Recent Comments by bcglorf subscribe to this feed

Man In The Women's Locker Room Is Now The Norm

bcglorf says...

Honest question for everyone really angry at the lady in the video. Is the problem her manner and attitude alone? That is to ask a second question, do you think it is unreasonable for a parent to not want their young daughter seeing naked penises?

Assembly of the worlds largest fusion reactor (ITER) begins

bcglorf says...

Good news and bad news then. ITER isn't really a 'test', science wise it's pretty much assured that it is gonna work. So that's good news. The bad news, this thing is also as small as current known science allows us to make it while still producing usable power. Economically, it's already completely and totally unusable. Thus the hope is to make more new discoveries running this to find ways to make it economically viable.

vil said:

As has been the case for my entire lifetime, we are 20-40 years from having a fusion plant.

What "defund the police" really means

bcglorf says...

Apologies, didn't mean to misrepresent you. We've debated things before and you seemed to lean to no cop is a good cop because there are so many bad ones guilt be association and failure to clean things up makes them all bad. You'd also said up thread to fire all active officers.

I'll cease trying to word how you feel on it, I just wanted to demonstrate by counter example that not everybody means 'reform' when they say "defund". At a minimum , the degree of 'reform' varies from change some laws and regulations to fire them and start over from scratch.

My comment of being ruled by our 'betters' was meant as a sarcastic dig on them and their abject failure in letting things rot this far and doing nothing.

Finally, my comment on public opinion on solutions being non-uniform was mostly to emphasize that as just normal, and the current status quo is just so unacceptable that it is unifying people from varied points of view to stand up against it. The most important point being that declaring, see nothing will satisfy the mob because they can't agree what to do is a twisted deception and the truth is people want things to be better than they are, and there is as you pointed out tonnes of common sense ways to go about that,

newtboy said:

You misread. Please don't speak for me, especially when you're so wrong.

I support both disband the police, which means require all police to go through the hiring process again with those with multiple or serious complaints on their record disqualified or at least forced into retraining and a long probationary period...and I also support defund the police...meaning remove mental health from their job (and fund a mental health department that is sent on mental health calls, normally without police escort), it means the SWAT team is only called after weapons are used, not pre-emptive for non-violent calls, so can be cut in half or less. It means ZERO dollars for military equipment.
It does not mean eradicating the police, it does not mean cut ALL police funding, it means remove the second, third, and fourth hats they wear, remove violent or abusive officers, and cut their funding accordingly.

Mostly I think people want enforceable responsibility, criminal and civil, not immunity. If police had no shield from their actions, they would act better instantly. That's a no brainer and doesn't cost a dime.

Edit: eradicating the police unions would go a long way towards fixing the culture.

I think the demands of the public are more homogeneous than you claim....I know so, since you mischaracterized my position to create an outlier. That said, people do have different ideas of how to fix a problem we seem to agree on....but stripping immunity seems to be nearly universal outside police and Republican senator circles.

The people running the country aren't our best and brightest, they are those narcissistic enough to think they alone can make a difference and those slimy enough to think they can take advantage of an elected position for their personal gain. Trump proves undeniably that they aren't necessarily better educated , smart, or professional.

What "defund the police" really means

bcglorf says...

The cause isn't united either.

Another part of the problem is you have a lot of people like @newtboy who really DO mean defund the police by the dictionary definition. Those folks are mixed in with the protesters who mean 'reform' when they say 'defund'.

That's all to be expected though when you see the systematic failure of the national police force that is out there. When the number of bad actors in the force becomes too many, includes sheriffs and their deputies, and sees various police chiefs and police union leaders(not toe mention Presidents) defending the bad actors, the people that rise up in anger aren't going to be a uniform centrally organized entity.

As Dave Chapelle refers to it, these are the streets speaking for themselves. The public can't be expected to hold a single, uniform and documented solution that they are marching for. It is unfair to the point of dishonesty to try and discredit the protestors as a 'mob' because their calls for reform aren't consistent enough or well messaged enough. The presumably better educated, smarter professionals running the country(from the bottom to the top) are the one's whose job it is to find a good solution. More importantly, it's also their fault for failing to enact solutions to the problem before the public outrage hit the levels it has.

cloudballoon said:

The problem with "Defund the Police" is right there in the name, and its name only. It's understandable that those who lost hope on reforms felt the need to escalate into using the term "Defund."

