Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - D.W.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
1
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: January 02, 2018, 04:00:38 PM »
Quote
I don't think the country has settled out on what we think is reasonable.
The problem isn't about what is reasonable.  We could very easily agree on that standard.  In fact, we have laws that if followed and enforced already go a long way towards that end.

What we suck at, is the sliding scale of how much value we place on an individual and balance that against their behavior (known, alleged or suspected).  There is no 'scandal' when it's a nobody who gets caught acting in a way we find 'unreasonable'.  What we haven't settled on, is how much hypocrisy are we willing to allow ourselves when the 'unreasonable behavior' demands we sacrifice someone of value to us.

2
General Comments / Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi
« on: December 26, 2017, 05:24:30 PM »
In the now "no longer cannon" history of Star Wars, the galaxy has been space-faring for as long as anyone can remember.  The Drake may be onto something about the engineers.  Though, the counter argument would be that the Empire is constantly trying to one up themselves with bigger weapons or bigger ships.  The underlying tech though seems to have stagnated for millennia.

Crunch nailed it.  This is fantasy that hand waves the tech and adds actual space-magic as the true measure of power.

3
General Comments / Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi
« on: December 25, 2017, 09:44:57 PM »
Quote
Darth Emo is what?  A teen looking for approval?  That's the dumbest back story for a Sith Lord I've ever heard.  Especially since he seems to have had it at home (or a least we can infer he didn't feel a lack from his failure to accuse his father of failing him).
This was exactly why I was REALY hoping he was a sleeper agent sent by Luke / His parents.  THAT would have been a cool twist, but maybe too deep/dark for a "kids movie".

Quote
Leia survives hard vacuum to miraculously fly like superman back to medical (presumably due to her use of the force). Someone in the theater loudly exclaimed, “you gotta be *censored*ing kidding me”. Nobody shushed him because he was just saying what we were all thinking.
Maybe she tried to pull the ship to her?  At least that wouldn't be a totally unheard of application of the force...  But I gotta agree.  I certainly was thinking that.

4
General Comments / Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi
« on: December 19, 2017, 09:45:22 PM »
SPOILERS NON STOP

So first, I enjoyed the movie.  But there were some just weird decisions made for this flick.

Bombs dropping in space?  WTF
Leia is suppose to be strong with the force but... EVA flying back to her ship without a suit?  Umm... WTF?*
*Why strain to keep her alive in an odd new power kinda way when it could have been an impactful way to write her character out after the actress' death?
Leading to:  Why resolve this movie with Leia still alive?  WTF
The "chase" scene, could have been solved by 1 of the 1st order ships jumping ahead to cut them off... right?
As mentioned the hyperspace ramming attack also throws a lot of cannon out the airlock.  At least a token, "We've had our top engineers disable the safety measures blah blah blah."  Nope!
When slicing a giant ship into two, that has a side effect of providing a distraction for 2 captives; I'd like to have 3PO run the odds of every single person on deck being killed or incapacitated other than our 2 heroes. 
Oh, and last; I missed it.  WHAT were they tracking?  I get that the plan was to turn off the scanner doing the tracking, but what were they fixed on?  Did they say?  I assumed Fin had an implant or something, but he got whisked away and nobody on the 1st Order ship commented on the signal moving.




Now, big narrative questions / alternate directions.
So Luke is gone now, or at least is slipping into mentor ghost mode.  Not a terrible decision, but strange.  He basiclly spent the whole movie saying he didn't want to be in this movie, then provided a distraction for the bad guys so the good guys could all run away... 
I was hoping for Kylo Ren to be a sleeper agent that only Luke (and maybe Han or Leia) knew about.  Killing Han in a ploy to get into a position to off Snoke and dismantle / seize control of the 1st order.  No such luck...
Failing that, I was hoping Luke would be more specific in his whole "let the Jedi die" rant, that Rey should become a "grey jedi".  But nope, nothin there either.

5
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 04:35:39 PM »
Quote
Does anyone else catch that disconnect around the only way to be free is through government control? Orwellian as hell ain’t it?
Agreed.  And it does bother me.  However, I've long considered "big business" rather than "the man" as the true threat and puppet master.  It's a collaboration sure, but what can ya do?

