[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1565469142118.png (271.31 KB, 615x716, 615:716, 1565442211922.png) ImgOps Google

There is speculation that Jeffrey Epstein acquired his wealth via a blackmail scheme instead of as a legit hedge-fund manager.  New York Magazine reports ( http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/hedge-funders-have-some-thoughts-on-what-epstein-was-doing.html ):
"the hedge-fund managers we spoke to leaned toward the theory that Epstein was running a blackmail scheme under the cover of a hedge fund."
The article points to https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1148303671857491968.html for details about how such a blackmail scheme may have worked.

Paul Krugman comments ( https://www.twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1160191016726609920 ):
>If we were living in a paranoid fantasy universe, I would be very suspicious about the Epstein suicide, even about whether it was really suicide. And you know what? The Epstein case itself shows that we *are* kind of living in a paranoid fantasy universe

What do you all think?  Was he just a sex offender, or also the mastermind of a blackmail operation?  Did some of his blackmail victims have a role in his hanging?
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I don't tend to keep up with this sort of thing. I just know it's pretty suspicious, and awfully convenient.
But, that's just more of the same. This stuff happens pretty often.


This is pretty fucking backwards. The three branches of government are majority conservative and Republican leaning. The only exception is that the Democrats have the House, which is kind of useless at the moment since the Senate kills everything they do. The conservative Republicans also have the fundamental U.S. power structure on their side from the military-industrial complex to the prison-industrial complex to the energy industry and so on.

What are the Clintons compared to this? Peanuts. Come on.


>Why do you think the leftist media has been on a constant smear campaign of Trump for years despite most claims being either disproven or downright fabricated?

Trump has done plenty of legitimately critisizable things. I'm not sure where you are getting that it is fabricated.

>Why do you think the FBI wasted so much manhour and spent so many millions trying to find proof of collusion on Trump

Because there was evidence towards collusion. There still is. Trump was not exonerated for that, despite what he constantly claims.

>Yet turn a blind eye to Democrats doing the same thing right now by campaigning in other countries and encouraging illegals to vote?

Do you have any evidence that this is true? Trying to improve relations with other countries isn't the same as colluding with a foreign power. Even if a Democrat went to another country and said "Vote for me!" to the people living there... that's not the same thing as collusion. And it's certainly not "collusion" or "encouraging 'illegals' to vote" for a Democrat to reach out to Latin-American communities. You're really going to need to back this claim up with some hard evidence.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1565419840395.jpg (9.48 KB, 250x250, 1:1, Will_it_ever_stop.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

At the moment, seventeen states in the U.S. have laws that allow police officers to take somebody's weapon(s) away if a judge determines that said person poses a danger to himself/herself and/or others. California is one of them. Interestingly, though, few in law enforcement seem to even be aware of the law, let alone enforce it properly.

This is often floated as something that could get implemented in all fifty states in order to stop gun violence. Efforts would also have to be made to train individuals into understanding the law and enforcing it effectively. The idea has garnered some popular support.

Details at: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Friends-Teachers-Coworkers-Could-Soon-Have-Authority-to-Remove-Gun-Owners-Weapons-A-Look-at-Californias-Red-Flag-Law-529032441.html

Does this seem like it will be an adequate solution to fight against gun violence in the U.S.?

My personal $0.02 is that this makes sense in terms of reducing deaths overall. BUT it won't solve the mass shooting problem since almost all (I think) of those killers murder because they're extremists acting according to some ideology. They're "good guys with guns" until they start killing, lacking both records of crime and of mental illness. The only way to comprehensively get rid of that problem, likely, is to either ban all civilian held guns or else screen everybody who wants a gun in terms of politics/social views. Neither of those is probably going to ever happen.
55 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Personally, I'm in favor of things like tax breaks, benefit programs for new families, grants, that type of deal.
I think saying "if you're married and looking for a house, we'll give you a chunk towards the down payment" would go a long way to encouraging the stuff.


Going beyond tax breaks to an active pro-family economic policy with workplace childcare benefits, widespread well-funded preschools, and so on would probably make more of a difference, yes.

But then if you advocate such things, something like 1/2 of America is going to label you an evil communist/Marxist/socialist because how dare you hurt capitalism with your evil welfare programs. And big business is going to work hard to squash you like an insect because you're daring to take away even a penny of their profits. You're clearly evil if you suggest that there's more to life than making money, apparently.

