Because only the USA is racist (or xenophobic) for having immigration laws. None of the exactly ALL OTHER COUNTRIES that have immigration laws and punishments for breaking those laws are racist, just the Americans...

This is just another fake news hit-piece that attempts to stain a person's character by associating him/her with racists. Just because the two people/groups may share a desire for the same end goal, the reasons for wanting those goals are not necessarily the same.

I'm almost shocked at how we have come to the point that "love of our Country" has turned into an evil thing, while breaking the laws is good, respectable, and even honorable.

So much for keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees above preindustrial averages (or even the Paris 1.5 degree goal) being "safe". We're at 1.2 degrees and rising last year, and it seems like Ragnarok is upon us.
This is pretty good evidence that the anthropogenic extinction event is well under way, not something to fear might happen in a dystopian future. Both the natural food web and agriculture are dependent on insects. A 3/4 reduction is probably at or beyond the tipping point.
This business is going to get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Fuck. We all better call up Jim Bakker for some apocalypse food buckets quick.

When Maher used it and Ice Cube came on to tell him how wrong he was I did sort of feel like its divisive power was perpetuated by the double standard it seemed to represent - black people can use it, white people can't. Honestly I thought it was all a bit hysterical (not hilarious), not that I doubted the authenticity of people taking offence, just that there was an obsession over the word rather then Maher's intent that only furthered the divide between black and white.

Now I think I missed the point. Naively I believed the end goal was to sterilize the word through usage, that the fact a word can cause offence is a sort of aberration. Recently I was made to understand that the word is venomous for good reason. It should be offensive because it represents not just a terrible history of slavery, but also of the continued oppression, both overt and insidious, that blacks experience.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and often I think that is how us whites use it. Mostly our intentions are good, we want to be part of that group... but we never will be because we will never experience that word the way a black man or woman will. I don't think I was a racist (well, so far as any of us are free from bias) when I used it before but I think it was ignorant and wrong of me. To only care for your own intent and ignore a word's symbolism is lazy and self interested.

I'd like a future where the word truly does lose contemporary meaning, but I don't think we get there by ignoring what it still represents to others.

$0.02

No one told me that for thousands of years....I've never heard that said to anyone...ever....not seriously.
First, very few want a dick pic free world, and the anti pornography people can just stop looking. An unsolicited dick pic free world, yep, that should be the stated goal if they want support.
Second, demeaning a body part in that hyper sexist way is never appropriate, and makes Sam one of the infantile sexist douchbags she's railing against, just on the chick side instead of dude.
Third, it's just plain wrong. Plenty of people find penises attractive. If they didn't, explain gay porn.

Not necessary at all, any more than men body shaming women is necessary. It's nothing more than shameful bitter divisiveness, fostering the 'us vs them' mindset that is the problem.
You don't, can't eradicate inappropriate behavior by repeating it. That has never worked.

Why not take two steps in the right direction?

Taking the texting while drunk driving analogy - you'd ban both wouldn't you?. To simply ban the texting is surely tacit approval of the DUI.

I understand the sort of pragmatic approach and I'm not even sure I'd be against it... I just think you have to be careful not to imagine it as a step in the right direction because, frankly, it's not a step at all. To me it is closer to addressing a loophole in the preexisting law and it doesn't really facilitate or encourage further gun regulation. If banning bumpstocks is your end goal then great, but if you want more then I think you need to be asking for more, even (or perhaps especially?) if it means fighting for it.

Gliders are stupid, jet fighters are the only real way to fly.

Aikido requires the same body/mind training as any other martial art, with as much physical intensity as you want to put into it. Yes...it's not focused on agression. I don't need to train to react agressively. I need the opposite.

Motorcycles are faster than tractors. That's not going to help me plough a field. If I want to compete in MMA I'll study a martial art that's suited to it. Aikido is suited to my life and my goals.

I would never try to argue that my martial art is superior for your purposes. It's superior for my purposes.

All that aside, the video is a really enjoyable demonstration of mastery by someone who has dedicated more time and effort to her art than most martial artists, regardless of what they study or why.

Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated.

I don't mind swimming against the stream on this one; i think it's fine to punch nazis.

When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint. You are saying that you support the ideals of the old nazi party, you support Hitler & his goals, you want to see people exterminated in a genocidal system and you celebrate that such a system existed. You are actively pursuing a course of action that, if successful, will result in the deaths of millions of people. Your goal is to kill people.

I don't think there's any comparison to the same kind of treatment of the Phelps family. They celebrate death, misery and hate, but they never killed millions of Jews and other 'undesirables.' They are unconscionable bastards, but that's it. Your end goal in supporting them is not violence & genocide.

I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. Laws aren't divine or sacrosanct, and they certainly aren't constant. Our oligarchs meddle with them on a daily basis. The right thing to do may not always be the legal thing to do, and you should not rely on your government to decide right and wrong for you (that's what nazi germany thrived on - 'i was only obeying orders'). The "law" argument will never convince me.