Quote
How much do you all pay?
$130
Middle of the road TV channel line up, with a free year of 3 premium channels as a promotion.
High end on speed for the internet.
Now with bonus land line I'm not using.


6
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 04:14:10 PM »
It's worth mentioning this isn't JUST about data either.  Comcast isn't overly concerned with data when they hit me with 4x 5 commercial stops over the course of an "hour" long episode of something when I stream a TV show. 

It's that when I use Netflix I'm not being advertised to.  I'm not a source of additional money paid to them (by the advertisers) on top of the monthly rate I pay Comcast.

So it's not just that "those Netflix users should pay more because they use more."  It's also "those Netflix users should pay more because we aren't making as much money off them."

7
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 03:53:02 PM »
I'll throw this out there.

Should internet access be looked upon as a public utility? Why or why not?
No.  They should BE public utilities.  Not looked upon as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

Down side?  Inviting Big Brother to come on in and stay awhile.  :)

8
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 02:19:50 PM »
Quote
I don't see how the "anti-NN" arguments fall apart, when they are expressly supportive of breaking those monopolies and designed to provide a benefit and an incentive to doing so.
I think most of us got caught up in the "save the internet" by tieing the hands of these monopolies and missed this part.

Care to elaborate Seriati?

9
I wasn't defending Trump throwing gasoline on a fire, just don't think we need to attribute more blame than is his due.   :P

10
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 02:15:12 PM »
Think of it like the 2nd amendment for the internet. 

11
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 01:58:26 PM »
Well lets look at Torrenting.  A lot of games use this method now to distribute patch content.  If ISP's flag all torrenting, then false positives are gonna pop up.

Also, with NN in place, there was no reason to sniff out "abusers" and determine if what they are doing is illegal or not.  Something ISP's would want to do because putting an end to illegal activity makes them the good guy, not the selfish juggernaut stamping out someone exceeding their data ration (that we all have, but not really).

It incentives them invading our privacy even more.  More data mining is done because they can not only see where they could attempt to cut in on popular turf, but they can then sabotage those existing services/content as well giving them an even bigger edge.

Sure, this will improve innovation and content creation.  By the ISP's.  Others are going to have their hard work stolen from underneath them.

12
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 01:27:22 PM »
Listen, prices are going up regardless.  We simply put use more internet now and will use even more in the future.  We NEED more infrastructure. 

The only difference is in how this is "sold" to the customers.  Net Neutrality didn't stop the price from going up.  It stopped the service from going down in ways you are not meant to notice.  Then, it is going to go up for those who DO notice and want those "premiums" back.

Either way, you'll be paying more for what you have now.  (If that's even an option.)

13
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 01:13:01 PM »
It went through...

This guy thinks that a page (facebook or twitter or google) giving priority or censoring is the same thing we are worried ISP's may do.  :(

I can decide to not go to those sites if it's a problem...  I can't necessarily "go elsewhere" for my internet connection.  :( 

I do like how he states that "tomorrow the internet will still be there and all these terrible things won't happen."  Without addressing the fact that they all COULD over time.

14
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 12:04:10 PM »
I just received a call from my ISP/cable company.  Presently I ONLY use internet, watching TV, streamed only rarely from something like AMC which comes with my cable tv package.   I do get HBO (for the streaming) but there is now an option for that without cable TV.  I "waste" money on TV because of the internet speeds I want.

There is no internet only option from them that doesn't cost more or is at a reduced transfer rate.

So, they want to get me into a new package to "help me out."  I first do the run around about the above issue.  "Nope, still the case.  Can't reduce your superfluous items and save you money."  Fine, expected.

"Oh, BTW, if you do nothing, your current package goes up $15 after the first of the year."  <sigh>

"For only $5 more from the current rate, I can get you more channels, 2 premium channels (one of which I had just canceled to save $15 bucks), and a phone line!" (that I'll never even plug in)

So I "saved" 10 bucks next year for this 1 year introductory rate, after which I have to remember to cancel pretty much everything or get shafted on a rate hike.

THIS.  This is why we need Net Neutrality.  These *censored*ers are not trustworthy.  They are predators.  We need consumer protection FROM them. 