It's a nice thought, but can it be done? In today's America?


Given the policies already put in place on various items, I think it's probably the easiest big needed fix out there, at the moment.
I'd not say it's easy, but, it's certainly more likely than a lot of things we desperately need fixed, ala copyright law, healthcare, drug reform, corporate monopolies, and so on.

The 'evil communist/marxist/whatever' label doesn't do much in my experience, any more, probably as a side effect of actual marxists cropping up, and the big business guys are easy to distract or appease. They're deal-makers, after all.
I'd bet it could be done. Like I said, not easily. But, I'm fairly confident it could be done. Maybe I'm an optimist, though

 No.179[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1561011153652.jpg (107.05 KB, 292x397, 292:397, 9782818909676.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Some time ago some magazine posted a dry article on #metoo and our culture where people harass and abuse women.
Then the same magazine posted a fun little piece on the new Detective Pikachu movie stating it is a shame that it is all so childfriendly and that Pikachu could be funny as a beer drinking, belching and womanizing critter.

It does raise the question. While most agree hopefully that #metoo shows the disrespect women can get in our society and we should respect personal boundaries a lot more, do you think our culture in sexual comedy etcetera plays a large part into enabling this?
Do we come to a point where we need to review and censor things like that to improve our society?
127 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>I really dislike this language they use to describe the phenomenom.

I think people have a unfortunate hostility towards clinical terminology, but i think it's the best way to do things. It might even be an extension of unfortunate anti-intellectualism that seem to be all the rage these days.


File: 1566002945400.jpg (141.93 KB, 1280x854, 640:427, snake-banana.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Almost dehumanizing, and definitely othering.
Hmm, I don't get that connotation.  To me, "gynandromorphile" just mashes together a bunch of morphemes that together give a vague sense of what the word means and helps us remember it.  


mmm, no. I'm like, the most self-absorbed intellectual out there, for better or for worse. This has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism, I intellectualized myself into that opinion.

Yeah, that's kind of the problem.

You don't describe people in neo-greek slapdash, if you're trying to genuinely understand and empathize with them. It's a way to put them in little boxes. And it's not even a very good box for the purposes they're describing. It's both way too specific and way too general. It includes things they don't want to study, and excludes many they should consider. The study would be much better suited by adopting more humanizing and specific terminology, but they can't do that, because they have physics envy or something.


File: 1565815413048.jpg (35.19 KB, 489x426, 163:142, bdf4c23dbb3205768ee04bd8ee….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What do you all think of Tulsi Gabbard's views on war and peace vis-à-vis the views of the other Democratic candidates?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.



She was a camp medic in the military so she spent a few years living in a war torn hellhole and treating patients of the war, civilian or military. Mainly, she helped amputate several limbs a day while in a pointless oil war that displaced millions.

So I feel like that's the major influence on her foreign policy. I fully support her foreign policy of taking on the US imperial war machine. She's the only candidate who understands the moral evil of war and the most serious about bringing greater peace to humanity.


Seems reasonable enough, I don't know that there's a whole lot to comment on, but I do agree with her stances.


File: 1565220470862.jpg (98.38 KB, 1000x679, 1000:679, main-qimg-dc93708bd0027609….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Can something be entertaining and/or comedic while also being an accurate and legitimate source of information?

I've discussed world events and political topics on the internet a few times, and I've occasionally tried to use clips from shows like "The Daily Show" and "Last Week Tonight" as a source and to illustrate my point in and entertaining way. But I've found that sometimes certain people will try to dismiss my usage of those kinds of clips or stories, claiming that those shows are comedy shows and therefore cannot and should not be taken seriously as sources of information. I disagree with this sentiment for a number of reasons.