But uninformed people that don't understand nuance nor care about policies and enforcement would likely judge that's extreme and leads to anarchy immediately, and dismiss its merits. And let's be honest, would you bet there're more informed people in the USA or uninformed ones? If there's ONE thing that USA does better than any other countries, it's politicizing the hell out of complex issues into sound bites. Pushing people into all-or-nothing For or Against camps. In the end, little gets done, but even more divisions & hate.

I watched on the news here in Canada (with its fair share of racial injustices in its policing not that far behind the USA, ) that the mayor of Toronto (our largest city in the country) picked up and used the term "Detask the Police"... I think that's a much better term to advance the cause.

How Nestle Makes Billions Bottling Free Water

bcglorf says...

Hate to be that guy again, but I can't help myself.

So, the accusation is that extracting underground water in high enough volume has ruined the water levels in the rivers. The video however, presents multiple anecdotes from locals as 'evidence'. Including even pointing at a high water mark by a bridge/culvert. You know, in a creek that rises and falls heavily between spring melt and fall.

The lack of any meaningful evidence really skews me to classing this as propaganda over documentary. No effort what so ever was made to prove the allegation that Nestle's operations are influencing creek/river water flow.

newtboy (Member Profile)

bcglorf says...

it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for themselves....no?

I vehemently agree on this. I merely argue that giving the leg up shouldn't be based upon race but upon lack of opportunity. The two fellow black students you mentioned, who were nearly as advantaged as you would have similarly destroyed other black students from crappy inner city schools, but a race based system would give no quarter to the inner city kids in that insistence, still favouring privileged kids over the unprivileged, just so happens these privileged kids would be black.

I agree fully with helping out the disadvantaged. If a race is grossly over represented among the poor, then policies to help the poor will also grossly provide more assistance to that race. I don't consider that discriminatory though, it's just a historical consequence.

In the Canadian model, direct assistance or compensation for past harm is also something I can get behind. Of course, proving and carefully adjudicating what that should mean is a tough nut, but our courts are expressly for that kind of dispute.

newtboy said:

I don't disagree, and we have much the same thing in practice if not by law with our native people's, they even have their own separate tribal police, courts, and laws. They are in many ways a different country inside our borders.
I agree, removing the disparities in lower education is far more desirable....but at least here we're doing the opposite, defunding public schools and programs that offer assistance like breakfast and lunch while also making it easier for affluent people to use public funds to pay for private schools, effectively defunding the public schools even farther.
That leaves us trying things like affirmative action in admissions to try to mitigate the continuing unfair, unequal opportunities lower income students face. Far from ideal, but better than another poke in the eye with a sharp stick, as my wife used to say....and she ought to know! ;-)

They might put the argument in different terms. Which do you prefer....giving admission advantages to aboriginal students in recognition of the piss poor opportunities they've had educationally, or give sentencing advantages to aboriginal criminals in recognition of the across the board piss poor opportunities they've had, recognizing that neither approach addresses the underlying problems, only the results of those long standing issues that simply are not being addressed at all.
What doesn't work is ignoring their lack of opportunities and expecting them to perform on par with other, non disadvantaged kids. That just gets you uneducated, pissed off adults with a chip on their shoulder and no prospects for improvement.

So.....until we actually get to work improving their overall situation, easier said than done, it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for themselves....no? Otherwise we're likely just perpetuating a cycle of criminality that hurts us all.

newtboy (Member Profile)

bcglorf says...

I'm less familiar with American demographics, but I agree with the overall principal. Here in Canada we have IMO an even more severe segregation and unequal opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. It's severe enough up here though that not only are communities segregated by living on reserves with their own separate schools, but we have separate school divisions, and even their reporting and funding lines are different from all other schools.

That adds up to an enormous amount of differential treatment. Replacing that with equal opportunity though is much more desirable than 'waiting' till the school system has already failed kids and then 'lowering the bar' in one way or another to help them get into university.

In Canada I think our supreme court has done as at least 1 disservice greater than you guys though in making race a required consideration in sentencing. The appropriate section of sentencing:
"In sentencing an aboriginal offender, the judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection."
The goal is to address the over-representation of aboriginal people in prisons. The effect however, is ultimately discriminatory as well. Before you dismiss the discrimination against whites as ok because it balances things out as is the 'goal', that's not the only affect. Another problem in Canada is the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples as the victims of crime, because most violent crime is between parties that are related. So on the whole crimes committed against Aboriginal people will on average be sentenced more leniently...