I spend enough on my cell phone and internet/cable each month to feed a family of 4...  They can keep up their end of the deal for the bandwidth they sold me without trying to ding me again for more cash, thanks.

15
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 11:16:16 AM »
Quote
So why isn't it reasonable to ask Netflix, and those that consume its service, to help with the cost of this or allow ISP's to manage it so the internet does not collapse?
This one is so easy it always makes me wonder why it's asked.

Customers pay their ISP for X bandwidth.
Netflix pays their ISPs for X bandwidth.

Why should either pay again?

This is purely a case of ISP's selling X bandwidth then being all grumpy that people have the audacity of using most or all of that bandwidth constantly when they assumed it would be spike usage.

If the prices have to go up or they need to create more tiers with data caps or different thru-put rates, fine.  But I'm pretty insistent that I get what I pay for and they keep their hands off what I do with that data.

16
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 11:13:36 AM »
Crunch, you aren't wrong about the wingnut doomsayers out there preaching the worst case scenarios.  While I am quite concerned as I honestly only have 2 options worth of "competition" here, a lot of these theoreticals would kill the consumer end of ISP's if they dared to attempt them.

But does that mean, "what problems did we have before?" is a defense for repealing Net Neutrality.  This was an amazing case of the government protecting consumers BEFORE they got screwed over.  If it's all unnecessary stuff preventing things that would never happen... Then no harm done!

If it's actually causing real problems, that solving would not exploit customers, then I've got no problem with revisions to the guidelines.

17
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 09:48:43 AM »
Well, I amend my earlier reply.  I hadn't, until reading from people here, found anyone in support of the repeal.  :P

18
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 14, 2017, 09:05:28 AM »
Crunch,

Quote
Obviously not true and you certainly know that. I said the same things about Franken as I have Moore and the need to allow for due process. You're just making things up as you go along now. :o

You have repeatedly stated that the photo shows Al Franken groping the women, even after it has been demonstrated that he is pantomining.  So yes, you believe bad things about Democrats even after there is evidence contradicting your belief.

The man's resigning.  It went beyond that and it's kinda silly to argue this point.  While Crunch's "what about Franken?" sure had the look of 'whataboutism', he was consistent on this.  Him being labeled as purely partisan (on this subject) was juvenile and, IMO wrong.

19
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 08:55:01 AM »
I've never talked with anyone who (having an opinion at all) is in favor of that.

The only legit-sounding argument I've ever heard raised is a security one.  "I've identified a bad actor but am unable to just block them."  I don't know how credible that argument is, but even if it is, that seems something easy to sort out.

20
Have we ever been neutral about it though?  I mean, we're (were?  mostly?) pro-stability, but have we ever been neutral?

21
General Comments / Re: Are in person prison visitations a right?
« on: December 12, 2017, 07:22:36 PM »
Quote
So what's the difference between skype and a solid barrier with a telephone?
Off the top of my head?  "Camera's broken this week."  where in reality the prisoner got the *censored* kicked out of them and the facility would rather not let the family of that prisoner see the physical signs of said beating.

Not to mention more corrupt application of, "computer problems, sorry, not our fault" as unsanctioned punishment.

22
General Comments / Re: Are in person prison visitations a right?
« on: December 12, 2017, 07:19:17 PM »
I think a good compromise would be to allow more frequent or longer duration visits if you opt for this method.  It does seem like a good security option and cost cutter from the stand point of the prison.

I think cutting off in person visits entirely though is a tougher call.  Maybe you reduce them, but eliminating them I don't think is fair.  I mean, you'd still need in person lawyer visits IMO, so you've got some infrastructure for it remaining no matter what. 

Also, if you did make e-visits a thing, you'd need to make available for the  visitors access to them.  This could be as simple as a booth/computer at the local police station or public libraries.  I know we like to think of the PC (with internet access, and a mic/camera) as no big deal, but it's not a given.  Even if it's not face to face, it can't be MORE restrictive in terms of access IMO.

If I'm not mistaken, the State Police station (with holding facilities on site) near me already has this type of video phone system in place.