The first being that these programs consistently offer the sources of their statistics and video clips they use within the program itself, so any dispute over the accuracy of the information already has other more "legitimate" sources from which it came. Shows like "Adam Ruins Everything" go to even greater lengths to back up and source all the claims they make. So trying to dismiss the information because it's being delivered by a certain program is not actually dismissing the information itself. It's a strawman argument. The program is just an easily digestible and vastly more entertaining way to deliver that same information, but it doesn't negate the information itself for the program to be comedic. My second reason for disagreeing is because of the hypocritical nature of the claim. It seems to me we only run into this issue when it comes to world events and political issues. No one claims that programs like "Bill Nye The Science Guy" are not legitimate source of science information, or that any of the numerous shows on Discovery Channel are not legitimate sources of information because they uses comedy and skits to deliver their information. In my personal opinion, it's unfair to hold "news" to a different standard. And lastly, I disagree with the sentiment because studies over the past 10 years have show that people who watch programs like The Daily Show are just as informed as those who watch more traditional news stations like CNN and MSNBC, if not moreso. Here are a few examples. (https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5) (Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
32 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Dismissing a source of information for being too funny is ad hominom, even if it's a bit of a weird form.  "They made people laugh" doesn't tackle the argument or data presented, it's not a counterpoint.


I had a feeling it was ad hominom. Especially since the person I link the video of Last Week Tonight to, he said he didn't even watch the video because he found John Oliver humor "just awful". That person was known for his ad hominon and dismissal of my points.

But I wanted to bring this topic up for the future here on /townhall/. Because there might come a time when a comedic clip cogently illustrates someone's point about a certain topic. And I didn't want that same thing to happen again.


In statistics, the null hypothesis is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups. A result has statistical significance when it is very unlikely to have occurred given the null hypothesis. More precisely, a study's defined significance level, denoted "α", is the probability of the study rejecting the null hypothesis, given that the null hypothesis were true; and the p-value of a result, p, is the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme, given that the null hypothesis were true. The result is statistically significant, by the standards of the study, when p < α.

tl;dr: A study's result might just be the result of random chance.  Statistical significance is a way of quantifying this.

>sample size
Using a sample size that is too small is certainly one way of failing to obtain statistical significance.


File: 1565361099528.jpg (78.23 KB, 900x661, 900:661, d86e227ef4f7d45af6e758aa5b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

An American scientist announces that the world will end, or at least such a huge part of the continent will be destroyed, in such a way, that death will be a certain fate for hundreds of millions of people. If this information was confirmed, what do you think would be the effect on the people between the time they acquired this information and the certain cataclysm? Finally, as far as you're concerned, what would they do in their last hours?
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


I'd say goodbye to people. And then, well, I guess the only thing that I could do would be to relax and wait for the inevitable. I'd probably follow all of the up-to-the-minute news coverage as well.


File: 1565446344444.jpeg (643.64 KB, 1280x963, 1280:963, fs_vol.jpeg) ImgOps Google

So, we're saying, like, the Yellowstone Volcano is going to blow in two hours, and somehow I am certain of this and I will probably die.

Effect on people: denial.  Maybe panic.  It's not enough time to process something that big.

Effect on me: I'd try to call family.  I probably wouldn't get through because the lines would be overloaded.  Hate to say this, but I might actually go to work.  Not to work, but just to be with people I know.  (Wow.  I need a life.)


So there was this one time where there was a real fear of nuclear meltdown happening within range of us, and if it happened (which it looked like it was going to), there wouldn't be enough time to evacuate.

I did panic. I called my grandpa and begged him to come down to CA because he was living close to it. He, being much older and wiser, assured me that nothing bad was going to happen and it was simply news using fear mongering. I didn't believe him, and when we got off the phone I cried because I truly believed he was going to die.

Then, me and my partner started discussing plans because we feared other people panicking, and if they did, they might start rioting and causing destruction. So we went to his grandpas house, and his grandpa, who was a gun club member, comforted him by making a plan with him to defend the property should anyone try to harm us.

That night me and my partner cuddled and just talked almost all night and told each other how much we loved each other.

Fast forward a time and nothing happened, but at the time it was terrifying. But coming together with family and having a plan for if shit completely hit the fan, was very reassuring to me and calmed me down. It didn't completely kill the fear, but it helped immensely, and looking back on it, I'm kind of glad I know how I would react in that situation now, and that I have friends and family who are willing to come together and stay calm.


File: 1564454644570.jpg (607.57 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Time_For_Science...Evil_Sc….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

"[R]ising drug-seizure numbers suggest there's more hell ahead for communities across the country facing a new or renewed wave of meth." That's right: meth. It's back and bigger than ever.

"Federal drug data... show seizures of meth by authorities have spiked, rising 142% between 2017 and 2018." It's a national trend. "Seizures of meth are up, sometimes dramatically, in pockets of nearly every state in the U.S."

