@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

				

User ID: 278

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 278

The white woman/black man "pairing" as you put it is not, as far as I am aware, a particularly new concept

That this is the most common or ideal pairing is definitely a new concept.

I think the writing overall was better enough that it made for a satisfying watch even if you disagreed with the messaging. I think often about the TNG episode First Contact. In this episode, the crew is making covert overtures to an alien world with no prior knowledge of the existence of aliens about joining the Federation, which is fanatically opposed by Krola, an alien minister who is a clear conservative stand-in: suspicious, paranoid, religious, xenophobic, cruel, and fanatical. We the viewers know he is wrong in everything: we have prior knowledge that the Federation is benevolent, peaceful, and altruistic and that his concerns are groundless. But at the end of the episode, the leader decides that he has a point: the Federation were actually infiltrating them, and the changes they are offering may actually be destructive to the society they have. He rejects their offer, at least for a while, and they leave.

The intended message is clear: unfortunately, less-progressive attitudes have cost this society a chance to join the glorious future, and this is an parable about how conservative attitudes in contemporary society hold back the glorious future depicted in the show. But the writing is intelligent enough to see that there are both benefits and costs to any change, and actually gives their villains an in-episode win while still promoting their message. That's good writing. That makes an episode enjoyable to watch, even if you think the intended message is wrong or not a good parable.

If they had wanted to be maximally aggressive, they would have done so 2 years ago, not given him so many chances to make the problem go away.

That completely ignores the political benefits of the timing. I just can't take seriously any strictly legal analysis that ignores the political impacts.

I know what anti-racism is, and Tolkien saying “I have the hatred of Apartheid in my bones” fits.

No, that's being "not racist." Totally different than anti-racist. A "not racist" person believes in color blindness and treating people equally and putting the responsibility for differential outcomes on the individual. An anti-racist person believes in structural racism and fighting it by treating people differently in order to compensate. Where is the evidence that Tolkien acknowledged the existence of structural racism? Where is the evidence that he ever advocated or personally gave special dispensation to URM in order to counteract the effects of structural racism?

I think it's reasonably plausible that Tolkien was not racist, but I don't see much evidence that he was anti-racist.

He's funny

See, in the twist cap situation, I would always lead with, "may I offer a suggestion?" When they inevitably agree, you're now offering solicited advice. You've engaged them in asking for your help, which makes them inherently more open to accepting it. "Don't offer unsolicited advice" doesn't mean "speak only when spoken to." And of course etiquette always takes a back seat to actual danger.

Trump is probably the most centrist candidate, if you look at actual polling on the issues. He's only "not centrist" in that he dissents from the nondemocratic "Washington Consensus" established by entrenched by would-be technocrats, bureaucracy, and special interests.

I agree, but it does go well beyond the ADL. Nearly every prominent Jewish academic, entertainer, or magnate has voiced similar views.

We talk a lot on this board about dangerous precedent. Letting an interest group invalidate an election by storming the legislature is particularly bad.

We allow protestors to storm government buildings and interfere with proceedings all the time with little or no legal response. This seems like special pleading to me.

This is basically the "you calling me a liar?" argument. Wouldn't a straightforward boundary be that statements about your own thoughts and behavior are always permissible, regardless of the implications about the thoughts and behavior of another? Thus, "I don't know her" is not actionable, even though it implies "she is a liar", which could be actionable. "I was afraid of him" would not be actionable, but "he threatened me" could be.

In real life, among people with decent social skills, moderate effort put into their appearance, some charisma and an openness to others, it’s not very hard to find a partner, never has been, and probably never will be.

I dispute this. I'm basically normal and have plenty of friends, but meeting people just seems nearly impossible unless you are willing to devote most of your free time to it.

It's not inherently sexual, but is strongly sex-adjacent. There's nothing inherently sexual about nudity, either, but I think you'd agree you'd probably be pretty suspicious about adults who are really strongly in favor of being naked around children (nonsexually, they promise).

What recession? The media made it very clear that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP doesn't necessarily mean a recession, until the experts declare it so.

