I'm getting it from the fact that whether he actually says it out right, he has great admiration for Trump, has done AMA's on the Donald Trump sub reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4eglxx/) and routinely praises him to the point of endorsement.

In that AMA, he says:

"I don't want to be tarred with whatever ridiculousness gets spray-painted onto Trump's reputation. So it was a good way to document some distance. "

and

"In my view, Trump is not currently qualified to be president because he scares too many of my fellow citizens. (He doesn't scare me.) But I do think he can change that situation. That's why I predict he will win in a landslide."

His only reason for not outwardly supporting him is because its socially toxic, not that he doesn't actually support him.

I hope whoever picked this music was fired, dragged outside, molten led poured in their ears, tarred, feathered, and burned at the stake....but whatever, I don't have strong feelings about it or anything

Whenever I see something as horrendous as slavery downplayed (by likening it to today's working class) I'm likely to find myself agitated, and I think that contributed to my tone when replying earlier, and I'm somewhat ashamed for overreacting.

I could be totally wrong with my interpretation of the video, however. I guess the best thing to do is present my interpretation before any argument ensues.

It seems to present the similarities between the relationship a plantation slave had with their masters and the negative parts of the relationship a modern citizen has with their government and employer and the influential elite.

By creating a character as odious as the slave owner, they are poisoning the discussion. Their grievances are with three separate groups of people, but they push them all into one. Then they tar him by making him the slave owner, making it almost impossible to have a real discussion about him. Furthermore, they dismiss any of the benefits they enjoy from the three groups they are demonizing.

And you have to see that your claim of "no good cops" totally ignores those who have not yet witnessed any problem. Perhaps they're new to the force, perhaps they work in an honest precinct. But it's absurd to claim they don't exist. Whistleblowers -do- continue to show up, which is solid proof that some cops are not corrupt.

And yes, I absolutely do believe that tarring the good cops with the same brush is every bit as bad. "...better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer...", as Ben Franklin said. Moreover, if you want cops to be honest, it's completely counterproductive to blast them -all-, both good and bad, for being corrupt. Especially when not doing so is as simple as adding the word "most" or "many" to your bombastic claims. I really don't understand why you're fighting against being accurate in your statements. That's not how I've come to perceive you over the years.

OK, but you must see that if, once a cop behaves 'good' they are no longer cops, that means there are no cops actually being good?
Tarring those extremely few, only momentarily 'good cops' (since as soon as they're 'good' they are no longer allowed to be cops) with the same tar as the 'bad' cops is NO WHERE NEAR the level of evil that protecting murderers, violent thugs, thieves, kidnappers, etc. is. Please. Be reasonable. It may be slightly unfair, but not even in the same league of wrong as protecting murderers from prosecution.
If you are for locking up bad cops, including those that cover up crimes, you must concede that that means 90%+ of cops need replacing, right? (I think I'm being incredibly generous to allow the possibility that 10% aren't complicit, I think the real number is closer to 2%).
I have explained why they are all complicit/participants. There is evidence that they, at best, turn a blind eye to the bad one's, and more likely/often actively help the 'bad' ones escape prosecutions. The only way they aren't 'turning the blind eye' to their fellow officers almost daily is they are so inept they actually don't notice their fellow officers being criminal...so they're also 'bad' cops...in this instance meaning ineffectual cops. MmmmK?

I haven't heard of one either, but the fact that we -have- heard of good cops blowing the whistle, even if they were forced out later, proves that there have been some good ones. And it's completely unbelievable that there aren't still some others out there, who haven't yet had to make that decision, but who will choose the right path when push comes to shove.

Tarring them with the same feather as the bad cops is doing them a disservice almost as bad as the coverups are for the rest of us. It's unfair, unjust, and just plain wrong.

I'm all for locking up the bad cops, and for treating those who cover up crimes by their fellow officers as equally guilty of those crimes. But I'm -not- fine with condemning people for crimes there is no evidence they participated in. I'm not willing to become what we are trying to fight against.

Don't get me wrong, the cops who do this kind of thing should be sanctioned, and severely so, but surely tarring a whole group of people with one brush is the problem here?

Cops shouldn't assume people are criminals because of the colour of their skin.

People shouldn't assume cops are racist assholes because they're cops.

You're participating in the very behaviour you're complaining about.