Details: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/29/745061185/seizures-of-methamphetamine-are-surging-in-the-u-s

So... what should be done about this? Do we need a drastic expansion of law enforcement efforts? Crackdowns throughout city after city?

Maybe something more radical? What about ending the 'war on drugs' and treating meth in a decriminalized fashion, through public health efforts? Or is that too extreme?

Is there perhaps no solution? Maybe communities should simply knuckle down and endure this? Or is that too pessimistic?
9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>And as you didn't provide any citation for your "thoroughly debunked" claim, I can only assume any article you provide will be of a similar quality.
I actually had a very long discussion on this in which I posted multiple sources, from acredited structural engineers, and proposals from the companies tasked with giving the best possible estimates.

But thank you, for that nice assumption.
there's plenty of sources in this thread

I won't go over it again, it was a pain in the first place and it's not worth it now.

You're the one missing the point, thinking you have all the answers to this problem. You propose a simple solution to a nationwide systemic problem, with a multitude of complicated factors and all you're willing to do is give articles "casual" glances.

"The solution is easy"

"Just casually reading through the article"
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


We're not talking about illegal immigration. We're talking about drug trafficking. A whole other issue.

As long as it's literally possible for some random dude to throw whatever the hell baggie of drugs he wants over the wall, the objection is going to stand.


People can throw what ever the hell bag of whatever the hell drug they want at me, I'm not going to just pick it up and do it for the fuck of it.

People who get addicted to drugs didn't mean to get that way. We know a lot of reasons why people get addicted to them, but I have seen very little help, from communities, to prevent people from getting into those addictions or helping them to get clean if they do get addicted.

That's part of the problem, but not the only one.


File: 1563885104921.jpg (130.91 KB, 1116x591, 372:197, Elon_Musk_Image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Electronic threads, thinner than human hair, get robotically inserted into your brain via holes bored directly into your skull by a laser.

>The goal? Simple. To "achieve a symbiosis with artificial intelligence."

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/neuralink-elon-musk-silicon-valley-promises/594316/

Elon Musk (pictured) is at it again. This time, he's aiming to transform individuals into something somewhat more than human. The product timeline is a matter of months, apparently, and not years.

Would you volunteer for such a thing, yourself? Is it appealing to possibly control all manner of electronics with mere thought? Or does the whole thing appear creepy?

Putting Musk's specific project aside, is mankind evolving into something more than human like this inevitable?
12 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


oops, hit "post" before I meant to.

>just look @ the internet, porn, social media. Porn is addictive due to a primitive thought process involving novelty, and is only really beneficial due to the scarcity of such partners, which porn eliminates according to this region of the brain.

Porn is not an advanced technology. It's been around for millennia in some form or another, and after printing presses were invented/discovered (depending on where in the world and in history you are) porn has been available in mass, typically as part of the underground culture of any established culture, or as high up as the "low culture" (i.e. working class) of those same established cultures.

>Social media companies exploit primitive thought processes by designing their apps to be as additive as possible, triggering as much of a dopamine response in their users as they can - far more than would naturally occur.

Social media companies are exploiting techniques discovered by traditional media and casinos long long ago to attract attention. This isn't a matter of anything fundamentally new to technology that doesn't or hadn't also occured with other forms of mass media in past centuries. It also has nothing to do with something intrinsic to how technology in general is designed but more to do with some specific applications of that technology. Remember, a lot of social media is just websites, a lot of social media is just applications of things like relational database technology with a bit of a spin on old bulletin board systems.

Technically, this website we are using right now is considered social media.

And as for dopamine responsed, well, considering that social media does not use a drug of some sort to artificially raise dopamine levels betond a user's own natural capacities, the dopamine response one has to it is about as natural as one can get. But again, this is not a matter of how the core technology underneath (i.e. internet protocol and world wide web application layers) is designed but rather how it's used by these social media companies. And they're not even exploiting much about how those underlying technologies work as much as they are exploiting the fact that the accessibility to those services is a lot cheaper and faster than before.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.




I don't think that contradicts anything I said.


Here's another interesting video for you
15 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I wanna take just a moment to examine the ridiculousness of this statement.

I feel like we're at capacity for enrichment.

That means, any new cultures can only be detrimental to existing ones by pushing them out of practice.

