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.

Asis Ansari denies anything untoward or intentionally disturbing.....as is admitted by his accuser that's trying to have him convicted in the court of public opinion and blackballed....over her regretting having had bad consensual sex.

A bad date isn't rape, bad consensual sex later regretted isn't rape, an argument isn't rape, no chemistry isn't rape, only rape is rape and your contention is that this doesn't matter, they are equally guilty and deserve equal scorn and hate?!? Being weird is the same as being a rapist?!? Jesus fucking Christ, I always thought you were rational. This position you're taking is not rational, and drives rational people away from the movement....and will destroy it before it has any effect.
Being weird is a good thing, just look at the "normal" person and tell me they're worth emulating.

Don't stop using your brain.

Does this go both ways? If a man has a bad date, or bad sex, can he accuse the woman of exaggerated disgusting behavior publicly by lumping her in with serious abusers to hurt her professionally and personally as revenge for his own inability to say "stop" or "no"?

I hope that girl you had a bad date with in high school doesn't come back to show you the error of your position by adding your name to the "me too" list, destroying your career, family life, and future with no recourse to prove your innocence...all because she didn't orgasm.....but I do hope you see the error.

BTW, the next time you're caught saying something disturbing to someone else, you need to remind them you aren't trying to murder them. Your position means if you upset someone, that's the same as the worst thing you could have done, torture murder. There is no distinction.

In fact, your post did upset me, you fucking child raping monster. That's not overboard at all according to you, and you are exactly the same as a serial chomo...until legal sentencing time. That is what you advocate.
Fuck. People have all lost their fucking minds over this issue.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/New-Rule-Distinction-Deniers

New Rule: Distinction Deniers has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

It's interesting how popular the "VSauce-style" way of speaking (the distinct pause pattern between words etc. that the vsauce guy uses) has become so popular in web documentary films.

What's with that? somebody should make a documentary video about it...

Somehow I get the distinct impression that this is @bobknight33 IRL.

Pomegranates are just one of the many things on his "no" list.

Hmm. I disagree with your description text, @ChaosEngine.

I've never shot something fully-automatic. I have shot an AR-15 semi-automatic, and I know where you're coming from when you say that hitting a target on full auto would be difficult, especially for a relatively untrained person (recoil control).

However, I think Vox and others are basically correct when they say that this modification (bump stock) contributed to the Las Vegas shooting being so deadly. Specifically in that sort of scenario.

The dude wasn't picking targets and sniping, going for accuracy. He picked an ideal shooting location (elevation with clear LOS) and sprayed into a crowd. He'd have been more accurate by keeping the weapon on semi-auto and actually aiming carefully, and certainly would have gotten more hits per bullet fired, but on the other hand the rate of fire difference would have so different that people would have had more time between shots to scramble for cover, etc.

He had position, an abundance of bullets, and lots and lots of time. Given those givens, having a rate of fire approximately equal to fully-automatic means a much higher body count than if he'd have been limited to traditional semi-auto.


The NRA is being more cunning than I figured they would, and has come out in favor of banning bump stocks. I agree with you that they see that mostly as a pointless concession, and a distraction from additional / better stuff that needs to happen.

But it isn't a pointless concession. If banning fully-automatic firearms in 1986 (minus the ones grandfathered in) was the right thing to do, extending that to include bump stocks is also the right thing to do. For the same reasons.

@newtboy is correct to note that technically, a rifle with a bump stock isn't a fully-automatic "machine gun". The user's finger still pulls the trigger once for every bullet that comes out -- semi-automatic.

However, I think that the "spirit" of the distinction is that with semi-automatic firing you have to think and consciously decide to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot a bullet, whereas with fully-automatic you consciously decide when you want to start and stop shooting. By the letter of the law, weapons with bump stocks are semi-automatic. But by that definition of the "spirit" of the law, they are fully-automatic. Pull the grip/barrel forward to start shooting, pull it back to stop.

It's a pretty frequent occurrence for technology to outpace the law. The definitions of semi vs fully automatic include the word "trigger" because they didn't anticipate this kind of conversion that makes the trigger sort of one step removed from the conscious decision to fire. The law would have similar hiccups if a weapon was developed that used a button or switch to fire, rather than a traditional trigger.

When those hiccups happen, the solution is to clarify the intent of the law and expand or clarify definitions as necessary. I'm pleasantly surprised that many legislators seem willing to do that with bump stocks, and that the NRA seems like it won't stand in the way. Mission accomplished, situation resolved? No. But a step in the right direction.

