honestly, that's a nice thought, tho' it's dubious if the president ever figures anything out. losing? he's lost. the presidency, his little mind, and any chance of finishing 2nd in the worst president ever title.

check out axios on hbo interview...

https://www.businessinsider.com/axios-hbo-interview-donald-trump-jonathan-swan-full-video-highlights-2020-8

antisocial, hysteric, narcissistic, borderline, compulsive...what a total liar.

It's important to note there's a difference between antisocial personality disorder and just being antisocial.
Just being antisocial is not a personality disorder.
Antisocial - not sociable; not wanting the company of others
Antisocial personality disorder -Those with antisocial personality disorder tend to lie, break laws, act impulsively, and lack regard for their own safety or the safety of others. Symptoms may lessen with age.

We all know people with antisocial personality disorder, we likely have one or more in the Whitehouse, but recognizing them can be impossible if you don't understand what to look for, especially considering most know how to mask their lack of empathy and manipulative personality expertly, even more so when you understand many people would prefer a pleasant lie to a cold hard truth.
Kudos to him for being so open.
*promote *quality information

I have the "gall" to admit it that she inspired me in high school. I know numerous people who were as well. None of them are antisocial assholes. I'm perhaps a bit anti-social in the respect that I'm very much an introvert, but people who know me generally don't describe me as an asshole.

It wasn't accidental. Advocating for reason, science, individual rights, critical thinking, trying to be good at what you do, being unafraid to think differently than others, none of that makes you automatically an asshole.

I don't think she was evil. I think her case is complicated as many philosophers were. There's good and bad to it. That's like saying Che Guevara is ipso facto being a fan or somehow on some plane similar or equivalent of being a fan of Stalin, and therefore it's offensive.

Just... no... that's just factually and logically not true.

No no no, being inspired by her, by itself, is indeed less offensive than being inspired by Hitler, the consequences are less dire.

But having the gall to admit publicly that you are inspired by her unconditionally is equally as bad as .. substitute Adolf where applicable.

By doing either you admit to be a self-conscious antisocial asshole.

I understand that reading her book can accidentally shove you in a better direction than before, and that is very unlikely in the other scenario, I give you that.

I was inspired by Vladimir Mayakovsky and Che Guevara for what thats worth :-)

So a general all-encompassing nod to her is just like a general nod to any evil. And you dont get out of that by quantifying evil and making it relative.

jimnms, having seen the movie, I can see why people are reacting this positively to it. Have you seen it? Where you have or havent, consider the following.

You are right that this isn't the first black superhero movie. If you ignore comedies starring goofy concept heros, the list of movies narrows. Then, consider movies with black super heros who are not anti-heroes (Spawn, Blade). Why this distinction? Anti-heroes are great, but they aren't characters for a general young audience to aspire to. To notice that the majority of main character superheroes in movies are either partially a joke or a dark/brooding/scary/threatening/antisocial hero might be a drag. especially when you compare it to the pool of white super heroes who aren't (most of them). That's important.

First movie with a mostly black cast? No, but how many such movies arent about slavery, inner city gangs, extreme poverty, surviving racism, genocide or third world conflict. How many are almost purely optimistic blend of science fiction and the beauty of African culture? How many imagine what an African country unmolested by colonialism might look like in the future, where its citizens were allowed to reach their highest potential in terms of culture, government and technology? This is in part what the Afro-futurism science fiction genre is about and its a very rare genre to make it to film.

Especially a film that has a budget of $ 200 million dollars. That budget is important. It says that at this point in history, the largest (maybe?) movie studio recognizes that the public wants to see black characters in this light. That's a big deal too.

And considering how well this movie is doing at the box office, Black Panther is a signal of whats to come. More stories about inspirational black characters told at this kind of block buster scale.

Does that make a bit more sense? I'm sure there are other reasons; one being its a really good movie! Hope this helps.