The conclusion seems to not arise from the premise. It doesn't rationally follow that because a new culture is introduced to a developed culture, that the developed culture must be pushed out. Aditionally if this is likely to happen, it's not even necessearily a bad thing. A cultural meeting can be an enriching moment for the individuals involved. We no longer speak ancient norse, and many of our customs and systems have dissappeared over time. When cultures meet, it is often a crucible which distills some value from conflicting ideals, or it can be a point of conflict, where one culture imposes itself over another. We have the option to guide the cultural change, rather than resisting it petulantly.


>We didn't have furries once. Now we do. Didn't have bronies once. Now we do. There's Trekkies. There's the Steven Universe people ("Stevies?"). I don't think that we're anywhere close to cultural saturation.

Is it not true, though, that belonging to those cultures take some amount of time and mental space?  Have other cultures not diminished or died entirely because people have adopted these new ones?  Bronies and their culture are doing especially poorly as the show ends, with conventions and websites shutting down, and it's a sad time for a lot of people.

People working on MLP required that they stopped working on something else.  People creating Mexican art and music requires that they aren't making something else.  And the same goes for consuming those things.  We are an incredibly busy nation when it comes to that sort of thing and in order for people to engage with these new cultures they have to let go of old ones.


I'm not sure why you think the statement is ridiculous.  It [i]is[/] a feeling, at most a hypothesis, I certainly don't have data for any of this.  But if we were at capacity then the only way we could take on more things is by getting rid of old ones, right?  That's what it would mean to be "full"?

>Aditionally it's not even necessearily a bad thing..

Absolutely true, the post I was responding to had already said that culture is subjective and what's good or bad is a personal concept.  It's entirely possible that you just hate what culture we have and want to get rid of it.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>I'm not sure why you think the statement is ridiculous.  It [i]is[/] a feeling, at most a hypothesis, I certainly don't have data for any of this.
For the same reason that I always find these kinds of sweeping statements ridiculous. You know, someone comes in with a feeling, or a hunch, or an idea, and sometimes they present it as based in fact or reality or sometimes they present it as just an object of consideration, but the function of the idea is to validate the tribal prejudices that really underpin it. Then some wild conjecture is started on the basis of an imagined premise, and in the end, the speaker is allowed to conclude, that, yes, it is not so irrational to oppose immigration, or whatever other regressive idea someone might be interested in justifying.

I find it ridiculous because it showcases a need to justify something that should be understood as an irrational evolutionary artifact, an instinct not suited for the situation, but which is instead coddled for and protected.

>But if we were at capacity then the only way we could take on more things is by getting rid of old ones, right?  That's what it would mean to be "full"?
This sounds like the subject of theory that is much more complex than you give it credit for.

>We have met other cultures, we have exchanged ideas, we have adopted the ideas we think are good and rejected the ideas we think are bad.
You make it sound like the development of culture is a rational process, and not an emergent quality of the system.

>I'm not sure what you expect us to learn from more immigrants that our existing immigrants and visitors haven't already relayed.
Well neither am I. If I knew that, the meeting wouldn't really benefit me, would it? Whatever qualities are outside of us, we cannot understand them deeply until we encounter them and interact with them for an extended time.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.817[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1563257634424.jpg (154.19 KB, 697x370, 697:370, What-Now.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Context: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/us/politics/trump-twitter-squad-congress.html

And: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/7/15/20695427/donald-trump-tweet-racist-aoc-tlaib-omar-pressley-nationalism

For me, I'm genuinely surprised at the reaction to this. It's just Trump being Trump. There's nothing unique here that's any different than his long history of comments r.e. nationality and race.

Do you all think that this will change anything or lead to any repercussions? Or is it simply a news blip that will fade soonish?
102 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Is there anything in particular in this bill you found unreasonable?
Yes.  I share basically all of David Kopel's objections.


Well I'm reading the article, and I can already tell it's quite hostile towards any kind of gun legislation.

Like, for example, this article claims that the purposed bill "requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer." Since I haven't had time to read to original bill, we'll have to that that as being true for the sake of argument. Since federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years (again, something the article SAYS that we will have to assume truthful for the sake of argument) this would prevent people under 21 from purchasing handguns.