Basically, Samwell Tarly but twenty years younger.

What are you talking about? You think Conservative politicians are good?

Here's the Conservative logic:

You a rich guy who's fucking over your workers by not paying them a living wage? Have a tax break, oh and thanks for the campaign contributions we'll find more tax breaks for you.
Oh look, those workers you aren't paying a living wage to need food stamps, let's cut food stamp funding then we'll be able to give you rich people more tax breaks.
Oh, you are moving those jobs overseas so you can keep more of the profits for yourself? Great idea, more money for you. We'll blame those jobs going overseas on the government and everyone will believe it and not blame the rich guy who moved the job overseas because being rich is good (despite what Jesus whom we pretend to like said) and government is bad.
We'll have the churches turn their backs against the teachings of Jesus and convince millions of Americans that Jesus meant the opposite and they'll vote for us thinking they are doing the Christian thing. Sure one or two people will lose faith and hate Christians [your's truly included, even if He is real, I'd rather be in Hell than be around Him or His people] because of it, but most of the faithful have been taught to accept anything the church says, so they'll all go along with the plan to fuck over the working class so that you rich people can have your great life.
We'll keep building more and more prisons, we'll turn them into profit making centers and incarcerate more people than any other nation for the good of corporate profit.
Let's make a pipeline filled with highly pollutive tar sands that will create 35 permanent full time jobs so that we can export a great deal of that oil. We'll tell people it's about "energy independence"and about all the jobs it'll create for the couple years of it's construction. We'll ignore the fact that upgrading our nations infrastructure would create far more jobs not only in the long term, but significantly more jobs in the short term as well., and that's just upgrading our electrical grid, not counting upgrading our freeways, bridges, dams, railways and the like.
Let's make more and more war, because war profits off killing a bunch of what we'll sell as savages is really good money for the rich.

Both sides have good and bad... well the left have good and bad. The right has people brainwashed into thinking they are doing good and the Lord's work...even though it's 100% opposite of what He taught... I hate myself for having ever voted and arguing for Conservative or even Libertarian "logic".

Solar shingles will be much harder to pay for themselves, they cost more and produce less, but they do look less obtrusive if that's an issue.
EDIT: One thing they have going for them is you can trap the water off your roof for yard usage like a metal roof, where normal tar shingles contaminate the water requiring a filter/oil separator. Here in Ca, that's a HUGE benefit, we have a terrible water shortage.
I live in N Ca, where we get tons of fog, and my panels/system have paid for themselves in under 1/2 their expected lifespan...so now I'm set for 10-12 years of free electricity, even though I live where there's less sun than most places. I can't fathom why every home in Phoenix isn't covered in them...it makes no sense whatsoever that they aren't taking advantage of their sun.

It was just over-hyped. They should have talked about the scientific accuracies after it opened. If they hadn't built it up, people wouldn't be hacking it down.

...and the robots aren't just two slabs of metal. They Rubik's Cube out, and the smaller blocks swivel out into arms and manipulators.

There's a making of TARS and CASE video on the sift (try 2:00 if you're impatient) that explains why they're a cool idea. If for nothing else, the fact they aren't anthropomorphic in any real way.

I think that the noise being picked up by the recorder makes it sound a lot worse than what it is. In my opinion, he's only really patting next to the baby.

Would it not be fair to say that clapping is a roughly equivalent action? And i see people doing that near babies all the time without someone worrying about affecting the kid's mental state as it grows up, or worrying if the kid perceives the clapping of hands as a threat or worry.

If babies are too young to understand, then they may misunderstand clapping? Or alternatively how are they to understand the waving of someone's hand nearby to be aggressive? Especially given that it appears to be a comfortable family unit.

Most importantly, can we please consider that the baby was slapping its own leg? Perhaps one day the baby slapped its hand about, the father did the same thing, and the baby got enjoyment out of it? It slaps its hand about again at the end too. We don't know, we can't know, and it's very unfair to make so many casual assumptions - not just about his actions, but about what is normal for different people.

I'm concerned about the amount of assumptions being made in chastising this man. Especially when drawing a parallel to an anecdote about someone "growing up skittish" because of "teasing". Correlation, not necessarily causation.. and again, what evidence is this of teasing, and how is it fair to speculatively compare it to something stated so vaguely?