23
General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: December 12, 2017, 05:09:42 PM »
I read something about this plan driving up the value of the dollar, which in turn hurts exports.  Is this just a minor "won't be as good as you hope" nay-saying?  Or is their any merit to this line of thinking? 

On the wages front, our market is already as competitive and qualified as ever, yet wage growth hasn't reflected this.  As unemployment numbers go down, you would think compensations should go up.  But maybe this is going to be the silver bullet.  Maybe this town trickle down economics will save the day...    ::)

I'm not against making us more attractive from a global perspective, but the sham salesmanship BS on this bill is annoying. 

24
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 12, 2017, 01:03:18 PM »
Quote
Certainly we've all been conditioned to accept the accusations of sexual assault as true but accusations alone are not proof.
I never said it was proof.  I was a juror once on a trial of sexual assault.  While I (and I think most of the jurors) believed the accuser, there was enough doubt that a conviction seemed impossible.  To about half of us... 

How we think about people and how we treat them can be a lot different than what we feel the legal system should do.  The latest flurry of news on this issue is not about trials or convictions.

Quote
Well, we may not all agree, but I thought his opponent should have been charged with a felony and forced to remove her bid for the Presidency.
I think if the system was going to deal with Hillary, it had plenty of time to do so.  That this was even a thought experiment worth posing made her a terrible candidate IMO.  You don't need to convince me we were forced to chose between two *censored*ty options.  That one choice was bad and the other certifiably insane, I think we differ on though.  ;)


Quote
By all accounts, the conduct he was accused of was dating, and virtually all of it was dating people it was legal to date.
I think I've gone over my personal position on men dating women of this age significantly younger than them as reason enough for me to heap derision upon them.  If they cross a legal line as well, I want to see that enforced to the maximum allowable amount.

Quote
That doesn't mean that I agree that the "other person" involved victimized them.  Like it or not, there's a gap between how one person feels about another's conduct and how that person intends the conduct.
You’ve just hit on why this societal problem is so hard to address.  When two people can agree on the facts and one person feels victimized and the other is incapable of seeing what they did was wrong, we’ve got a problem.  Having your career taken away from you is a good way to correct that problem moving forward.  Setting an example for others.  Self interest can take the place of a lot of character deficits. 

Quote
I think we all agree that men abusing their power over women for their own desires is wrong.  But we have to be careful not to draw the line of abuse solely by the eye of the victim.
This gets into what is a reasonable standard of behavior.  That’s where we draw the line.  When we are talking about cases from years or decades back, I think it’s worth considering what that standard was at the time.  But most accusations are of a serious enough nature that if they are made public, people agree when that line is crossed.  It’s vanishingly rare that we are at risk of drawing the line differently than a victim making an allegation. 

Quote
Honestly, what is the basis of an "accusers" claim that someone took them on a date 40 years ago? 
This again shows my lack of research into Moore and his accusers.  Did he have sex with them or not?  Kissing?  Sexual touching?  The term “date” can range from “totally harmless interaction like speaking with them over dinner” to, “ya, we were *censored*ing over the course of many months.”  The spin on this topic makes me dizzy.
Quote
Then believe them, be sympathetic to them, but use your reason to evaluate their claims.  Treating Moore like Weinstein is insane. 
I don’t.  With Weinstein I was quite pleased seeing him forced out.  With Moore, I just thought that type of behavior was not appropriate for an elected official.  (read as, I hoped he wouldn’t win or would withdraw.)  The time that passed and the type of activity described (consensual yet mostly legal) I didn’t expect it to go anywhere in the courts.  Bill’s term was just as I was starting to take an interest in politics.  I paid attention to the impeachment proceedings but honestly didn’t pay much attention to the non-Lewinski allegations.  I guess my focus shifted after I got out of my 20s?  I’d probably judge Bill a lot differently today to be honest.  Then again, the fact that Hillary tolerated his disrespectful behavior is a character defect to me and no doubt influenced why I was never a supporter of hers. 

25
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 12, 2017, 11:14:32 AM »
While I may disagree on if his (alleged) behavior is less concerning you are correct that it's also political.  I believe a lot of this "we need to punish serial harassers" sentiment is directed at Trump.  Whether Trump is guilty of it or not, there's a lot of people who believe he is.  And they believe he should have been forced to remove his bid for the presidency because of it.  Instead, he became our president. 

