@worm
tort reform.
which is not unreasonable,considering it spawned its own cottage industry:ambulance chasers.
and i can agree,in principle,for catastrophic insurance.

but i still think if you are going to do it,don't be a pussy about it.
single payer all the way and we already have a system in place to accommodate single payer.

@bareboards2
pure and utter sophistry.

and i resent the fact that you slyly attempt to imply that i will just sit back and remain silent to injustice.

when i feel quite confident my records on this site prove the exact opposite.i have vociferously and aggressively taken on those who would bully,berate and belittle anyone who would voice their opinion.

i believe i have come to YOUR defense on more than one occasion.

what i found disturbing in your comment and maybe i should clarify is this "As Homeland Security says, if you see something, say something."

this is LITERALLY what was posted on almost every open venue in east germany.

and for you to tacitly excuse this statement by dismissively stating that "the stasi operated in secret".as somehow being evidence of your own righteousness belies an ignorance of just how oppressive and fearful those people were living in those conditions.

so you are morally superior because you openly called to out,and i quote "benevolent dictator with a light touch",and did not do so in private?
THIS is your justification?
THIS is the evidence you present to me to...what? exactly?

if you truly feel that you have somehow struck a blow for justice and taken a stand for moral integrity,then i submit that you have no clue what free speech really entales,nor do you understand the implications when we,as a community,start calling in the big daddy in the sky every time someone writes an offensive potty/racist or bigoted word.

and just LOOK how you consumed @gorillaman 's comment.
you made no reference to his salient point,but rather focused on ONE thing:nigger prince.

now was this appropriate?
taken singularly i would have to agree with you.
no..it is not appropriate.

but when we take our understandings of @gorillaman,who has been a contributing sifter for over 10 years,and consider his humor..which is dark and incredibly dry (like sahara dry),then with this context added to the mix,we can conclude that he was probably making a joke...you are certainly within your rights to find that joke in poor taste,and with this community,you are also within your rights (and even encouraged) to take @gorillaman to task for his poor taste.

but instead you called for big daddy in the sky to bring the hammer of justice down,and punish this dirt potty mouthed racist.his crime?
racist verbiage.

no consideration of who was writing it.
no consideration of his history on this site,which you openly admitted is a community.
you just..focused..on..the..word.

and then you preen like a peacock thinking somehow you have struck a blow of righteousness?

please sister.....you accomplished nothing except to put dag in an awkward position,and came across as a self righteous moralizer.

when you simply could have done what other sifters here actually DID.
you downvote his comment.
and if you felt so inclined,and it appears you ARE so inclined,directly call @gorillaman out for his poor choice of verbiage.

look BB,
i actually find you to be a sweetheart,with a huuuuge propensity for empathy and compassion,but every time i engage with you my sphincter tightens up like it is preparing for a colonoscopy.there is this ever-present apprehension that my words will not be taken with humanity that they are written,or the open honesty i am trying to convey.

i am sure that if we were actually sitting in a cafe,sipping that delicious coffee you guys are so proud of, i would not experience this anxiety when engaging with you,but it seems EVERY time i disagree with something you post,or an opinion i may take issue with,i offend you in some manner.

you ..and i am sure this is not done on purpose..make it incredibly difficult to disagree with something you post,because i always feel i have hurt your feelings somehow.

real or imagined...i am just being honest here.i always approach any interaction with you as if i am walking on eggshells,underlined with landmines.

i am simply disagreeing with you here.
calling for a ban on gorillaman because of a joke made in poor taste,while simultaneously disregarding his contributions to this site,and taking his personality into consideration,is simply an over-zealous reaction and in no way deserves the attention of dag.

because if gorillaman deserves to be banned for an offensive phrase,than i should be banned as well.

free speech is just that...free.
of course we are free to ridicule that speech.
yaaay free speech!

Geo my old friend. I think of you often and well, and remember.

Merry Christmas to you, and Happy New Year.

Again, you are missed.

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.

I'm not upvoting this.
Facebook is not a news source. If you're dumb enough to think otherwise, you shouldn't be allowed to go online in the first place. You're not intellectually competent enough to navigate the web.
What has this world become where we can't even differentiate between news organisations and random companies anymore?
It really pisses me off that this has to be said in the first place. Is it really that bad that we allow ourselves to be spoon-fed our favourite beliefs without any scepticism anymore?

Thinking of you

I'm starting to think that you like arguing for the sake of arguing. Because I refuse to believe that anyone can be this stupid.

I think perhaps you are more forgiving and willing to give them more of a benefit of a doubt and a pass for not being devout than I. I think, if one claims a book contains the incontrovertible word of god, then ignores many of the clear instructions in that book, they are not really believers but must be just 'fans' of the religion, because if they were true believers, they would follow all the instructions without fail and without excuse, knowing if they don't they'll end up in hell for eternity.

I grew up in Texas....I knew literally thousands who thought (and probably still think) the way I described...and they told me so often as I was the only known atheist in my school, and one of the few in my family. More than once they (the kids, not my family) actually threw the stones, but never hard enough to take me out, to their chagrin.

Agreed, looking for any consensus about religion is a fools errand. ;-)

I don't know what folks you mean or how squeaky clean you mean, but I think if you search the internet long enough, you'll find someone childish enough to accuse Hilary of corruption for, say, cutting the queue at Burger King. I agree that you can't expect people to be perfect since birth, do people really ask for that?

