If that were the ONLY reason they joined those groups, maybe, but it's not.
keep in mind, the refugees are fleeing the jihadists, they are not the jihadists (although we can push them in that direction and create more). The ones attacking those countries are mostly fighters that snuck in with the masses, not refugees that got mad and attacked. That is a big problem with having no way to stem the tide of humanity into your country, and is the only logical argument I've heard for the wall.

Really, you expect people to be reasonable just because they're Muslim? Why do you think they're so much better than the rest of us?

Really, then why were they right wing before they were attacked? They are getting more right wing for multiple reasons including confusing the terrorist attackers with the refugees, but the right didn't spring into existence in response to refugees or terrorists.

If this happened here in the U.S. they would sue the mall for negligence and pain and suffering. Then sue to get distribution rights for this video.

If it helps at all, remember that the electorate did vote for Hillary, her supporters just lived in the wrong states. So everyone please move to the correct states before 2020, we've got to get this right.

Okay

I just took a long walk to have lunch. As I walked, I noodled and noodled on my Homeland comment (if it isn't obvious by now, I use that comment all the time.) How to give it context so as to not give the wrong impression? How to keep it short, given how complicated the context is?

Finally realized the power of the snark. Parentheses. Those communicate quickly.

Still needed more. Has to be short.

I sat to eat my lunch, and opened the book of essays I was reading. (I always read while eating if alone.) And there it was.

So. Would you be interested in being my editor for this project? Help me hone it? Get it succinct? (If you are interested, I have a great story about the Broadway musical Guys and Dolls struggles to be succinct. Came to mind when I stumbled on the idea of parentheses.)

Okay. Here goes. Let me know if you would like to help me get it right:

As "Homeland Security" says, if you see something, SAY something. (Meant to be read snarkily. Because here is the truth: As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said: "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.")


It is still long. I'll have to copy and paste a long time before I remember it. But it provides context and I hope it communicates that you cannot confuse me with a Brownshirt.

Sounds like an exercising in rearranging the furniture on the Titanic to me.

In a world where discrimination and separatism is qualitatively and quantitatively on the rise, people in charge must be ecstatic that they can appease people without having to do anything meaningful that might piss off the extremists on the right, or "shareholders". And people are so used to being told that change is only possible through incremental adjustments that they'll eat it up like candy and think this is progress.

"People people people, if you're going to call someone a filthy tranny and throw fast food at xem on public transport, at least use the proper pronoun when you verbally abuse xem."

When there's a hole in the boat and you're taking on water, the least of your concerns should be about what language you use to describe the in-rushing water or shape of the hole, nor arguing over the colour of the material you use to repair it.

I'm sure some people will see this as a victory. Until next time they apply for a job and not get hired due to transphobia. And the manager of the company, with a gleam in their eye, begins the rejection letter with 'Dear bun/bunself', then sniggers to themselves and says "fucking trannies."

What I'm trying to say was summed nicely in a tweet i saw the other day:
ALTRIGHT/NEO NAZI: your all going to the gas chambers!!!
NEOLIBERAL: you're*

If this is the extent of what activism is able to achieve, i should say that the establishment/elite have won by pacifying and declawing the protesters. It's no longer about breaking the shackles of oppression. We can't go around breaking shackles everywhere - think of the effect on the economy? And what about people getting hit by shrapnel? No, instead the LGBTQ community will be given multi coloured chains, the black community will be given slightly longer chains, and we'll pad the shackles with silk so that everyone is much more comfortable. Don't complain about the concept of being chained, instead complain that your chain is not as nice as the next guy's chain.

It's as though the great struggle of protest and civil disobedience has been taken over by the liberal intelligentsia, and the worst kind of discrimination faced by a 20 year old middle-class university student with rainbow coloured dreadlocks and a nose piercing is the letter they receive about their student loan that begins "dear sir/madam". So they go out and march about it and think they've made progress when they get their own pronoun. In their life, in their experiences, they are treated equally in other respects, so they think they ARE fighting inequality.

But for the working class male or female transsexual who gets filthy looks and a seat isolated by themselves on public transport, to travel to their entry level job where they've been skipped over for promotion for not looking the part, or getting the right level of respect from the trans-phobic staff, getting snide whispered comments from customers about the size of their hands, getting abuse yelled at them as they travel to have a night out at the ONLY trans-friendly bar within a 20 mile radius....... I get the feeling that receiving a letter with the correct pronoun isn't exactly going to change their fucking lives.

To remove a weed, you go for the roots. Some wanker calling you him/her when you prefer bun/bunself is not the root of this problem. The problem is that they are trans-phobic, not the language - which is just the tool they use to discriminate against you. To change the language and think that you've won is a bit like redefining room temperature and claiming you've warmed everybody by a few degrees.

If you march for equal rights, fair pay, fair treatment then people are going to see that and join your protest because they also want those things. Those things will solve the problems faced by the trans community, feminists, masculinists, minorities alike! And through common goals and by supporting each other en masse for simple, unified goals like EQUALITY, progress will be made, change will happen. It is a concept called solidarity and seems to be going out of fashion, but our grandparents knew.

The objective for the establishment is to drive a wedge between groups of people so that their demands are more manageable, and they can be turned on each other. Feminists, masculinists, LGBT, everyone... can't you see how better off you'd be marching together for common values that lie at the core of what every human wants?

Wall of text, sorry... and I know it looks like i'm being insensitive. So congratulations, genuinely, for getting someone to use your preferred pronoun if that makes you feel better. But whilst people have been fighting tooth and nail to get their own pronoun (in civilised settings only), we've suffered huge leaps backwards in freedom and tolerance behind their backs whilst they were bent over intently concentrating on the finer detail of what their ideal equality looks like.

Limeys getting it right.

*death *love

shit also got *dark

I am that DM.

annnnnd, IT'S RAVENLOFT, not ravens loft, get it right!

I already defined bigoted farther up the thread.

But again, back to the Oxford:

Bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Even dictionary.com gets it right this time. I don't know where you got your definition of "bigot".

1) It wasn't any of those though.
2) It wasn't bigoted innuendo though.
3) Not wanting to allow radicalised muslims who will engage in criminal behaviour into your country (which is what this is about) is not bigoted (just as you aren't considered bigoted for not wanting criminals engaging in criminal behaviour in the community). Making a temporary ban until you can institute a more rigorous vetting process is not bigoted. I.e. he accepts non-radicalised Muslims and their views, but they will have temporary visa restrictions until a better vetting system is in place.
4) Assuming the worst about a group is not bigotry. Being intolerant of the group's views is.

No, since they aren't bigotry, they couldn't be used as examples in a dictionary.

Saying disparaging things about a group is not bigotry. E.g. someone could say "I fucking hate Australians, they suck". That's not bigotry. Or, "All Australian's are dicks". Also not bigotry. Now on the other hand if they said, "I don't accept the views or opinions of Australians", then that is bigotry.

Here's what was possible 9 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=badHUNl2HXU
It might look like they're doing the same thing, but no. Hank has to do far more, for far longer, far more slowly. Fast action scenes can hide a lot of your rig's limitations because an animator only has to get it right for a few frames, but Hank has to ACT. Dramatically. While everyone's staring at him. Artician is right, anything would have been possible with enough animator sweat, but you wouldn't sustain for a feature character.

This. Though the description gets it right. Funny enough I just watched a video about it yesterday.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/What-is-AFL-Aussie-Rules-Explained

EDIT: And to show the AFL isn't above such things themselves... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXLr2_tGSpo?t=1m34s

And see, this is what makes you a great person. Just imagine if you HADN'T been there to roll joints for your friends -- sorta like It's A Wonderful Life. Without you, your friends would have been trying to make a pipe out of a plastic bottle, a Bic pen, some tinfoil and Elmer's Wood Glue. They might have succeeded, too, much to everyone's horror when the foil rips and they inhaled burning coals of pot directly into their lungs, leading to them dying terribly! But they never built that hellish contraption because YOU were there to roll joints for them instead! And teacher says every time a bell rings, some stoner just tried to make a pipe out of an apple. See? It really IS a Blunt-er-ful life!

I'd just like to say a word about dabs and the partaking thereof: Jesus Christ these things are like getting kicked right in the third eye by one of those horses from My Little Pony. Like maybe the blue one or something. I dunno, I'm pretty high right now, but I'm sure there's a blue one. Anyway, yeah, dabs . . . fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Yeah, I've played games from Obsidian and InXile... I'm hoping the next Planescape game lives up to it's potential. Both Wasteland 2 and Pillars of Eternity were good but definitely not classics. Baldur's Gate 2 is still such a monolithic classic.

Otherside just announced System Shock 3 so that should be interesting, also the Ultima Underworld game sounds very exciting. It'd be cool if they could get the rights to Thief since no one has been able to come up with one as good as 1&2.

I found Colbert's question about "unknown knowns" the most interesting, but here's the thing:

Bush was the Commander in Chief. He didn't present their "intelligence evidence" of Iraq's WMDs to the American people because he *had* to. He tells the military what to do, they do it; the people don't get "veto rights". The only reason he presented it to the American people (I still remember watching Colin Powell show satellite photos etc.) was to shore up votes for his re-election. Which is exactly what any politician would do in that situation -- make a decision, and present that decision in the best possible light to the voters.

In other words, when Bush et al. were presenting that stuff to us, they weren't selling the actual invasion itself to us. They were selling us an image of their own legitimacy and competence. Viewed like that, of course they aren't going to inform us of those "unknown knowns"; it would shatter the image of them confidently and capably doing what they knew they had to do -- which was the actual point of it (selling that image to us, I mean).


I was sold, at the time. As were most (but not all) Americans, including many many people much older and wiser than I was (and am). I now agree that the invasion was a colossal mistake and that Bush's presidency in general was rather disastrous. BUT, that being said, I think it is problematic to hold these kinds of decisions against a president beyond a certain point.

FDR decided to drop two atom bombs on Japan rather than continuing with conventional warfare and risking many more American (and Japanese) lives with an invasion. Many people have questioned (and continue to question) that decision. But FDR was there. He was the Commander in Chief, he had some facts and plenty of unverifiable information and suggestions from his cabinet and intelligence sources of the time, and he made the decision.

I don't envy people in power who have to make weighty decisions like that based on incomplete information, only to have people question those decisions by citing information that they didn't have at the time. For the rest of their lives.

So it's capitalism that makes grandpa manipulative and his children too wrapped up in their own daily lives to visit him?
The message this ad is sending is 'It's ok to fabricate drama to get your relatives' attention'. What the admakers want to communicate is that 'Edeka is a part of your home, your family life'. They're not really successful at it, the ad doesn't work as good as it could've. It would've been better if the children made grandpa believe that this year, again, they won't make it home for christmas but then, surpise, they show up anyways. With products bought at Edeka.
The loneliness of old age is a good theme for advertising but you have to get it right or you'll appear cynical and manipulative. Like grandpa.