Most Americans literally can't use the word literally right to save their lives. That doesn't change the actual meaning of the word. Same with pedophilia. Males are biologically programmed to be attracted to girls who have reached puberty, it is not a psychological disorder to be aroused by a 14 yr old in a bikini. It is for a 10 year old. If that impulse is acted upon, one is an antisocial pervert, the other is mentally defective.

And just like that, a thousand antisocial harley doucbags got a whole new inadequacy complex.

I'm all for treatment and prevention, both for this and other disorders that can become antisocial. Even psychopathy is a likely caused by a distinct physical difference in the brain.

Though your comment made me think of how the legal definition of insanity makes it hard for us to have a rational, consistent and humane approach to criminal justice. The idea is that the insane are not responsible for their actions, and so they should not be subject to punishment, but treatment. But none of us are responsible for our own thoughts or actions. The more understanding and empathetic standard of treatment that we apply to the "insane" should be how we treat everyone.

@lucky760 @newtboy

Censorship according to the internet: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

I see public internet communication as a constantly published work of the human intellect, therefore all digitally published and public communication is media and therefore subject to censorship -- and Videosift now offers a form of individual censorship to its members, not simply the acceptable ignore feature which allows you to check the communication if you so desire.

It bothers me that people would completely block out other people's published work -- and not just their published work but their very existence -- for the same reason that it bothers me that people ban books I don't read at libraries. Mein Kampf is still a book, a poorly written book which glorifies hatred, but still an important part of human literature.

You can choose not to read it, but you can't censor it's existence from reality. Not without burning every copy and then erasing every digital copy. Though perhaps in the future an algorithm will be available which does something similar on an account wide level, visually removing all unfavorable literature and blocking people's facial features, making it so that that person and their communication might as well not exist. But I wouldn't want it to be nullified from my vision while walking through a library, anymore than I would want to nullify a person's existence who offends me; and by extension I believe the freedom to exist and to be acknowledged is an important freedom that we take for granted. You should NOT be able to remove someone from your personal existence. Yes, there are laws in place to do this, but they require criminal abuse to come into effect.

There are greater implications of this type of censorship, that perhaps do not apply directly to the Sift in it's short temporal existence and small community. But it's still an offence to my sense of justice in the realm of communication that such a thing is possible. Even the < ahref="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour">troll algorithm isn't intended to ban or censor trolls outright, but rather to detect problematic people and find a way to limit the harm they do to a community without removing them from a community.

I think it's one thing if you want to prevent someone from posting on your profile -- which is what should actually be an option (if it isn't already) -- but to silence their voice in video comments is a high form of censorship that I fundamentally stand against. I quite enjoyed some of what Chilngalera had to say; not always and often he offended me -- but not enough to desire to remove him from my existence. I don't think anyone except violent/sexual offenders deserve that. If he vocalizedd violence and sexual threats, why would he still be in the community at all? And if he's banned, why do you need to have an option to block out people's existence?

I was employed for many years to police several massive online roleplaying games, and an ignore feature was a widely accepted form of preventing harassment -- but when it came to erasing the person's avatar or their character's physical body from the game, we always voted against such outright blotting out of a human being. Our rational was and is to this day that if the person cannot communicate to you via explicit words, their presence is an acceptable form of nonverbal communication and a reminder that they are a human being in the community, even if verbally hobbled -- because at that point they have no means of articulating hurtful words.

But to erase that person's presence is a greater act against both the human spirit and human expression as to be a reprehensible act in an of itself. Unless they commit such atrocious behavior in the form of real life physical threats of violence, constant racial/sexual slurs (in a bucket system of soft banning leading up to a permanent ban) or other forms of insidiousness, preserving their humanity is more important to a community than erasing another human being.

Do you even know what a sociopath is?


noun, Psychiatry.
1.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

You causally mock the death & suffering of basically anyone who isn't a LEO on this site daily.

As the progressive treehugger hippie I am..