This raised the temperature of the pressure cooker a few more degrees.  To those who are convinced Trump is a serial harasser if not abuser of women, I think many feel that even if HE ends up untouchable, others are not. 

The more people who resign, the more people who will come forward with their stories of harassment / assault.  If you believe these allegations from women, they've already been victimized.  They are likely to be villainized as well in the press by the person who harassed them and that person's defenders.  If achieving some kind of change and justice is not seen as likely, most will continue to keep quiet.

If people are held to account, more scum will be taken out of circulation.

There will be people who attempt to ride this sentiment for political gain or revenge through false allegations.  Maybe Moore is the victim of this.  My default position is to believe the accusers.

26
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 12, 2017, 10:07:58 AM »
The part that strikes me as strange is how Moore's campaign has sold (is trying to sell?) the "Why did they wait till now?" line as a defense.  Like they are obvious to the whole #Metoo trend and all the news of people's careers crumbling due to harassment issues. 

Why now?  Because it looks like our society just might be prepared to deal with this now.  Also, better now before he's elected into this office.  The answer to the question is, "Because it may actually matter to people now."

27
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 11, 2017, 03:20:05 PM »
As I said, I'll try and watch it later when I get home.  But my understanding was as follows.

She claimed he wrote the whole thing.  (or at least didn't correct anyone when they assumed that?)
Time passes.
She admits that she wrote part of it.

"Forgery" may be a mischaracterization but it seems like (based on 2nd hand reporting I heard in passing) she mislead people.

Whether this was part of a false claim or used to provide weight to her true claim is another thing.

28
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 11, 2017, 02:33:12 PM »
Quote
There should be no confusion here, Nelson admitted this on ABC News
Thanks Crunch.  I had heard or read that was the case but thought maybe it was muddier than that due to DonaldD's post.  Will try and watch the clip later. 

29
General Comments / Re: Defeat ISIS, check.
« on: December 11, 2017, 02:29:53 PM »
If we can't manage it alone, Obama will shower us with money to "fix" the ISIS threat.
If we can't manage it alone, Trump will shower us with bombs to "fix" the ISIS threat.

To be fair, as much as I agree with others that it's unwise to attribute too much weight to the president alone on this...  That reasoning (whether it was a bluff or not) could be... motivational.

Mostly though, I think that we'd see a similar state of ISIS had Hillary won. 

30
General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: December 11, 2017, 10:29:42 AM »
You could probably contest this one and maybe, with a sympathetic judge, get out of it.  Police can harass people or experience road rage as well.  A badge doesn't make you immune to this behavior.  Having a cop follow you can make even exceptionally lawful drivers nervous.  You could argue the officer created a driving distraction and that was why you failed to see the stop sign. 

But at that point it's your word against theirs as far as how long they were following you and if they just happened to be going the same way or were stalking you. 


31
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 11, 2017, 10:24:00 AM »
Quote
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed
Well, no, it hasn't.  I know Moore's people are making that claim, and some people are swallowing it, but one needs to be selectively ignoring the evidence available to do so.   
And this is why a trustworthy media is something we should encourage and protect.  When we can't even be sure if a person confessed to forging something, things have gone to hell.  Not conflicting reports about someone allegedly having forged all or part of the writing, or an accusation about who made the forgery...  But at question is whether or not someone admitted to doing so?  (weakening or entirely dismantling their own accusations in the process)  WTF?   >:(

32
General Comments / Re: Defeat ISIS, check.
« on: December 11, 2017, 10:11:24 AM »
Trump the delegator, and Trump the disinterested, always seemed like the best case scenario.  It's Trump the micromanager, or Trump the spontaneous we worry about.