The underclass already elects to just skip insurance

And frequently, licenses as well

That's why it's important to have a principled rule in the first place, because majorities don't have principles.

Yeesh. Old timey church ladies didn't shame male sexual interests this much.

and it sure as hell isn’t Trump voters

Sure as hell isn't Urban Youth either, but this is probably more a function of other common causes, e.g. large urban areas happen to be places that are both highly progressive and support large symphonies, but those two things may not be directly related. I have never encountered any particular disdain for classical music among the red tribe, so much as unfamiliarity and a vague association with NPR preciousness. Symphonic movie scores, though, seem to be broadly popular.

Dunno...some shred of human decency? The same way I'm not gleeful about red triber suffering. The same way that if I were, you would be outraged and calling me out for it.

I never really see you posting here calling out anyone on your side for being gleeful about suffering, the way you seem to be demanding of others. I'd say it's one thing to criticize the actual stated positions and feelings of posters here, but another thing altogether to get all pissy that there are insufficient denunciations of third parties.

It’s all black in background

Again, background is too dark,

-8:45 shot is too dark

I'm convinced Amazon broke something in the Prime Video app around HDR. I recently started rewatching Season 1 of the Expanse on my phone and could barely make out anything unless I set my phone on maximum brightness. I got an LG OLED TV and noticed the same thing, when I watch certain things on Prime that enable the TV's HDR mode, these same programs (all Amazon originals) are almost unwatchably dark. I don't remember the Expanse looking like that on my old TV, and it was a plasma that couldn't get anywhere near as bright. However, HDR movies like Oblivion or Batman have looked fine. Online, it seems like lots of people have similar issues, that the programs are not just dark in production, but dark to the point of being unable to see almost anything at all.

This already exists in the form of, e.g., Unitarian Universalism. It has not been hugely popular. I think there are a couple of reasons for this that similar proposals generally run into as well.

First, its teachings aren't different enough from intuitive "be nice" ethics to have any point. People who even think about the idea of ethical living generally do not need such basic levels of guidance, which makes the enterprise little more than a social club. But demanding more is too exclusionary or too "irrational", and therefore left to the other churches. I think that being exclusionary in at least some ways is critical to fostering a bond and creating a sense of actual belonging.

Related to this, the entire idea of religiosity without contradicting material existence is oxymoronic and counterproductive. The thing that people with a religious void feel they are missing is mystery, an insistence that there are some things that are beyond our comprehension, that are above and beyond us, forever. The peace that religion offers is from knowing that you don't have to think about it or justify it, you know and believe it without thinking. You cannot replicate the things that religion offers without offering undoubtable truth, but this is something that materialists cannot really bring themselves to do.

Another problem is that organizations without an unshakable grounding in text or canon will be highly vulnerable to entryism and taken over by activists. We saw this precise thing play out already in the Atheism movement, which tore itself apart when activists started trying to add political planks to the Atheism belief framework. Wishy-washy "be excellent to each other" churches will quickly succumb to the exact same issues simply because activists are more motivated than people who are there to sing hymns and pat each other on the back about how moral and ethical they are.

If they're telling the truth, I've seen no explanation for why they've refused to cooperate with election authorities.

One possible explanation is that they don't believe the election authorities wish to cooperate with them in good faith. For example, look at what cooperation with the FBI got John Paul Mac Isaac: they sandbagged the case, seized his property and refused to give it back, tried to deny claims that he was cooperating with them, and tried to intimidate him into silence.

So it is effectively "don't ask, don't tell" with respect to blessings? I hope it works out better than it did for the military.

Denmark said they were willing to do whatever the residents wanted, so theoretically we could have just bought all their votes and had them tell Denmark they wanted to be the 51st state now. There's not that many people there, I'm thinking low six figures per resident plus US citizenship could be covered by the Pentagon's lost couch cushion money.

I do find it curious that more and more, forms that choose you to identify yourself provide many genders to choose from, but when it comes to who you want to date, the only choices are "men" or "women". No "ciswoman" option to select.

Well, famously Hillary was never charged and so had nothing to fear.