Failing to address the real underlying unequal opportunity can't corrected by more inequality later to balance the scales. In Canada, our attempt at it are too lesson the sentencing of people with unequal backgrounds, but the expense of victims that also faced those same unequal backgrounds...

And that 'corrective' inequality is also creating similar resentment amongst white people here too. People don't like their kids not getting into a school of choice potentially because of a race based distinction, but they like it even less to see a crime committed against them treated more leniently because of race.

newtboy said:

So you get where I'm coming from, I went to 3 "good" prep schools k-12 for a total of 7 years. In that time there were a total of 3 black kids at the same schools, one of which dropped out because of harassment. I also went to 5 years of public schools with up to 70% black kids, those schools taught me absolutely nothing. That's a large part of why I'm convinced just using SAT scores (or similar) only rate ones opportunities, not abilities. That was thousands upon thousands of white kids well prepared for years to take that test and two black kids....hardly equal opportunities. It's hard to ignore that personal experience.

Why did Cosmonauts take Shotguns into Space?

Millennials in the Workforce, A Generation of Weakness

bcglorf says...

Your absolutely right that characterising an entire generation as the 'same' is flawed.

However, I also believe there is more to the whole 'entitled millenials' view than just the bias of 'those darned kids again'.

I think the lumping of generational groups is just a miswording and but reading of the problems facing society at different times. Baby-Boomers as a generation were just people, same as millenials, same as anyone else. The thing is, kids born between 1910 and 1930 grew up in a world at war. Baby boomers grew up in a post world war/cold war era. The societal problems that shaped those times and people still existed, so dismissing the problems as just perception or bias isn't necessarily a good idea.

I've been out of high school 20+ years, and the notion of participation ribbons for everyone was already starting then. The notion that losing or winning isn't important, even if you lost because you were lazy, or won because of years of hard work was already starting. The problem of basically denying hard parts of the real world has been building for 20 years, and the current generation has been buried even deeper in it.

For anyone born in Canada or the USA to cry that no amount of hard work, talent or anything else can help them get ahead and that the system must be changed to help them is insidious. When 80-90% of everyone born in Canada or the USA will never know real hunger, never face homelessness, never have a warlord burn and destroy everything they own, complaining about the inherent injustice of being born where you were as a Canadian or American is just wrong.

The ideology that has grown up in the western world over the last 20+ years has the stink of the rich, entitled world we've enjoyed here. We have a society so removed from hardship, that hardship is working 10 hours a day, 5 days a week to lead a life more comfortable than 90% of the world.

It's not millenials, it is however the society that millenials are growing up in(so all of us).

ChaosEngine said:

Fair points, but I think there’s a big difference between understanding the circumstances of a particular demographic and then assigning characteristics to the members of said demographic.

“Black people are more likely to be pulled over by the police” is a verifiable fact.
“Black people are more likely to commit crime” is a different kettle of fish.

I know that’s not what you’re saying though.

Failing at Normal: An ADHD Story

bcglorf says...

The original test I did way back was on a different site that looks shutdown now. On there though it mentioned that it's very similar set of questions was basically pre-screening they would normally do to see if they bother testing you further or not. AKA, if you test 'normal' on this, they stop there. If your result is other than that they would do further tests to confirm a diagnosis.

Technically no matter how high you test on something like this, it's not a diagnosis and I've never done anything further myself. The fact I tested way out on the high end on the test though left me pretty sure further testing would conclude I fall somewhere high functioning, and all the activities done in my youth to help me be more outgoing and less shy all strongly resemble most of the formal treatment methods you see now anyways:
How to cope with x, y, z.
In this social scenario, this is what's going on.
Etc.

newtboy said:

Good link, but where did you see "test further"? I see the range 33-50 indicates significant autism traits, but no suggestions of what to do with that information.

Failing at Normal: An ADHD Story

bcglorf says...

The screening tests are readily available online:
https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-quotient/

It wasn't till I was married and raising kids that it even occurred to me to check. I was just the notoriously shy kid growing up who would as soon play beside his friends as with them. I took the pre-screening tests though and my score there landed my in not just the range to test further, but the almost certainly going to be on the spectrum.

