That’s not what affirmative action is you cretin. This situation is not even remotely comparable. If you think it is then you’re either a literal child or just a full on bird-brained simpleton (or possibly both).
Instead of seeking to lose a debate through name-calling, I encourage you to focus on constructive techniques that can foster a healthy discussion and lead to personal growth and learning.
It's called satire... If you cannot comprehend the joke, I hope God has blessed you in some other important way. Have a great day!
This isn’t a debate. That person in the video is just a moron, as is everyone who thinks the video makes any kind of remotely valid point.
“iT’s SaTiRe” isn’t the automatic win card that you seem to think it is. The video is making a joke, but in that joke it’s attempting so say something (you know this because you referenced it in the title and caption of this post) — the thing that it’s saying is just stupid and wrong because it’s a false equivalency and a complete misunderstanding of the topic it’s taking about.
If someone proposes an argument and another person tries to counter the proposed argument with the goal being to critically analyze the topic and challenge a position, the conversation becomes a "debate". Regardless of if the setting is formal or not. If you'd prefer to not call the conversation a debate, that's fine, Libs are well known for trying to redefine words to fit their narrative and the definition of debate itself varies depending on which source you query...
Since this isn't a formal debate and you were clear that you didn't think it's a debate at all, why then would you imply that the conversation must have a winner or a loser? Seems contradictory. I certainly didn't tell you that I won because I pointed out something that was seemingly obvious to everyone, besides yourself.
You seem generally confused as you lack the capacity to analyze a simple conversation. If the only thoughts you are capable of explaining are calling people names because you disagree with their position, I doubt you should be anywhere near an entertainment medium and more focused on furthering your education. Maybe then you might be able to comprehend the joke and attack it's position and validity.
I truly hope you have a brighter future ahead of you. Best wishes.
For anyone viewing this comment thread, be aware that the tactic being used here is a common tactic among disingenuous and bad faith actors.
The tactic is to first make a volley that is divisive and controversial, usually lacking in respectful tone or tact with how brazenly illogical it is. Then once engaged with at the appropriate level (calling bullshit what it is), retreats into appeals for civility and decorum as it pertains to rational debate.
The subject being promoted here is not rational, the consequences are not beneficial to society at large, and this person only wants to cling to civility when it benefits him to do so, in order to appear to be a sympathetic victim in comparison to the other person in the dialogue.
Don't fall for this transparent ruse. Learn to identify this pattern. @Unhappily_Coerced has no intention of advancing a real debate.
SCOTUS disagrees and I am so pleased that years of blatant racism is being reversed regarding college admissions. Cannot wait to see what's next!
Many people are saying that my position is wrong, but nobody has yet to try and explain why they think so. Instead we have "bait-and-switched," "reverse-racism," "microaggressions", "bad faith actors," "bird-brained simpleton," etc... It's both hilarious and sad that none of you can provide reinforcement for your positions.
Here's mine: Racism is discrimination by an institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. Literally affirmative action and college admissions. But the libs and leftys will deny this to the death without ever trying to back it up. Why is that?
The subject being promoted here is not rational, the consequences are not beneficial to society at large, and this person only wants to cling to civility when it benefits him to do so, in order to appear to be a sympathetic victim in comparison to the other person in the dialogue.
I couldn't care less how many names the members of m/politics call me. It's honestly hilarious how fresh this site is yet how much of an echo chamber it has already become. If you want to be m/lib-scum or m/donkey-politics... I'd totally get that, I wouldn't support it, but I'd recognize that at least you tried. Instead, you're m/politics, so you should surely expect that both sides of current arguments would be present. I was surprised that this assumption was false.
So, you get what ask for.
On another note, I'm not attempting to "appear as a victim," we have enough leftys and libs doing that on a daily basis, I certainly wouldn't want to come off as soft headed or cowardice as that lot. I'm simply calling out the bullshit as I see it. I'm certainly not claiming I'm innocent of bullshitting and name calling.
