Search "Electronic Voting" on here to find a ton of reasons why it's a bad idea.

That hole seems like a bad idea IMO.

Parallels with religious indoctrination much? Not to mention blunt-instrument nationalism like the pledge of allegiance?

To me, critical thinking, logic, and open exposure to light seem like the best way to combat bad ideas like this. The good news is that exposure to light is generally much more automatic today in the internet age than it ever was before. The bad news is that critical thinking doesn't seem to be doing as well.

I think we're trending in the right direction. Change might be generational, when everything about our culture and society expects things to happen now, but we're getting there.

That's my guess. Still, could be 20 lbs of tannerite and smokeless powder which would make shooting the car a bad idea.

Miraculous how the rockets just happened to go off perfectly aimed at a large military truck that, in all likelyhood, looks kinda like the rest of the trucks on the range?

Must have been eyeballing it, IR would have shown plenty of people around the vehicle (bit of a dead give away in a practice engagement that shooting is a bad idea...)

Oh come on, if Obama told you sticking your hand in a bear trap was a bad idea, you'd be there in a flash, @bobknight33

Dunno.

I think of Megan Phelps-Roper, once prominent member of WBC, now "reformed". She was the sort of "Social Media Manager" for the WBC. She used twitter to further spread their message but, ofc, the world of twitter stares also into you. She began to engage in a sort of dialogue with those that responded to her hate filled tweets and over time the WBC grip on her was chipped away. In the end I think she actually married one of those that engaged with her on twitter. Cool Story. Bro.

Anyhoo. So it can be done but it doesn't happen on the picket line or in protests. I mean, with some of these people you can't even agree on the definition of "human"... I really strongly doubt the value of allowing such groups to have a voice for the sake of having an opportunity to denounce (ostracise?) them further. It takes carefully considered, long term, personal debate.

My feeling is that his is happening not because we have suppressed such ideas for too long and now they are boiling over...they are boiling over because where once discontented individuals were alone with their prejudices and fears now they can find in minutes a group online to agree with. The suppression of these fringe ideologies wasn't the cause, the cause is that the internet seems to have rendered such suppression ineffectual. How we now challenge these festering online dens I'm not sure...

Also, and I hate to go all reducto ad hitlerum here but if there was ever a time, discussing neo-nazis must surely be it.... Hitler spoke and spoke and spoke and his bad ideas didn't fall into the shitter fast enough to save the lives of all the millions of Jews and those that fought against them.

the alt right are a vile,vulgar and grotesque display of racist ignorance all gussied up as "patriots",as "white nationalists" whose only concern is the safety and prosperity of america.

pffffft../fart noise.

so would you PLEASE for the love of fucking CHRIST allow these nimrods to hold their little rallies,their little marches.let them speak and speak and speak.....

because,like anything..bad ideas have a way of falling into the shitter when those ideas are shoved into the open.

there is a REASON why we haven't heard from these shitbags for almost 35 years,and it ain't because somebody threw a punch,sprayed some mace,or drowned out their voice.

it is simply because we gave them a mic.
that's it..we let them talk,let them march,let them hand out their literature.

this ain't rocket science people.

I'm not afraid of heights (outside of the normal sense of being afraid of anything that will kill me), and I had to do exactly the same thing to look over the edge at the Cliffs of Moher. Going in, I thought I was going to be cool about it and just walk right up and look over the edge, but about five or six feet from the edge my hindbrain said "no sir, bad idea" and took away my voluntary movement privileges.

The term "political correctness" originally came about as a disparaging way for assholes to describe not being an asshole.

“Political correctness is what right-wing bigots call what everybody else calls being polite”
-Iain M. Banks

Basically, while there are undoubtedly some idiots who take it too far, in general, I'm ok with it no longer being socially acceptable to call people niggers, queers and bitches.

The whole intellectually/vertically/gravitationally/whateverly challenged nonsense was invented as a parody of political correctness and in general, no-one actually uses those terms to describe anyone.

The problem is that people see the worst excesses of political correctness and assume that that's the whole point. It's like seeing one police shooting and deciding that law enforcement itself is a bad idea.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone who genuinely used the phrase "that's not politically correct" when talking to another human.

Oh, and even "politeness" isn't immune to politicisation. When I was younger, it was drilled into me that it was polite for a man to hold a door for a woman, or to pay for dinner on a date. It was considered polite for children to be seen and not heard. Good luck having an "apolitical" discussion about those topics.

i see loads of people shit on VFX and CG like it's ONLY bad (and with almost no understanding of the process). often the stuff they complain about are massively difficult shots that could never work in the real world or because it was what the client wants and/or because their reference was other VFX, not real things. there is very little actually bad VFX in properly budgeted movies insofar as artist ability and technical knowledge. this is why i think james cameron or ang lee deserve zero credit for the VFX of avatar or life of pi. all they did was secure the money to get them made and then shit all over them with bad ideas.

@newtboy,
Compromise implies give and take, not a one sided one way capitulation.
I'm glad to hear that, I dearly hope that both parties attempt the same. Failing both, the democrats absolutely must compromise. They need more voters and it's on them to reach out. Maybe back track on carbon taxation. Maybe allow that there is a distinction between cracking down on illegal immigration and racism against non-whites. Maybe entertain more protectionist policies on trade agreements to encourage domestic production. Regardless of any of those individual compromises being a good or bad idea, they are all ideas that resonated with voters that ditched Clinton and they at least seem potential olive branches to reach out with.

You also said:
I really think the outrage over pc thugs is a red herring. If you don't live on a liberal campus, you'll probably never meet one.
As I said, I'm from Canada so I see it daily. The over the top PC agenda and social justice fights are everywhere up here. The examples Norm gave are ones we see everywhere up here.