33
General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: December 06, 2017, 05:13:27 PM »
Quote
Maybe, or the story is that they are not at all impartial and smacked down on provable examples of bias that got leaked.  Keep in mind they have been stonewalling Congress on why Strzok was removed from the team.
So the criticism is that they didn’t explain early on that they weeded him out due to partisan conversations?  I get that it sounds juicy, but isn’t this predictable?  Hey, we wana shut down claims we aren’t being impartial and this kinda *censored* is gonna be a problem.  Lets just remove him from the team quietly. 
Why quietly?  Because it’s more of an ethics thing than a legal thing (as I understand it).  Why mess with the guy’s career when you don’t have to?
Quote
Actually, they did do nothing. Peter Strzok was not sent packing until will after he'd already helped cover for Hillary and her email server and the damage was done to Flynn - and it may actually compromise the case against Flynn, from a former prosecutor and judge:
So to you, this isn’t about the Trump campaign/administration at all?  At issue is that no partisan ship or political speech or donations is acceptable at all amongst the FBI?  Not sure I follow this point at all.

Not only what TheDrake said about the % of people, but this president is openly hostile and derogatory towards the whole agency.  Demanding professionalism is one thing, that they all be politically neuter is something else.

34
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 06, 2017, 01:19:21 PM »
That depends on how competitive his seat is...  :(

35
General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: December 06, 2017, 11:32:37 AM »
Just a quick aside:  Isn't it a GOOD thing if they are dropping people for partisan activity / speech?  Wouldn't it be a big deal if they found out about this and did nothing? 

I get that Fox would want to raise this story as a special treat to a partisan base.  "See, we KNEW it was a witch hunt!" but that's not the story.  The story is they are trying to remain impartial and may even be exercising an excess of caution on that front due to the seriousness of the investigation.

Which, is not much of a story anyway, unless you are prone to believe the FBI isn't impartial...  Which makes it a story that caters to a specific type of network.

36
General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: December 06, 2017, 11:21:51 AM »
Anyone up to speed on the corporate minimum tax?  It sounded like this may be ironed out when the two bills get reconciled.  Was this intentional?  Cut the tax rate but maintain the minimum (which is almost the same as the top now)?

37
General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: December 04, 2017, 01:44:54 PM »
Maybe the morals of the story are:

1. Don't commit fraud.
2. If you are falsely accused of fraud, show up and dispute the charges.
3. If you don't accomplish 1 or 2, maybe you should avoid drawing attention to yourself - politically or otherwise.
4. You shouldn't go through life attempting to piss people off as much as possible.
Or...

When you find yourself unable to pay for the legal fees and sentence related to your fraudulent activities, see if you can become internet-famous!  This way, when you do eventually go to trial, you can do so with the benefit of some sweet SJW cash via a GoFundMe or similar scheme. 

I mean it's not like this reaction was unforeseeable in TX.  Maybe I shouldn't just assume the decal displaying driver is a tool?

38
General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: November 30, 2017, 04:11:41 PM »
It's a perception problem.  Wouldn't it be possible to write the tax code in such a way that allowed them to get deductions for raising wages? 

There is no public trust in trickle-down economics.  Citing it as a sure thing is ridiculous, even if economic theory makes a well reasoned case for it.

If the objective is to help out the middle class "average working American" there are more strait forward ways. 

Even if we get a best case scenario outcome on this, which seems fanciful to most, the optics on it are terrible.  If the PR on this bill was a movie trailer, I think everyone walking out of the theater would be wondering WTF they just watched.  Then we hope that 5-10 years later there will be a cult following of fans and everyone will forget the BS trailer used to lure some in for opening weekend numbers?  :)

39
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 30, 2017, 04:03:57 PM »
Quote
Effectively sex attacks were completely one sided even though the behavior was not.
Mostly this criticism was related to LGBTQ issues as well as the whole sanctity of marriage arguments more often than not tied into religion.  Democrats, the far more secular of the two parties as well as more open to the LGBTQ community weren't vulnerable to this brand of hypocrisy. 

So being the party that delighted in exposing hypocrits now puts them in an interesting position.  You nailled it.  Both parties are equal offenders towards women they have influence over, or just believe they can bully or pay off to excuse their behavior.