Was I wrong? Why not instead of just spewing malarkey you try and bolster your position on the matter? Instead we get "mickey mouse attempt," "reverse racism," and "full blown trite"... How is any of that useful to the discussion at hand? It isn't. If you want to be taken seriously, redeem yourself and give it a go.
6 examples of a trans person also being a sex pest doesn’t mean that all of them are, and it certainly doesn’t mean that granting legal protection and freedom to transgender people causes women to get assaulted/harassed by them. Do you know how many examples of cis men being sexual predators we could find in just a few minutes of googling things like “pastor arrested” or “republican senator arrested”. Does that mean we should start making it illegal for people to identify as republicans in public? should we make it illegal for the clergy to get anywhere near children? Maybe we should, but you won’t see any of these “wont somebody please think of the children” types calling for either of those, even though they’re clearly bigger threats statistically.
6 examples of a trans person also being a sex pest doesn’t mean that all of them are
I agree.
But there are plenty more than the 6 covered in this video... Not regarding assaults, but regarding general sexual behavior towards minors, see public nudity at pride parades, "drag shows for kids", kids themselves featured in drag shows, etc. Bizarro world, indeed...
certainly doesn’t mean that granting legal protection and freedom to transgender people causes women to get assaulted/harassed by them.
I don't believe anyone implied that. The video implied that allowing trans people into whichever bathroom they choose to enter was considered "safe" but this doesn't constitute "legal protection and freedoms".
Trans people, in the US, have just as many "legal protections and freedoms" as any other normal person. The aspect of this discussion where the matter at hand becomes controversial is that you might think men pretending to be women should be allowed into legally protected spaces that are specifically for women, whereas anyone with a moral compass would see that this ideology is fundamentally flawed.
I don't want you to think that I am not empathetic to the complexity of the situation. I think it is very important to consider our options moving forward... I've asked this question a few times in other discussions but I'm always willing to hear a fresh take on it.
Men and women are segregated for specific reasons regarding bathrooms and locker rooms. So when we have a group of people which can freely transverse these spaces, there is reasonable concern. What needs to happen to ensure that all persons are free and comfortable in their public spaces? Should we be erecting new public facilities that cater specifically to trans people? Do we need separate spaces for both trans men and trans women? Similarly, should we also make spaces for gay persons?
Sorry. This is the world we live in. I too would like to know the way back to a place where people can easily define the differences between a man and a woman.
Wouldn’t it be fun to shut everyone up with proof? If you could just drop a links that proved your nonsense about this kooks ‘receipts’ everyone would be so impressed and enlightened. But- if you could you would.
I read the news articles, from various sources. I trust you can not only find the same articles, but do your own due diligence. It's quite sad that this simple task is seemingly so difficult for you lot.
Yes and I trust in your ability to use online search engines too instead of ignoring what has been brought to your attention. If you refuse to see what is obvious to others, it does not make it untrue.
I hope God has blessed you in some other important way. Best wishes.
I’m vision impaired so search results are difficult for me to comb through quickly. If you’re not just a lying liar I would appreciate it if you provided what you found that you think verified this kook’s rant.
I really wish there were more viable alternatives to Youtube, but since so many peoples' livelihoods rely on having the largest audience possible, they're pretty much forced to use YouTube.
The Siege of AR-558 is one of my favourite DS9 episodes during the Dominion War because it really shows you the gritty horrible nature of war, up until that point it never really hits you but then you see these guys on the front lines for months at a time turning into as quark says blood thirsty klingons.
My only gripe with the episode is it would have been a fantastic two-parter.
Right? Like it or not, we live in a society dominated by money. A very small number of Linux distributions have found a way to sustainably produce an excellent product. That's a good thing. The alternatives are either burnout or insecurity.
RedHat is only going to provide source code to their paying customers. This is legally compliant with the GPL. This has made a lot of people mad because there are a lot of distros that are essentially copy/pasted Redhat code that people use.
@wave_walnut Thanks, the recap was important to understand what happened so far. As it seems, the writing was on the wall. Now I understand why so many was against Red Hat, similar to how they were against Canonical (but for other reasons).
