Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...

What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Well in the US, class systems are not so cut and dry. Within a state middle class can fluctuate wildly from city to city and county to county. Where I live the middle income starts at 180k (not me lol) and the city next door upper class starts at 30k.

And the line between "blue-collar" and "white-collar" is often not really clear. A lot of people seem to put physical labor as blue collar. However, both my parents do physical labor. father works at NPS, does a lot of ground-work, tagging animals, taking care of grounds ect, although less as he's relented accepting a managerial promotion, and my mother works for a horse boarding farm. But both have college degrees (father has masters in Resources Management, mother has a bachelors in Entomology). It's sort of straddling the line.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


And the line between "blue-collar" and "white-collar" is often not really clear.

It's pretty clear, but I think much like "middle class" people identify with these terms for reasons beyond their actual definitions.

A lot of people seem to put physical labor as blue collar. However, both my parents do physical labor.

Blue collar defines manual labor outside of agriculture; factory workers, construction workers, miners, janitors, and stuff.

White collar is usually service industry stuff, and office work. Pink collar kind of broke off from white collar to define people who work in customer service, and sales (the front end of the service industries).

There's some jobs that "float" nebulously in these terms, like police officers or technicians. EDIT: There is another division between these terms based on wage earnings; blue collar being hourly, while white collar being salary (pink collar in this dynamic being commission/contract work). At the end of the day though these were terms invented to help with demographic studies. I feel they've since that time taken on lives of their own.

lonestarr777 wrote:
You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.

You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.

You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.

This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.

Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?

Relapse wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.

You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.

You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.

This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.

Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?

That's a reach and a half. But I'm not really surprised.

Relapse wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.

You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.

You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.

This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.

Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?

The primary differrence between the qualifiers being made would see to be; do a dick thing and you're gonna get decked. Dressing up and going out to have a pleasant evening isn't really a dick thing.

Though personally I find trolling racists way funner than punching them

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...

What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.

Like with anything else... more speech.

<not having a go with you Nuggz>

Frankly, I'm finding it very surprising that we have to explain that we don't 'hit' people, not even if someone makes you 'mad'.

I mean, that arguments boils down to "Violence is okay, as long as it's against members of disfavored groups" is horrible and insane.

The man's stated goal included the words 'ethnic cleansing'.

A quick tap to the jaw doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 Spinner wrote:
The man's stated goal included the words 'ethnic cleansing'.

A quick tap to the jaw doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Sure...

S'long as you're willing to suffer the consequences (assault charges filed... or at worst, shot/killed).

lonestarr777 wrote:
I'm so fething tired, I think I'm the only Dakka poster here who's blue collar...

You aren't.

I have to keep my mouth shut or I'll get fired at my job. I have to pretend I'm a racist. That I think Hilary should have been raped in an alley, actual conversation I got dragged into... That everyone on government assistance is subhuman, when my family and I have had to make use of those programs. And I know, there ain't no way in hell to reach these people, to even make them reconsider some of this, you can't reach everyone, you can't fething save everyone from themselves... but by fething god I will smile and thank someone who can stand up and make them think for a minute they done fethed up.

I put up with the same stuff at my job and I've talked about it numerous times in these threads, only no seems to actually pay attention to it. I ignore the ridiculous drivel that spills out of their mouths for the most part and I don't have to pretend to be or think anything because I don't care what the people I work with think about me.

My understanding is that, like NAFTA, there was bi-partisan support and resistance to the TPP. Today, President Trump put the last nail in the TPP's coffin and gave it a viking funeral.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/tpp-trump-trade-nafta.html

What do you guys think about the TPP? Was it good or did it need to go? Will we be protecting American jobs or is this just robbing Peter to pay Paul somehow?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...

What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.

If there is evidence that the cleric may be breaking the law he should be investigated and if he is found to be breaking the law he should be charged and prosecuting. Absent of any evidence of criminal activity the govts should leave the cleric alone same as anybody else. The law applies equally to everybody it's not applied selectively to different people.

Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm talking about before Hitler got into power. If you got sent back in time to the 1930s would you support killing Hitler before he can commit genocide, or would you talk about how Hitler has a right to freedom of speech and we can't commit violence just because he has an opinion we don't like?

(The correct answer is you kill Hitler.)

Yeah, but you don't have the precognitive ability predict who will actually follow up on any rhetoric. You don't kill for an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it. Killing shouldn't be a course of action in the first place, but if it must, it should at least be because something is done, not on a "maybe".

So down with the Bush doctrine?

Not sure what that's supposed to mean? Like how we invaded a country that had documented evidence of chemical weapons, nuclear resources INCLUDING yellow cake, and documents stating the intent to sit on their programs until sanctions were lifted? Probably, probably not, but nice try politicizing something that had nothing to do with D vs R.

Relapse wrote:


Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?

While I don't agree with Lonestarr's conclusions, I can certainly empathise (I think that's the right one?) with his feelings.

However, to take a stab at it, in my own non philosophical way.

The traditional aspect of 'blame the victim' is the act of laying the responsibility of the negative actions on the victim, rather than laying the responsibility on the perpetrator.

Whereas, in those examples, it is, in effect, 'mob justice.' Someone does a violent / negative thing and receives a violent / negative outcome in response. This is not a civil thing to do, however one would then ask, if such an event is happening, is it truly a civil time?

As I keep on repeating in this thread, I'm British and so come with not just a different perspective on things, but also different knowledge and, more importantly, a lack of knowledge (yes, really).

For example, some of the stuff I've been reading over the past couple of weeks as a result of the Trump thing has included references to Martin Luther King Jr speeches (particularly due to the whole spat Trump had with John Lewis a bit ago). So, I'm not completely ignorant of them, - Even the UK knows of the "I have a dream" speech. :p And yeah, being into comic books I was vaguely aware of the ties of the American Civil Rights Movement and The X-Men. Anyhow, I'm wandering off topic...

Basically, I've been reading wee bits and pieces of the MLK things for the very first time and fowks, there really are similarities in there with this whole mess. And I don't mean hysterical type similarities (EG the 'classic' argument of, Hitler likes dogs, you like dogs, you're Hitler!), I mean actual real similarities relating to societal change in America and a push back performed against it by the more privileged groups, and they're not in some of the cheerier 'Inspirational Thought for the Day' style quotes.

And it's not gonna be easy, it's not gonna be clearcut. It's not going to be a case of people being 100% saints. Heck even going too far with the analogies of those times is messy - for example, the last letter/speech I read decried the USA's status as the world's police, something that is currently closer in alignment to Trump's point of view, yet in the same document very much talks against the privileged rich.

So, wow, that was quite a ramble. I think I'll shuffle off to bed now.

 Breotan wrote:
My understanding is that, like NAFTA, there was bi-partisan support and resistance to the TPP. Today, President Trump put the last nail in the TPP's coffin and gave it a viking funeral.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/tpp-trump-trade-nafta.html

What do you guys think about the TPP? Was it good or did it need to go? Will we be protecting American jobs or is this just robbing Peter to pay Paul somehow?

I will give Trump a little credit on this one. TPP looks like it was going to be a mixed bag, and IMO had far too much corporate influence to provide a significant net benefit to US citizens. However, a not-insignificant benefit would be forming stronger economic ties to a lot of countries that are likely going to be knocking on China's door now. I don't really know a whole lot about it, but from what I have read I was struck with the impression that the negotiations had gone on too long with too many sources of input, and that TPP had grown too bloated to make the benefits worth it. Clinton was also against TPP by the time she was running.

I don't really think Trump has gone through the details and evaluated the potential effects, I think its more of a knee-jerk going along with his standard rhetoric. I tentatively believe backing out of the TPP was the right course, or rather not a wrong one. However we should still work on economic treaties with the countries involved, either collectively or individually, as the idea of doing so is good even if TPP was perhaps a bad way of doing it.