 
Quote
It would be incredibly damaging to them to get caught defending sex abusers like they did with Clinton, and the only real hope is either to turn on them harshly (which they haven't been willing to do) or convince everyone to overlook their hypocrisy.
Side stepping the jab at Clinton, which I have mixed feelings about him being lumped into this same basket, we're going to see them turn on people.  The Democratic party is too invested in their brand as the enlightend open party defending people, not preying on exploiting or hating people who are different.  Pointing out hypocracy is who we are now.  There isn't any chance to convince people to overlook things.

That's not to say you won't hear a lot of "A is not the same thing as B!" arguments.  But, while that distinction may be important for where we draw the line of public opinion making someone unable to govern, we'll see a lot more of sacrificing people "for the greater good" when the line is blurry. 

I would point out that the "which they haven't been willing to do" is a bit out of context.  Nobody has been willing.  Not in corporate America, not in government, not in the military, not in the entertainment industry.  This (seems to be) a tectonic shift in women's rights / workplace equality.  We'll see who is and isn't willing to do anything about it moving forward.

40
General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: November 30, 2017, 11:40:07 AM »
I think it will pass.  As much as even the Republican congress is loath to give Trump a win, and alienate large swaths of the country who don't like this bill...

They MUST pass something of note soon or they're all toast.

41
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 30, 2017, 11:36:50 AM »
I seem to be an outlier on this one.  Don't think me addressing it adds much to the conversation; but since you asked...  I don't have a clear cut answer that addresses the fact that teens are going to be sexually active before I feel they are mature (and often informed) enough to make good decisions. 

I would go so far as to say I don't have much of a problem with 17-20 year olds getting it on with each other on a moral level.  To me at least 21 is as good a place as any (and better than most) to draw a line as "adult".  After that, yer stuck with other "adults".

But D.W., you just said 17-20 is OK!  What happens when that 20 year old turns 21?  Well, the 17 year old is about to turn 18...  Which explains why I feel "18 (or possibly even older)" seems to work well enough.

But as others have pointed out, being turned on by under age (under 18) girls is a thing.  I suppose I should include boys as well to keep the conversation more broad.  Also, ages very from state to state and country to country as well, with many (most?) trending even younger.  So probably I'm probably not the best person to draw moral lines in the sand for the rest of society to follow.  At least not if you want the line to remain uncrossed...

42
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 29, 2017, 04:52:37 PM »
Quote
We don't have a culture where people are sorry for their actions, only one where they are sorry they got caught.
This is the heart of the matter.  We are also at a point where “getting caught” is more likely than not.  And when that accusation or evidence gets out, it spreads at a speed and with a range like never before. 
Quote
There's a ton of hypocrisy here.  Just like the hypocrisy in the same news media figures who were outraged at Trump's abusive comments on women being caught out for actual abuse of women. 
Another important point.  Or two rather.  The allergy to hypocrisy is growing (to get in a likely partisan jab here), at least on the left.  So it doesn’t shock me that there is some house cleaning going on.  Err on the side of the accuser.  And Seriati is correct to bring Trump into this and the outrage around him.  A lot of this is indeed because of him. 

Here’s this man being flagrantly degrading to women, and brushing off accusations by women with pretty much zero repercussions.  But going after him while knowingly excusing equal or similar behavior by those partisans would place in “the other camp” poses a problem.  So the only way to maintain the moral high ground, when someone is wallowing in the mud without repercussions, is to set a new standard. 

I expect we’re going to see more false allegations soon though and I don’t think we can count on all news reporting or company management reviews to be as careful about getting caught up in them.  Curious to see how things progress after the first one or two big names turn up to be innocent victims of “fake news”; or rather, by plots perpetrated by those attempting to discredit the avenues by which the public stays informed.

I’m glad that this topic is receiving such attention.  I’m glad to see heads roll and look forward to what lasting changes may occur in the work place if it does continue.  But it IS politics.  So I’m trying not to look a gift horse in the mouth. 

43
General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 29, 2017, 11:21:34 AM »
Quote
Were you arrested for speeding or the other crime? If you're in the cell and they ask you, "what are you in for?" what are you gonna say? Speeding?
You are correct.  You are also missing the point that is being made.  Just had to make sure you were hung up on what I thought you were, rather than contesting the point being made.

Talking past each other.

44
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 29, 2017, 10:53:03 AM »
A good comparison Crunch.  I think the response is to be horrified by both.  But that's just me. 