I'm sorry to be combative about it, but i feel this is a huge leap of imagination based on 30 seconds of video. A great many of us (if not all) could be made to look all kinds of contrary ways based on 30 second snippets, and it's an indelible brush that he's being hurriedly tarred with. I stand to be corrected, but i don't see any signs of distress either from the baby or the person recording, and the baby looks otherwise healthy and well provisioned. It was not placed in that seating with those accoutrements without care and attention. I think more harm than good can come of judging things like this, considering the subtlety of most *actual* abusers.

Your video, TARS & CASE: The Interstellar Robots Behind The Scenes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your "obvious" solution has been progressing for years... Indeed Sarkeesian cherry picks games that offend her, but ignores that there are quite a few more games where women are protagonists, and /shock horror even dressed appropriately...

It's obviously not good enough for her, or apparently you...

As for your daughter and Mario, no, there's not something wrong with that. There are quite a few games (and more are coming) with female protagonists. Perhaps you should introduce her to Child of Light? Or let her play through the Longest Journey series? Guess what, not every game is going to give you the choice of a male/female protagonist, and I'm not sure why it's required. Honestly, I'd love it if reality TV shows about dumb socialites would disappear from the entertainment spectrum, but sadly I don't get to dictate to the media (or indeed the viewing public) what they should be doing.

In response to your points about the fight, you're right, and it should keep going and we should all try to support it. But Sarkeesian undermines that fight. Not because she dares to speak out, but how she does it. In her attacks, and they are attacks, she tars all male gamers as either deliberately misogynistic or hopelessly naive. That's great, really, you convince people to support you by insulting them continuously?

As for this snide little bit of crap...

"Look, I'm sorry people pointing out to you how fucked up it is how women are sometimes portrayed in games is somehow ruining your ability to enjoy games. But there are serious problems here. Maybe not problems for you, but problems for people like my daughter. "

This is a problem you and Anita share... Presumption. That just because I think she's a hack, that somehow she's ruining my fun (she isn't), that I support a male character domination of the industry (I don't), that there shouldn't be more strong female characters represented (there should) and so on and so forth. You have concocted a scenario in your head and jumped straight to the insults without ever bothering to find out what my opinion on the games (as opposed to the person blasting them) is...

Would it be sexist/misogynist to think that the woman in the article is batshit insane?

http://thelibertydoll.com/2014/08/22/meet-woman-reduce-male-population-90-for-peace/

Not because she's a woman, but because of what she's saying, and how she's saying it. This is why I object to Sarkeesian and think she's a shameful opportunist who's willing to set back feminism in her quest for fame or perhaps relevance..

"You can still have your Damsel/Dude in Distress trope, by the way. I have no doubt lazy developers will continue to use it as a substitute for meaningful story. Just don't expect people not to call out the utter absurdity of it, is all I'm saying."

Oh, it's my trope now... /eyeroll

I can't point out how ridiculous it is to try and kill off a trope that pervades every aspect of human story telling since the dawn of time without it becoming my personal favourite? Pro tip, if you're trying to convince someone of a viewpoint, it usually helps not to be a patronising git... X D

What is Islam? Who or what are Muslims?

It seems every single debate over whether Islam is a religion of peace or of violence comes down to this same argument over who or what defines those terms and there is never an agreement. Indeed, much of the conflict in the middle east is due to followers of Islam arguing over who's particular interpretation is correct. Meanwhile in the western world religion is something that, as the late Hitchens put it, we take "a la carte". It seems you can no more describe a person by revealing their particular faith than you could describe what food you had last night by giving somebody the whole menu to the restaurant. You might ascertain that it was perhaps Thai food... but little else.

Still though, when we go the texts we do find quite unequivocally immoral preachings. I think the religious really have to find an answer for this. We aren't buying the alternate interpretations or the lost in translation theories. When you describe yourself as a Muslim or as a Christian, or as any other faith, it seems to me you don't really have much of a right to get upset when we call you on the evil shit in your holy books. You might protest that you are not that "kind" of Christian, but the speed at which you dismiss any given passage is only matched by the speed at which you declare divine truth for another. We understand the vast plurality of beliefs, which is why it baffles us that you subscribe to a particularly narrow set of ideals whilst simultaneously admonishing us for tarring you all with the same brush.