 Just Tony wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm talking about before Hitler got into power. If you got sent back in time to the 1930s would you support killing Hitler before he can commit genocide, or would you talk about how Hitler has a right to freedom of speech and we can't commit violence just because he has an opinion we don't like?

(The correct answer is you kill Hitler.)

Yeah, but you don't have the precognitive ability predict who will actually follow up on any rhetoric. You don't kill for an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it. Killing shouldn't be a course of action in the first place, but if it must, it should at least be because something is done, not on a "maybe".

So down with the Bush doctrine?

Not sure what that's supposed to mean? Like how we invaded a country that had documented evidence of chemical weapons, nuclear resources INCLUDING yellow cake, and documents stating the intent to sit on their programs until sanctions were lifted? Probably, probably not, but nice try politicizing something that had nothing to do with D vs R.

Who said anything about D vs. R? I was just asking about your idea about not committing to killing before something is actually done, not just with the possible intent or capability to do it-a maybe.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't really think Trump has gone through the details and evaluated the potential effects, I think its more of a knee-jerk going along with his standard rhetoric.

That's an interesting point because President Trump has also stated that he wants to renegotiate NAFTA. This was another trade deal that both the Republicans and President Clinton liked and a lot of unions hated. Not sure what the President intends to renegotiate and what he thinks is fine. I don't see Mexico or Canada being thrilled about the prospect regardless.

The cynic in me is that they know exactly what they're doing... they're trying to break the Democrat's stranglehold over the union voters...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.

You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.

You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.

This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.

Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?

That's a reach and a half. But I'm not really surprised.

Not at all. If a woman dresses in what some say is a provocative style and goes to unsafe places with less than savory people,there are those who would say it's her fault she got raped.
In my mind it's a similar case if some idiot is spouting racist or Nazi garbage if the person gets decked there are those who would say it was merited, free speech or not.

And I had to check my phone before bed.

The person and the only person responsible if someone gets raped is the rapist. That is how responsibility works.

The person who says Nazi propaganda is responsible for saying Nazi propaganda. The person who punches someone saying Nazi propaganda is responsible for punching someone who says Nazi propaganda.

This should not be controversial.

So Trump just signed an executive order freezing the size of the federal workforce. Meh. What's incredible is in the press conference about the event Sean Spicer told yet another easily disproven lie; “counters the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years."

Except that total federal employees are now 2.8m. When Obama took office total federal employees were... 2.8m. The math nerds among you may recognise that as the same number, and may then go on to notice that when a number is the same as it was before, it hasn't increased.

That kind heavy maths work is beyond Sean Spicer, beyond Trump, and beyond the Republican party (who have been repeating the claim echoed by Trump for years).

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?

Emergency stabilising is not healthcare. That fething bs line needs to fething stop. Because it means pretending that a person with cancer has 'healthcare' even though they will receive no treatment, there will be nothing invested in a cure. It just means that when their organs give up the hospital will do something to get them working again in the short term, while leaving the cancer untreated.

This should make everyone furiously fething angry.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?

Emergency stabilising is not healthcare. That fething bs line needs to fething stop. Because it means pretending that a person with cancer has 'healthcare' even though they will receive no treatment, there will be nothing invested in a cure. It just means that when their organs give up the hospital will do something to get them working again in the short term, while leaving the cancer untreated.

This should make everyone furiously fething angry.

Nor is the ACA or any insurance "healthcare".

Stop conflating insurance to healthcare.

The former is a financial construct... the latter is getting help.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm talking about before Hitler got into power. If you got sent back in time to the 1930s would you support killing Hitler before he can commit genocide, or would you talk about how Hitler has a right to freedom of speech and we can't commit violence just because he has an opinion we don't like?

(The correct answer is you kill Hitler.)

Yeah, but you don't have the precognitive ability predict who will actually follow up on any rhetoric. You don't kill for an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it. Killing shouldn't be a course of action in the first place, but if it must, it should at least be because something is done, not on a "maybe".

Georg Elser. That is all.

 whembly wrote:
The cynic in me is that they know exactly what they're doing... they're trying to break the Democrat's stranglehold over the union voters...