Example, the local university student union had an active year. They had shutdown a student club because it was pro-life and then found themselves being sued.

Our public education system bars any christian activity in schools, even so far as barring the Gideons from extending an offer of free Bibles to students who would request it. At the same time as that separation of religion from the schools is happening though, Aboriginal religion and spiritual practices and beliefs are part of the normal curriculum. And I don't mean cultural background, but as active participants in cleansing of spiritual auras and learning the function of the spirits of everything.

The silent mass of white christians up here see where the PC stuff goes and are getting a bit sick of it.

peoples true feelings and intent are always quickly revealed after only a short conversation.

i try...and sometimes fail..to not assume someones intent.i prefer to ask questions.

labels are just a simple way for our brains to compartmentalize aspects of personalities/philosophies regarding the people we are engaging.

some people utilize labels to dismiss what another person is laying down,often times in order to promote their own sense of justice or fairness.this always makes me laugh,because the majority of the time those people are totally unaware of their own hypocrisy.

like that a single white male is automatically racist and therefore can not offer an opinion,ignoring the fact that the very metric that they are using,is in itself,racist.

labels do serve a purpose,but we should not become so beholden to them that we refuse to consider a contrary opinion.that is just lazy.

i find that when we allow someone to speak their mind,their true feelings/intentions will always become evident in short amount of time.but if we restrict any interaction,be it vocal or written,then those feelings/intentions can remain hidden far longer than they should be.

bad ideas need to be exposed in order for those bad ideas to be challenged,and therefore dismissed for the bad ideas they are.

and while i may understand labels,and see a use for them,i also find them a lazy way to ignore uncomfortable truths.

which is what i gather you are saying?
if i got it wrong,let me know buddy.
stay awesome!

@ChaosEngine
agreed.
context matters and i think being a decent human being plays a large role in that dynamic.

people tend to attempt to break down complex ideas and/or ideologies into more easily digestible morsels.this "twitter speak",in my opinion,is largely responsible for the decay of human interactions.

we all are biased.
we all hold prejudices,and preconceptions based on our learned experiences.
which are subjective.

we see the world through the lens of our own subjectivity and even the most open minded and non-judgemental person,when trying to sympathize/empathize with another person, will use their own subjective understandings in order to understand that person.

this tactic,which we all employ,will almost always fall short of true understanding.

so we rely on words,metaphors,allegory etc etc in order to communicate fairly complex emotions and experiences.

what brendon o'neill is pointing out,is that when we start to restrict words as acceptable and unacceptable,we infantilize our interactions.

words are inert.
they are simply symbols representing a thing,action or emotion.
it is WE who apply the deeper meanings by way of our subjective lens.

i am not trying to make something simple complicated,but bear with me.
a rock will always be a rock,but a cunt has a totally different meaning here in the states than in britain.(love you brits,and cunt is a brilliant word).

the problems of culture,region,nationality or race all play a role in not only how we communicate but how that communication is received ...and interpreted.

so misunderstandings can happen quite easily,and then when we consider that the persons intent is by far the greatest metric to judge the veracity of the words being spoken,and just how difficult it is to discern that intent....this is where nuance and context play such a major role,but we need to have as many tools in our language box to express oftentimes very difficult concepts,multi-layered emotions and complicated ideologies.

and,unfortunately,there are attempts to legislate speech.

of course well intentioned,and reasonable sounding,but like any legislation dealing with the subjective nature of humans,has the possibility of abuse.

case in point:http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

a new canadian addendum to their human rights statute.on the surface this is a fairly benign addition to canadas already existing human rights laws,but there is the possibility of abuse.

a psychology professor from university of toronto was critical of this new addendum,and has created a flurry of controversy in regards to his criticism.

which you can check out here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

now he was protested,received death threats,there was even violence and a new internet star was born affectionately labeled "smugglypuff".

see:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/smugglypuff

i agree that free speech cannot be viewed with an absolutist mindset.absolutist thinking leads to stagnation and a self-righteous fundamentalism,so we NEED the free flow of ideas...even BAD ideas..even offensive and racist..because this brings all those feelings/thoughts/ideologies into the market of ideas to be either absorbed or ridiculed and ultimately ostracized for the shit philosophy they represent.

i WANT to know who the racists are.
i want to know who is bigoted or prejudiced.
i want to know who is holding on to stupid ideas,or promoting fascism dressed up as nationalistic pride.

and the only way to shine a light on these horrendous and detrimental ideas is to allow those who hold them openly state who and what they are...so we can criticize/challenge and in some cases..ridicule.

we should be free to say whatever we wish,but we are not free from challenge or criticism.
we can say whatever pops into our pretty little head,but we are not free from consequences.
we are also not free from offense.

i know this is long,and i hope you stayed with me,and if you did,thanks man.i know i tend to ramble.

but we can use the banning of gorillaman as a small microcosm of what we are talking about here.

i felt that we,as a community,could take gorilla to task for his poor choice in verbiage "nigger prince" and i attempted to make the case by using his history,dark humor and bad taste to add context to his poor choice of wording.

bareboards felt it was a matter for the administrators to deal with.i am not saying her choice was wrong.just that we approached the problem from different perspectives.

now gorilla decided to become the human torch and flame out.which threw my approach right out the window.

but the point i am making in that case,is that bad ideas,bad philosophies,bigotry and racism will ALWAYS reveal themselves if we allow that process to ultimately expose bad ideas/shit person.

the free flow of ideas is the proverbial rope that ultimately hangs all shit ideas.

thanks for hanging kids.
love you all!