I look at the world around us: unbelievable wealth inequality, global warming, oil wars, illegal invasions, the hijacking of Greek democracy, the great bankers bailout swindle, austerity politics, the pay gap.... I won't go on. The world has not been well managed for a long time now. A national leader represents a fuck-ton of people and their decisions can literally lead to the slow or immediate death of all of us, either by inaction or incompetence or mistake....etc. Honesty and integrity have got to be important now, even if the old ways seem familiar and comfortable. I would argue it's childish (naive) to say let's ignore those things.

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

@SDGundamX, first up, it was a throwaway line, you're reading way too much into it.

I'm not going to go over Jim Jeffries joke (it's been discussed to death already), except to say that, yeah, I got what he was trying to do and no, it still wasn't that funny or clever.

Besides, I wasn't trying to compare the two. Mine was a throwaway line, his was an extended sketch by a touring professional comedian. My point was simply that taste is in the eye of the beholder.

And would you please do me the courtesy of not telling me what I'm thinking. I'm not angry about ignorance, I'm angry about woolly thinking (specifically, lack of critical thinking).

If you're ignorant, then you just need to be taught. I'm not angry at ignorant people, I'm sorry for them and I want to help them.

My problem is with people (like the guy in the video) who have been presented with evidence, but ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview.

200 years ago, if you believed that disease was a result of demonic possession, that's unfortunate. If you believe that today, you're deliberately ignoring knowledge.

As far as viewing people who reject evidence as a dangerous "other", I'm ok with that. As I've said before, I don't believe in "tolerance" as a virtue. If someone isn't bothering me, or someone is doing something I don't like, but it doesn't harm anyone, then I'm fine with them; I have no need to "tolerate" them.

But if people are doing something that causes harm (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc), I don't tolerate that at all, and will speak out against it.


As for your torture example, it is flawed. You're saying that you wouldn't reconsider the ethics of torture, even if evidence of its efficacy was available. Do you see the problem?

You proposition was that torture is unethical, and your hypothetical evidence states that it is effective. The two are orthogonal properties. It is possible to be both effective and unethical.

Besides, I didn't say you had to change your position, I said you had to reconsider. If someone presented you with a philosophical argument arguing for the ethics of torture, are you saying you wouldn't even hear it out?

I hold positions like that myself. Despite everything, I believe that one day, people will overcome their petty differences and venture out into the stars. That doesn't mean I don't question it..

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

Yeah... our papers... I think the sort of death rattle of print news is this sort of increasing slide to sensationalism. They drop the price, they drop the standards. Honestly, if it wasn't for them I imagine the referendum would have gone the other way. The worse part is that if the Brexit is going to be as bad as some fear then they won't be printing apologies, they'll just doubledown on their junk food narratives.

But anyway. In regards to this video, I think it is quite interesting that even when you are calling to "make America White again" you can still deny racism. I mean, you'd think if you've gone that far you may as well just run with it. But I guess if us Brits are taking notes from the Trump playbook, then I suppose Americans can borrow from Orwell.

Nothing is going to get done in Congress because the animosity between the two parties at this point in Congress is at Defcon 1. Bipartisanship is completely DOA. Both sides are just looking to criticize the other while crafting the narrative that their side is the one that knows what's best for the American people.

I think what you're going to see more of are things like what's happening in Hawaii. State representatives are going to realize the untapped voter potential that's out there by crafting gun laws before Congress does. In fact, probably the best solution to this problem right now is for States to work with each other and standardize all disparate gun laws across the U.S.

The real question here is how the Supreme Court is going to view these state laws when they (inevitably) get challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. Scalia is gone now, so I honestly don't know how the Court will decide. But if you look at how gay marriage was essentially legalized in the U.S. state-by-state, I think you can see a road-map to how gun control laws could follow a similar path.

What's missing right now is an advocacy group that cares as much about this issue as the NRA does about "gun rights." It's easier to get people behind the legalization of gay marriage because it's a human rights issue and at the end of the day most people have a relative or friend (or several of each) who is affected. Sadly, it may take a day to come when everyone has a relative or friend who has suffered from gun violence to get the same kind of groundswell necessary to nudge things meaningfully forward.

Both. They must interpret the meaning/definition of the law before they can interpret whether actions are in compliance.
No, that IS judicial scope. It's what those that lose call 'judicial activism', but you never hear a winner call it that.
Judges interpret the words AND the meaning of laws. They often 'read between the lines' to determine what they think was intended, not just what was specifically written. That's not new or out of line, it's how it's always worked.
True, it creates a minefield of interpretation of written laws that may not completely jibe with the exact verbiage in the written laws, but they are documented in the decisions.
No, I'm not forgetting those laws, I'm disputing your statement that "Again, it's a matter of what people are willing to enforce.....If everyone is on board with twisting the rules, then that's the norm." Populist feelings do NOT effect the law, only legislation and interpretation do.
Until recently, there was nothing to show that the 2nd amendment addressed individuals. That's why Washington DC had a complete hand gun ban, and that case is what changed the meaning to include individuals instead of simply regulated militias.
Eminent is a word I might use to say 1) conspicuous or 2)prominent (especially in standing above others in some quality or position). I think the latter is how it's used in this case, not the former. EDIT: I expect most people confuse it with the word "Imminent".
My mother is a professional editor, so I admit I'm more familiar with odd words than many people. (Most people didn't have to read the dictionary or encyclopedia while they sat in a corner for being bad as a child). I think if you ask the populace about many legal terms, or really any >3 syllable word, most people won't know the actual definitions.