Why wouldn't I want you to learn some empathy and compassion?

The best way to gain understanding is thru share experience.

Genji you are a sad, delusional individual who is doomed to failure because you think you are surrounded by racists who stay up nights thinking of ways to keep you down.

It sounds like a mental disorder.

If I were a racist, why wouldn't I just come out and blame everything on your race?

Of course there is racism, but there is less racism now than at any time in US history. WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT!

We have a whole nation of successful black people, hispanic people, asian people, jewish people.

Racism is your excuse.

But to get back on point, I don't believe that the cops are institutionally racist.

Baltimore, for example, has more black officers than white officers. Are all those black officers racist?

I stand with the black officers, not the antisocial thugs who destroyed that city, who destroyed private property, who targeted other minority businesses simply because they were not black..that's REAL racism.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/other-racial-divide_946670.html#

You ascribe a whole lot of false narratives to me simply because I am a cop...that is a kind of racism. That's is truly prejudicial.

You can't show me one comment from me where I denigrate anyone based on their race.

smh

There is far more evidence of black racial hatred than white racial hatred.

A racist is someone who thinks a particular race should be treated differently simply because of the color of their skin...that's a racist.

Most black people in the US vote democrat, and they voted for Barack simply because of the color of his skin. I don't blame them, I might have done the same thing if I were black, but that IS racist.

Also, big difference between my statement about Democrats in general compared to one poster referring to another poster's mouth as a 'cockholster'.

I thought you progressives appreciated and enjoyed gay sex and everything associated with it, instead of using it to denigrate another person.

It's just another example of how so-called compassionate leftists quite often use foul and antisocial comments against people with differing opinions.

If a black man says 'n*****', does that make him a racist?

If a cop says 'n*****', does that make him a racist?

What if it's a black cop?

Do you think these cops think of their fellow black cops as 'n******'s?

Do you think these cops go into the high rent district where the artists, celebrities etc. live and think 'these n*****s'?

No. These cops are expressing their disgust with that segment of the population which are criminal who also happen to be black. Black cops think the say way.

What they say and how they express themselves come across as racist, but that doesn't make them racist.

And criticizing a black woman for having 4 kids...that woman isn't Condoleeza Rice, that's some woman who is milking the welfare system for all she can get. Cops know white women do the same thing.

Black people know that blacks who engage in antisocial, lowlife behavior aren't helping the cause. There are more blacks in middle and upperclass strata now than ever before, but there are still the poor, uneducated, criminal element that causes problems for everyone else, especially their fellow black folks stuck in the same milieu.

What a terrible, trerrible load of shit!
By your logic, the middle ages must've been free of any crime. You know, the time where we did chop off hands of thieves, where we executed people real quick for all kinds of offenses.
You can argue for executions all you want but the terrible truth is that it never worked as a deterrent. When every country in the world had the death penality, people still got murdered and raped. And guess what, today you are less likely to get murdered or raped than in the good old days.
That shit never worked and it doesn't work today.
The only thing you'll achieve by making prison a worse place is making sure you'll release more broken, antisocial individuals into society. I guess that'll make everything better. I don't see how it can backfire to throw people into a terrible place where they'll be traumatized and abused, hammering home the message they're not a part of our civilized society, and then releasing them back into our communities. I mean, surely, they'll be model citizens then.

Why don't you just say it, man? You'd like to have Judge Dredd patroling the streets. If we'd just shoot everybody who might commit a crime, nobody will ever commit one. Right?

Most people commit crimes because they think they can get away with it, not because they think they can do the time. A lot of people commit crimes without thinking about the consequences or simply not caring about them.

wow...yeah that definitely didn't work.

Joel McHale simply wasn't the right choice for this version. Just not believable as a computer nerd especially after Community. America just loves to cast pretty people and then pretend they're ugly and antisocial.

I'm sure they would have had him hook up with Jen before the season was over too