*quality distinctive gitfiddle stylings

Guys, it's the vendors. They pay for that "free" loan and a lot of the benefits. And the credit card companies lobbied it in by making it illegal for a business to charge a different price for cash than plastic. That's recently (last 5 years or so) been overturned. If you've ever had the distinct pleasure of navigating the byzantine and maddening world of credit card clearance fees, you would know that not all cards take as big a bite out of your transaction with the consumer. And it just so happens that the juicier benefits cards cost the vendor even more. That's a minimum of 1.8%, usually 2.5% and as high as 4%. That means the bank floats you the $ for 30 days average at 2.5% = 30% APR. It's quite a racket. There's a reason you get 3 very expensive mailers with fake cards and whatnot a week.

Simply put: he doesn't get it.

"Divisive" is general and ambiguous. "Inclusive" vs "Exclusive" is the distinction he misses. It's a choice, (expletive)!

I found Dunkirk to be neither mind-bending nor distinctively Nolan. I was disappointed.
This review hardly talks about Dunkirk though...

Is this sweet fish just lonely? Not much entertainment value in that environment ... looks to me anyway.

I've had a variety of fish several times in my life. Many have displayed distinctive personality traits and would be amazingly interactive with me. Elvis and Costello [Oscars] were my favorites as was Jambi [goldfish ... old vids still on YT]. Too bad I dreaded cleaning those tanks though [ugg]. Coupled with the heartache of the eventual/inevitable burial at 'sea' [in most cases], my urge for serenity on that front has been satiated for good.

Normally I 100% give the police every benefit of the doubt in these situations. I believe you are ignoring the important parts of this video though.

The kid didn't 'cop an attitude', refuse to comply, or 'flee' the scene. He was defensive from the start, and I don't think it's unjustified to be a bit put out to be interrupted from your work to be grilled about what your doing there and to prove who you are. The turning point you are missing is when the kid asks for supposed police officer to identify himself. The guy acting like an officer not only fails to do so, he immediately wants to handcuff the kid now all of a sudden. At this stage, the kid is supposed to back away. He has a guy in a uniform refusing to identify themselves, he shouldn't be expected to hang around.

It's not an offense or problem to 'refuse to comply' with someone that isn't a police officer.

It's not fleeing a scene when there is no police officer present, let alone an officer telling you that your being detained or under arrest.

The officer's refusal to identify himself should IMO mean that he isn't considered to be a police officer at all yet in how the public is expected to interact with him. That's a public safety requirement and the fact that the department PR video is lying and calling walking away from this interaction 'fleeing' is disgusting to me.

Oh, and for the record, if the officer DID identify himself, and then said the kid was being detained or under arrest then it all changes to me. Then the kid is 100% expected to comply, and the officer is allowed to use the force required to arrest and detain the kid. At the point if the arrest is an abuse of power or not is up the courts to decide. The important distinction is none of that actually happened, the PR meeting video acts as though the officer had identified himself and attempted to detain the kid. Fortunately the kid has video evidence showing that none of that actually happened. It is legitimately scary how easily and frequently an officer could do exactly this same stunt, and without it being on camera, he would get away with the whole thing.

In the US, I believe that component in CRTs is called a "horizontal oscillator" instead of a "flyback transformer" (but could be that they are distinct yet related things). I've always been easily able to hear those, but am not usually bothered by them anymore since CRTs are fairly rare at this point. But this video proves that my 36 year old ears can still pick it up.

I feel like my hearing is bad -- I always want TVs louder than other people so I can make out what is being said, and in normal conversation it always seems like people are mumbling if there is any background noise at all. And I'm one of those annoying loud-talking Americans, especially if I'm talking on the phone (fortunately I don't get/answer many phone calls when I'm in public). But my hearing range pitch-wise seems to be exceptionally high, and not diminishing much with age (yet).

There's a fun easter egg for people like me at the end of that video. He put pulses of that CRT horizontal oscillator pitch where you can see the "Things You Might Know" text on the red background. I recognized it as Morse code, but couldn't decipher it even though I have an Amateur Radio license (I don't do code). In the comments at YT, people are claiming that the code translates to "never gonna give you up" -- so I guess he's Rickrolling people who both A) still have young enough ears to hear that 15kHz range *and* B) are old school enough to know / recognize Morse code. That's a pretty small target audience for an easter egg!

"They murder over tiny details".

Question, who is 'they'? The 'Christians' who ran the crusades? The protestant 'Christians' bombing the English Catholic 'Christians'? The Catholic 'Christians' cleansing the protestant heretics? The current pope of the Catholic church? The folks in your neighbourhood that attend a church sometimes? The people that check off 'christian' on the census?

Your entire exposition gives the distinct impression that you include everyone in the whole group as 'they' and liken them not only the the very worst in the group, you even insist that the worst aren't quite bad enough(Westboro), are as bad as what YOU define their beliefs to be.

Is some lengthy theological dissertation refuting your interpretation of the bible required evidence before you'll accept that calling all christian's murders is unfair? I'm sorry I won't present you that kind of evidence in thread, but I'm quite confident you are as capable as me to quickly google for the likely hundreds of hefty books already dedicated to exactly that...