But i might be convinced for other reasons.

This. You cannot assault people for speaking their mind, no matter how odious their opinion might be (with huge grey areas around actual incitement to violence and so on).

The second they start something violent though, you have a right to defend yourself and others, and there's no law that says you can't feel immensely satisfied while doing so.

But as much as I viscerally want to see Nazis punched in the face (Indy FTW!), it's not how you ultimately defeat them.

Short term, yeah, you have to defend yourself and stop them from achieving their goals... by any means necessary.

Long term, you have to prove them wrong, and the way to do that is with compassion (like the "Life after hate" guys, or this brilliant story *related=https://videosift.com/video/How-one-black-man-defeated-the-KKK-with-humor-and-grace).

*quality discussion though.

Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine a power technology emerging that makes the cost of electricity virtually zero and the supply virtually endless.

Since the emergence of life, the task of survival is the quest for energy in one form or another. Most of the critical advancements by humanity have been driven by the need to acquire, distribute and store energy. When you're sitting at your computer being productive for a paycheck, you are serving the same goal as prehistoric hunter-gatherers, you're just doing it via a much more complex system of acquisition and distribution.

The more efficiently we acquire energy, the less effort it takes to satisfy our individual energy needs and the more time we have for other pursuits such as culture and exploration.

What happens when the effort necessary to acquire a life's worth of energy approaches zero?

The goal is not to seek justice in america because there is no such thing. The objective is to win a large enough monetary judgment as to result in the financial bankruptcy of the institution and individuals involved.

Are you for real?

Do you not see that you are literally gaslighting by attempting to paint an individual, who organized a stunt aimed at intimidating another person in public, as the victim of the incident?

I don't even give a shit about gamergate or the feminism/anti-feminism celebrity battle that you, clearly, have taken a side on. I don't support anyone involved because all of the participants appear to be acting like asshats. But any objective viewer can see that one side made a bold move to aggressively provoke an opponent and succeeded in their goal of getting a response. It was bullying and abusive and it illicited an undignified response.

Let me reiterate, I am not your opposition in your crazy war. But I have to point out that it is a perplexing bit of mental acrobatics for you to attempt to perpetuate a false reality by accusing an intended victim of trying to perpetuate a false reality.

That's a clown move and if you had any integrity you would pause a moment for a little self examination.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

So, someone gave the bot with general artificial intelligence the goal of "make people happy by serving them ice cream" this is the horrifying, world ending result.

In my eyes, that's fraud at best, and since sex can't be sold, she would have no recoverable loss.
That goes for your examples until impairment comes in. I disagree, but I think the law says if you sleep with someone who's drunk or high, that's rape, even if they were ok with it at the time.

Mentioning she enjoyed it wasn't meant as a defense to rape, but an indication that he was not an asshole to her on the date.

No, if you intentionally murder me, your intent is to victimize me, your goal might not be.

Yes, schadenfreude is not becoming, but we all engage in it. I can't blame him for being gleeful his plan had so overachieved his goal, but the djs, yeah.

All that said, I'm pretty sure this is all scripted...it was just too perfect.

As I've said before, even if we somehow wind up in a best case scenario of a benevolent superintelligent AI that shares our goals, we're still just pets at that point.

You might love your dog, but you don't let it make decisions for you.

But that's extremely unlikely. Max talks about "letting " the AI decide at one point in the video. The verb "let" implies a degree of control on our part. If we get a superintelligent AI, we won't be "letting" it do anything, any more than apes "let" humans do something. Maybe on a short scale/timeline, an individual ape might force a human to do something (i.e. a gorilla makes a human run away), but in real terms, apes don't really get a say if we decide to do something.

Basically, as soon as we get superintelligent AI* , the world will be unrecognisable.

* I mean a true superintelligent AGI, something that is smarter than us and therefore by definition able to write a better version of itself.

Really. Can you name a number of Nazi marches that didn't end in violence then? I can't.
Nothing was traded, the right still wears their hoods....more than the left wears black, btw. The left has never courted these people, and doesn't excuse them. The right can't say the same about Nazis and the KKK.

No, sorry, they're confused kids. Fascism is not liberal...not extreme liberal either. They might think, because their goals are quasi-liberal, that makes them liberals, but their methods are totally antithetical to liberal ideals.

Liberal and Democratic leaders have denounced them repeatedly. Just because Fox tells you they embrace them doesn't make it true.

Huh? Leaders calling the cops doesn't help? Really. It's seemed to disband them in the past without campus burnings...what are you talking about? How do you arrest them without calling the cops? What?! The alternative? Just let the nazis/fascists and the antifascist fascists fight in public.

So, there you go, again, the right escalates the violence to the next level, murder, and you blame the left. Typical Bob.