Breaking union influence is certainly a Republican agenda but I'm not entirely certain it's one of President Trump's.

In other news certain to inflame passions all across the internet,

Trump names new FCC chairman: Ajit Pai, who wants to take a 'weed whacker' to net neutrality

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pai-fcc-chairman-20170123-story.html

Let's see how quickly the telecoms abuse this.

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The cynic in me is that they know exactly what they're doing... they're trying to break the Democrat's stranglehold over the union voters...

Breaking union influence is certainly a Republican agenda but I'm not entirely certain it's one of President Trump's.

I think it's Trump's peeps guiding him on this one...

In other news certain to inflame passions all across the internet,

Trump names new FCC chairman: Ajit Pai, who wants to take a 'weed whacker' to net neutrality

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pai-fcc-chairman-20170123-story.html

Let's see how quickly the telecoms abuse this.

There goes the neighborhood...

Looks like regulating the internet as if it's a telecom is going to the wayside.

 whembly wrote:
Nor is the ACA or any insurance "healthcare".

Stop conflating insurance to healthcare.

The former is a financial construct... the latter is getting help.

Of course insurance is part of the healthcare system, it is the means by which almost all people are able to access lifesaving treatment. With insurance a person can get chemo, without insurance almost all people will be able to access chemo.

The idea that the primary means of accessing healthcare would be seen as seperate to the system is utterly ridiculous.

And quite honestly, the idea that you'd sit there are make pedantic arguments like that, or do anything other than say 'we need to make sure the system gives access to treatment for every person with a serious condition' is more than a bit disappointing.

 Compel wrote:
And I had to check my phone before bed.

The person and the only person responsible if someone gets raped is the rapist. That is how responsibility works.

The person who says Nazi propaganda is responsible for saying Nazi propaganda. The person who punches someone saying Nazi propaganda is responsible for punching someone who says Nazi propaganda.

This should not be controversial.

There is the truth of the matter right there.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nor is the ACA or any insurance "healthcare".

Stop conflating insurance to healthcare.

The former is a financial construct... the latter is getting help.

Of course insurance is part of the healthcare system, it is the means by which almost all people are able to access lifesaving treatment. With insurance a person can get chemo, without insurance almost all people will be able to access chemo.

The idea that the primary means of accessing healthcare would be seen as seperate to the system is utterly ridiculous.

And quite honestly, the idea that you'd sit there are make pedantic arguments like that, or do anything other than say 'we need to make sure the system gives access to treatment for every person with a serious condition' is more than a bit disappointing.

Insurance is the most common way to get these treatments... but, it's not the only way.

The other big ones are government programs, ie Medicare/Mediad/TriCare/etc... These aren't 'insurance'... it's a government subsidized system for those who qualify.

And more, hospital organizations (sometimes working with drug companies) offers 'free' treatment to those who qualifies.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do all that we can to ensure access to 'healthcare'...

I'm arguing that the ACA isn't the best way to achieve that...

Prestor Jon wrote:
The ACA doesn't provide people with healthcare. The ACA sets up the system through which the Federal govt funds subsidies for private insurance plans purchased by citizens and for the reimbursement to state govts for the cost of new enrollees in medicare or Medicaid programs. Subsidizing the cost of health insurance =/= providing healthcare.

When you subsidise healthcare and make it available to people with pre-existing conditions, that means people who didn't have healthcare now have it. That means more people have healthcare than had it before. Your argument that government itself isn't actually giving the organ transplant is meaningless nonsense. Without ACA 20 million people would not have access to that treatment.

The ACA increased the number of people with health insurance but it really didn't do much of anything to change the quality of health care and it only had a secondary impact on the availability of health care to the extent that people with active health insurance plans have an easier time getting preventative and long term care at a more reasonable cost than those without health insurance.

"A secondary" impact that increases access to treatment by 20 million people. Holy fething gak what an incredible thing you just posted.

It looks like more than just the interior are trying to piss of Trump with tweets.