conclusion. So, your concern is misplaced.
Gdanning
1yr ago
What he said that was "incorrect" is completely irrelevant to 1) the point he was making and 2) people's ability to understand the point he was making.
Well, I simply disagree. Especially given his reference to battle against beauty, and the propensity of people here to claim that certain artistic styles are some sort of intentional campaign against beauty by members of their outgroup, and moreover evidence of the moral depravity of that outgroup. It is a common theme here.
I really don't care if that Starbucks coffee is a "Venti" instead of a large and "correcting" that is just pedantry. Well, it is a good thing you were not with me several years ago when I ordered a "tall" but the brand new, and apparently poorly trained, employee gave me a Venti because she thought I was referring to the really tall cup.
Because he came across state lines with a gun, and ended up shooting his political opponents. Again, based on facts that emerged, I do not think that he premeditated; in fact, I am sure that he did not, and I am sure that his acquittal was correct. But probable cause is quite a low bar, and of course is based on evidence known at the time of the arrest.
More options
Context Copy link