45
General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 29, 2017, 10:47:12 AM »
Quote
If you got pulled over for doing 60 in a 55 mph zone and the officer discovered you had a warrant for your your arrest for a crime you committed last year, what were you arrested for?

But you do understand that WHAT you were arrested for is different from WHY you were arrested, right?

Quote
This idea that Fonseca would have *never* been arrested is so ludicrous that it's, if you'll pardon me, just stupid. Of course she was going to be arrested.
Agreed.  Equally stupid is being actively inflammatory while having outstanding warrants.  But I don't think anyone argued against either of these points.

46
General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 29, 2017, 10:23:36 AM »
Quote
Her arrest was the result of an investigation into her political speech.
I want to try something.

Does the following mean something different to you Crunch?

"This opportunity to arrest her (for the outstanding warrant) was the result of an investigation into her political speech."

It just dawned on me that MAYBE you are reading the original quote as her arrest was on the grounds of the speech, THEN she was charged for something else?

47
General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 29, 2017, 09:45:28 AM »
Quote
Another detail is that if what you say is accurate then even posting about the driver would be illegal. But where in the law does it say that making a Facebook post about someone is against the law, even for law enforcement?
This is probably the most interesting part of the whole situation to me. 

We are in an age where allegations spread like wild fire.  Sometimes justice is served when the mechanisms of law enforcement stall, or seem indifferent.  Sometimes the innocent get swept up by mistake, sometimes lives are ruined disproportionately to how our legal system outlines how someone is to be punished.

Given how our system works now (largely playing catch-up to modern society) one needs only to consider prejudicing jurors to wonder if a sheriff should think twice about using social media in this manner.  There's a reason things are/were kept vague.  You say "person of interest" or "wanted for questioning" specifically to avoid vigilantism and insinuating someone is guilty before their day in court.

Using social media through an official outlet (not personal account) can indeed be a  useful tool for law enforcement.  This however, was a mistake.  And I stand by my conclusion that the removal of the post is most likely because the sheriff, his lawyer or someone on staff pointed out that it was a mistake.

P.S. Fenring, I think it's more profiling than conspiracy theory.  Doesn't make it a better practice, but they are different places on the plausibility scale.  ;)

48
General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 28, 2017, 04:30:47 PM »
I didn't have enough legal background to comment on that.  What you say makes sense to me Seriati but with them both spouting off leagalese (some state specific) I figured I'd leave that part to them.  :)

49
General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 28, 2017, 03:13:16 PM »
Quote
Like in such cases, the excuse is that the scrutiny had nothing whatever to do with "the thing" that would be considered unfair.
Well, it would be wrong.  In this case I don't know about "unfair".  :P

50
General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 28, 2017, 02:23:54 PM »
Quote
Word games after the fact are pretty weak and the fact that you've doubled down on conflating the two only exposes your original intent.
I took it as the link between the two WAS the assertion.  Not sure if it was a word game or not, but I had read about the incident before seeing this topic name.  So maybe coming in cold this looks more misleading?
Quote
Her arrest has nothing to do with her decal.
Your assertion, (and the Sheriff’s public position) not fact.
Quote
The two events are not connected no matter how much you want to make out they are, there was no knowledge gained that led to her arrest.
And this is strait up factually incorrect. 

I think you are being willfully ignorant of how cause and effect works.  Nobody is saying she was arrested BECAUSE of the decal.  We are saying that “sooner or later” happened “sooner” BECAUSE she was scrutinized due to the decal. 

That doesn’t excuse the fraud.  Nobody says it did. 
Quote
And saying the post was taken down after the ACLU commented is just more dishonest conflating of disjointed facts.
I’m loath to consider myself some social media authority, but it fits a pattern.  It’s possible they are disjointed facts.  It’s very likely they are not.  You really need to stop preaching your opinion in a way that suggests you KNOW it’s true.  Believe whatever you want Crunch.  Argue whatever you want.  Just… learn to do it better.  When you stick to the facts your arguments are fairly persuasive.  Given what you’ve cited so far, it is far more plausible he was checking to see if laws were broken than if the case happened… well somewhere not Texas.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28