I don’t get the Canonical hate. They are innovative and have contributed a lot to the Linux community. Also, Linux is their focus. Without companies like them, development would be a lot slower.
@exohuman It's not hating everything, but criticizing certain aspects they did in the past or they do now. I don't know how long you are using Linux, but I did start with Ubuntu in 2008 and used it exclusively for 13 years (approx.). Just because a company was good in the beginning does not mean it is now too.
Examples why is listed in the above linked video. In the past, Canonical was criticized for not working on Wayland and instead creating their own alternative that is MIR. Due to the popularity of Ubuntu, that would make things in the Linux world complicated as MIR and Wayland need to be developed and supported. Instead using GNOME or any other existing desktop environment, they started their own. While I found that perfectly okay, in the beginning it looked like focus on tablets and was not good in the beginning (I actually liked Unity desktop environment later).
Now they are pushing Snaps, which will create another eco system that besides Flatpak. And it is mostly just for Ubuntu. Snaps were bad in the beginning, so it got a bad image from the start. That's not all. The servers for Snaps is proprietary. And you can't just add another source to Snaps, like you can do with Flatpaks. Meaning if you have your own server with Snaps delivery, you need to opt out of Snapcraft .io servers from Canonical. Do you want know more? One of the reasons I left Ubuntu was that Snaps are spamming the loop devices (most don't care). Then there is this clunky PPA system, which has some problems too (and why Canonical ties to switch to Snap instead).
What else do we have? Ah yes. Do you know about the Amazon incident? Ubuntu had spyware built-into their search functionality, where Amazon would get search queries without the consent of the users.
And not all, there was plans to drop support for 32 bit libraries, which would make gaming with Steam really bad. Obviously this is not something everyone cares, but that was an important reason for many not to use Ubuntu anymore. Because of the uncertainty.
I am not suggesting that everything is bad! Just listing a few things why the community started to dislike Ubuntu. Also nowadays nothing innovative comes from Ubuntu; it's stale, it's boring. Which is fine if you like that, but that is not innovative or leading anymore. The landscape of alternatives changed. I personally don't hate Canonical or Ubuntu. I stopped using it for several other reasons too, not just because of the listed problems. Some exaggerate and start hating in the internet.
And not all, there was plans to drop support for 32 bit libraries, which would make gaming with Steam really bad. Obviously this is not something everyone cares, but that was an important reason for many not to use Ubuntu anymore. Because of the uncertainty.
This contributed to Valve switching SteamOS to Arch.
@falsem I remember. But at that time, Steam OS 2 was already based on Debian and not Ubuntu anymore. Steam OS 1 was based on Ubuntu if I remember correctly. Therefore what Ubuntu does wouldn't affect Valve anyway. So I don't know how much this played a role in switching to Arch. So the timing might be just coincidence.
“Your griefs, your pains, fix you to moments in the past long gone. You’re like butterflies with your wings pinned.”
I think this is the theme of PIC season 2, and not just for Picard. Processing and accepting the impact of past choices and actions in the here and now. Seven expressing the impact of her post-VOY treatment by others. Raffi admitting to herself that she holds too tightly to those who are important to her in the now because of her fear of loss based on past experiences. Her loss of: Starfleet; her credibility because of her theory about the sythn attack on Mars; and, herself and her family due to her addictions afterwards. Rios’ moment of growth when he moves on from always feeling adrift since the events on the Ibn Majid. Agnes and the Borg Queen bonding over shared feelings of loneliness. A strange combo, but one I think Alison Pill and Annie Wersching’s strong performances completely sold.
I think PIC season 2’s overarching story is muddled because the separate parts seem related more by happenstance rather than being a solid, cohesive narrative. However, I think season 2’s theme is always strong, and it resonates with me.
One of the things I love about Star Trek is when it makes me think about how I think. PIC season 2 has me doing a lot of self-reflection. I enjoy, and re-watch, PIC season 2.
Extreme analogies are often used in order to wake people up to the conversation they're having (or just for fun)
She put attacker into the literal sense which people could hopefully compare to regular situations of 'person who deals harm vs person who receives harm'
youtu.be
Hot