I've looked more at Aspergers now since and in very, very many ways it looks much like just a more extreme form of the 'male' dominant mind. A greater interest in things than in people. In many ways it's just exactly as the video presenter alludes to. People are just different, and this is a classification of a particular kind of difference. Our differences make some things easier and others harder and such is life.

moonsammy said:

Huh. At 38 I've never really seriously entertained the possibility that I might have ADHD, but this talk certainly gave me pause. Many of the behaviors she describes are something with which I identify, but I'm not certain whether that's because I actually share a set of peculiarities with her or because they are, much like a horoscope, things with which everyone identifies to some degree. If nothing else, I think I need to start looking into what actually defines whether someone has ADHD, and what to do with that knowledge if they do. Thanks for posting this notarobot!

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

bcglorf says...

Heck, an armed populace is harder to oppress is really all I was ever suggesting on the count of common ground. One point of commonality.

On Rwanda, the genocidal former government of Rwanda kept their arms and just retreated into the Congo jungle. They've basically kept their "freedom" in the process and subsequently no small reason the DRC has been plagued with horrific violent crimes against humanity the last couple decades.

On Kagame I suppose it depends who you ask about being a tyrant or not. Perhaps pragmatic dictator would be the closest a majority of dissenting experts might agree on? That said, make no mistake that supporters of the former regime weren't allowed to remain armed where Kagame had the ability. Because of the genocide the world largely disregarded it, Kagames forces made large numbers of 'violations' of DRC borders raiding for former genocidairres.

newtboy said:

I can rarely agree with a blanket statement, but it I think we do agree that an armed populace is more difficult to oppress, I just contend it doesn't make oppression impossible.

I think people living under the control of warlords would differ and call them oppressive dictators, even if their areas of control might be small.

Yes, but doesn't Rwanda prove my point in a way? The genocidal thugs were armed, yet control was eventually taken from them....although I hope Kagme isn't a tyrant...I honestly don't know about him.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

bcglorf says...

Come on, it's ok if we agree on something . Your African examples aren't really oppressive dictatorships, they are collections of failed states or outright anarchy, which I'll readily agree is easily possible with or without a well armed population. If you want to note African examples, when Kagame seized control of Rwanda, he didn't exactly decide to leave the genocidal opponents he cast out open ended gun rights. As is always the case, removing their ability to wage war was kind of prerequisite to his control of the country.

newtboy said:

I'm sorry, but a claim isn't evidence.
There are African countries where there may not be gun rights, but neither are there restrictions, mainly because there's barely government. Armed tyrannical groups have still managed to seize control, even though the populace was moderately well armed. Somalia comes to mind. The same happened repeatedly in central America and South America in the past.

So I disagree it's impossible, but it is more difficult.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

bcglorf says...

Let's step back then from arguing against other people's claims.

The claim that tyranny is pretty universally based upon an unarmed civilian population provides at least some real world evidence that civilian armament and freedom have some correlation. Whether that warrants allowing citizen's access to weaponized anthrax and cruise missiles is another matter. Can you agree that a well armed population is incompatible with historical tyranny(Mao, Stalin, Saddam, Gadhafi, the Kim's)?

newtboy said:

You're mistaken. I've heard exactly that suggested by multiple people....not that there's any actual push for disarmament.
No reasonable person suggests that, but people are often unreasonable about this topic.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

bcglorf says...

@newtboy and @scheherazade,

I think I may have come up with a shorter line of evidence for a well armed population being protection against tyranny.

Granted, a poorly armed population with strong arms control laws doesn't necessarily devolve into tyranny. We can all demonstrate this with counter examples like up here in Canada. However, can anyone name an oppressive dictatorship that had 2nd amendment level freedoms for every man and woman in their state? I can't think of a single example myself.

As I said before, that doesn't lead me to immediately declare zero restrictions on guns are thus worth any cost to forestall future tyranny. However, I have to acknowledge that the NRA style argument for protection against tyranny isn't entirely without merit.

That leads to my objections with declaring that it is objectively obvious that gun freedoms must morally be pulled back, while at the same time objectively obvious that idealogical/religious practice freedoms must not. We have ample examples of extremists gathering together to plot violence, mayhem and death on a grand scale and putting some extra lines in the sand of when that becomes unacceptable is no more obviously immoral than restricting gun ownership.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon