Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

No problems. I thought the whole video was original fanmade.

Sure, no problem...just a cut and paste. I still use the old version of VS, so the channel descriptions are easy to see for me.

I agree, the channel should be more clear since it's important on this one channel that inappropriate posts not get in, unlike any other channel. Maybe change it to Kid Friendly or For Kids at least, but I don't even know if the channel owner still moderates the channel. I think a separate submission flow might be hard to implement, but isn't a bad idea.

....But to be clear, that's not the issue here. This poster has had the channel descriptions posted to him dozens of times, including by our moderators, and continued to reassign his videos to kids (and war on terror) because he thinks they belong there, channel descriptions be damned.

Lets hope 2 hobbles in one day and being talked to by Lucky and Dag has some effect. I'm sick to death of removing adult topics from a channel I don't even visit, much less own, just because it needs doing....I don't even like kids, but I don't want to watch them be abused for some adult's political point either.

Sorry @newtboy, but at no point in any interaction with law enforcement should you ever be penalised for asking what your rights are in a given situation. It should automatically “pause” any other question until that is answered.

Now, I have no problem with a police officer stopping anyone and administering a sobriety test at any time, but this is clearly harassment and nothing more.

No problem... love that song.

Mental health is a completely separate issue that's being used as a distraction. It's certainly worthy of discussion but it does not belong as part of the gun debate.

I am not for banning weapons.

I would, however, set the bar for ownership so high that only committed hobbyists would own the most extreme weapons.

The more potentially impactful the weapon, the higher the bar. I have no problem with someone casually walking into a store and buying a bolt-action .22 target rifle or a break action sporting shotgun with a fast background check. The licensing, training and security check requirements would then grow progressively stringent until you get to fast shooting, large ammo capacity, medium-large caliber weapons. At which point there should be annual training and recertification requirements, in-home verification of safe storage compliance, thorough background checks and anything else.

Any committed hobbyist is already training regularly with their firearms and storing them safely. The certification requirements are no more than a verification of the practices they already follow. What's needed is to weed out the casual purchasers, the revenge-fantasy dreamers and the paramilitary idiots.

Thanks for the up vote.

I bet he has no problem getting some after these meetings. What a gig.

No, you miss the point.
Distinctions are important.
It matters hugely, recognizing the difference between violent rape and an uninvited shoulder rub, just as it matters making the distinction between a spanking and attempted murder....not just legally but rationally.

I wholeheartedly disagree that making those distinctions about gradients of wrongness in any way denies the ability to see that both are wrong.....except for the brainless who can't do both.

Public shaming IS a sentence, one that harms your job, finances, family, and future. I have no problem with fair public shaming, but lumping a bad date in with real rapists is as fair as lumping you in with kidnappers and murderers because you slapped a disobedient child's behind.

He denies he did anything to intentionally make her uncomfortable or pressure her, which is what she accuses him of.

NO SIR. THAT IS YOUR POSITION, you said until overboard sentencing becomes a problem, there's no distinction needed between bad sex and forced sex.
Yes, it's not cool, but it's also not abuse unless it is.

If, like this woman, she #metoo'd that you were an octopus that ignored all her nonverbal signals to stop, your denial wouldn't mean much, and most people would just call you a rapist....just like his denial means nothing to you and you're more than willing to let him be lumped in with rapists and abusers.

You lumped them together in your post about how making distinctions is out of fashion. It's like you said stop eating broccoli, sugar, and bacon, then balked when I said broccoli is good for you, you only meant deep fried candied broccoli. Come on.

Don't expect me to read what you mean and ignore what you write...I absolutely hate that.
Don't be sexually aggressive...do be weird.

Yes, distinctions matter immensely.

No, grading offences is proper, otherwise you put rape and going Dutch on a date at the same level because they both upset the date.

If the person goes on a long date with you, accepts an invitation to your bed, undressed and engages in sex, asks you to slow down a bit (which means continue, slower, which you do), and continues, sleeps over, and only later complains, maybe relationships aren't for HER. Her date did absolutely nothing wrong. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues in the dark 99.9999999% of the time....pretty much any time there's no gun to your head.

The chip on your shoulder is quite large.


Bill C has been grabbing pussy for years.. No problem from you..

Lighten up.

I just now saw this. My yahoo email account sometimes disappears things on me. I lost another email about the same time.

I absolutely agree with everything you say. Biology is biology. There are differences. Sex is in the workplace, of course, and women bring it there.

I can agree with all these things, and still be creeped out by the indulgence, the wallowing, of only hiring very attractive women.

There is a long history of that in America, and it was creepy then, too. Stewardesses and what they were subjected to in the workplace is a great example. They would lose their -- THEIR WORK -- if they gained five pounds, is an example of really inappropriate use of a woman's appearance as a job qualification. These people are responsible for the safety of the passengers if a tragedy strikes. I love reading stories about how women are heroes and professional when an accident happens.

A shooting range is not a strip club. Wanting to be surrounded by women in your business who COULD work in a strip club is creepy.

Creepy really isn't the right word. It is shorthand for a complex interplay of gender roles and abuses and complicity that is endemic in our culture. I just like the way it feels in my mouth -- I found that Japanese word for it that perfectly explains my pleasure in using it. I am still pleased to know that word exists.

Gitaigo: Onomatopoeia that describes states of being, not sounds.

Creepy perfectly feels like my state of being around this video.

We are all biological beings who like to look at pretty people. Tall men make more money. Attractive people of both genders make more money. We will never be free from those responses.

But lets keep it unconscious, shall we? Let us work to be better human beings than people who reduce ourselves to walking genitalia looking for constant stimulation.

The rest of your points... yeah. I'm right with you. I am not someone who criticizes men for "looking." I find myself looking and I'm pretty firmly on the hetero side of things.

It came up the other day on a hike through the woods. A woman passed me wearing some sort of body hugging stretch pants. There was natural jiggling from her movements, which caught my eye. I found myself staring, I became aware of how perfectly proportioned she was, and how the rest of her was lovely in every aspect (I had seen her a few moments before, walking in a different direction.) I almost called out to my friends -- my god, that is the most beautiful woman. All triggered by a chance glance at an objectively beautiful rear-end.

Biology. It happens. I have no problem with it.

And those shooting range owners want to stimulate that reaction in the workplace, 100% of the time. And that, my friend, is creepy.

Is this directed at my point of view, asmo?

If it is, I don't recognize myself in it.

My criticisms were all pointed at men choosing ONLY facade.

I never said the women shouldn't wear makeup. I didn't talk about their intelligence or their skills with guns -- I have no idea how intelligent or skilled these women are.

My being creeped out was related to whoever assembled a statistically impossible collection of beautiful women, and then using a camera to give them prominence in a video purported about Keanu's shooting skills.

I admitted my error at assuming that Keanu was the person who gathered these women in one spot.

Certainly, I am guilty of being unhappy that women allow themselves to be used this way. But I didn't say that out loud. They are responding to the market, and there is indeed a market for beautiful facades.

I have no problem with sex workers (if they are protected from human trafficking and enslavement.) These women, whatever their other skills, are sex workers.

I do have a problem with men who surround themselves with ONLY sex workers.

However, Bay Area Metro (Caltrans) has no problem with alcohol consumption. Just sayin'

We don't stand for that kind of crap up here in Canada...

Jokes aside, we make exceptions to free speech and hate speech is something you CAN be prosecuted for. A teacher that was trying to teach holocaust denial was convicted for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada

My 2 cents, punching a nazi is more wrong because of the vigilante aspect of it than in an absolute moral sense. IMO the state should have laws about support for or membership with known criminal, terrorist or hate groups. Nazi's and KKK for starters, Westboro baptists and Saudi Wahabiism too depending on where society wants to draw the line. Morally though, I have no problems with declaring that debating merits of fascism and even mistreatment of Nazi germany historically is free speech and protected, but at the same time wearing a swastika on your arm or a pillow case on your head while marching in the streets to support your 'cause' should see you convicted and sentenced.

Are illegal immigrants' USA born children considered illegal aliens too?

I have no problems with legal immigrants. Illegal ones are the ones that bother me.

"And if you prefer one or the other, I can adapt. Humans are good at that. ;-) "

No, they're not. Or did you miss the part where some of the smartest people on the planet crashed millions of dollars into another planet? People are TERRIBLE at these kinds of things. One conversion? Fine. Ten conversions? No problem. Hundreds, thousands or millions of conversions? The probability of error tends to 100%.

It would definitely be more efficient if everyone used one common language (especially for cross cultural endeavours such as business and engineering). In fact, that kinda happens by default and that language tends to be English.

However, there are practicalities in play. First up, there aren't just two languages, there are hundreds, and there is a broad split in the number of speakers of each language. Whereas in metric v imperal, the US is the ONLY country in the developed world that hangs onto imperial.

Second, learning a new language is an order of magnitude more work than changing to using metric.

I'm speaking from experience here; in the course of my life, I've studied Irish, French, German, Spanish and Japanese, and I am in no way close to fluent in any of them

On the other hand, when I left Ireland, it was officially metric but imperial was still common (distances were in KM, speed limits in miles, people used imperial weights for humans, metric for food). When I moved to NZ, everything is metric, and honestly, relearning happens without effort. Once you immerse yourself, you eventually just start thinking in the new system.


Finally, metric is just a better system for everything. There isn't a single scenario where imperial is a more useful measurement.

Come on America, join us. It's awesome and you don't really want to use "English" units, do you? Did you fight a war to get rid of them? What would George Washington say!? It's unamerican, I tells ya!