Even if this were true, this article choose to characterize this fact as "This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly." That's not a fair assessment of what is proposed, even if all the above statements were factually correct. That is assuming intentional deceit on the part of the bill and the people who drafted it, rather than it being an oversight, or even an intentional inclusion. Furthermore, characterizing this as "a handgun ban" is also inaccurate. Handguns would not be banned. People above 21 could still legally purchase handguns.


>Furthermore, characterizing this as "a handgun ban" is also inaccurate. Handguns would not be banned. People above 21 could still legally purchase handguns.
From context, it's clear that he meant a "a handgun ban for under-21-year-olds", not "a handgun ban for all civilians".

>That is assuming intentional deceit on the part of the bill and the people who drafted it, rather than it being an oversight, or even an intentional inclusion.
Regardless of the drafters' intent,  the point remains that the bill does more than just keep guns of the hands of dangerous people who would fail a background check.  And that's a major reason why people oppose such laws.


File: 1562611525784.jpg (25.91 KB, 267x418, 267:418, William_Bruce_Mumford.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

William Bruce Mumford was convicted of treason and hanged for tearing down the United States flag from a public building of the United States after said flag was placed there by Commodore Farragut of the United States navy.  Was his conviction and punishment just, in context?

8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Secession wouldn't be necessary if we just gave individual states more autonomy. I mean the federal government gets it's panties in a bunch even over marijuana being legal on a state level. The fed picking it's battles more and letting states have more freedom to choose some policies for themselves seems like the more reasonable solution to me.



I definitely agree that the fed is overreaching on a lot of topics.  I don't think a greater separation between state and country would be a negative thing.


>killing somebody because of a flag

Wtf, no


File: 1563574143243.jpg (123.14 KB, 670x671, 670:671, Billy-Connolly-Religion-Is….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In the U.K. recently, an individual named Brian Leach posted on social media a viral video of comedian Billy Connolly (pictured) mocking religious people and religion. This caused him to be fired from his job at Asda, a supermarket chain. His sacking brought about a public outcry, however, and he just got his job back.

More details at: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefreethinker/2019/07/man-sacked-for-facebook-anti-religious-post-is-reinstated/ (which is where I found this out)

This is a minor news story, but it directly touches upon a huge issue that I personally don't have a clear opinion on. It's a controversial topic to say the least, though. In short:

>Should there be a separation of commerce and free speech?

>Is it right to fire somebody due to their expressed personal viewpoints, even if it didn't necessarily have anything to do with his or her work?

This can go one of many different ways. Suppose that Mr. Leach had posted some viral video from a British conservative pundit mocking LGBT people and calling for them to lose their civil rights, instead. Would that make a difference? What if he only posted something supporting the U.K. Labour Party and his boss, happening to be a supporter or some other political faction, sacked him for that reason? What if Leach was an outright Nazi who spent his free time outside of work marching around in a full uniform and trolling folks online with posts glorifying Hitler? Should this be a more nuanced thing, or does free speech essentially conquer all here?

Does the type of job make the difference? Could somebody who posts comments online supporting pedophilia work as a janitor at an insurance company, say, while being forbidden to apply at a school, daycare center, etc? And what if the employer has a cause outside of making money? What if an LGBT newspaper fires their electrician because they find out he donated to the campaign to ban gay marriage a few years ago?  

I get the feeling (though I may be wrong) that most people here support anti-discrimination laws wholeheartedly when it comes to hiring and firing. We don't want somebody hurt just because he or she happens to be born black, gay, Jewish, etc. I'm genuinely unsure about vPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
20 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


There's an excellent piece at Slate Star Codex that was written several years ago on this issue, and basically it kind of sums up what I think I personally believe on this.

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first-amendment/

In short:
>"Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Does not get doxxing. Does not get harassment. Does not get fired from job. Gets counterargument. Should not be hard."

I should mention that the last sentence is pretty clearly untrue. This is an extremely hard topic. There are a lot of circumstances where I can certainly see a company being rather ethically justified in wanting to fire somebody, especially if we're literally talking about communists and Nazis. If I have to choose, though, I'd rather that government set up laws forbidding hiring and firing based on politics.



Oh! Nice article! It articulates concepts that have been swirling in my head to something concrete! That's always nice!

I personally think that the upside of avoiding this brute force politics is well worth the downside of not having a handful of extremists fired.


File: 1564147890262.png (173.32 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, 2041687.png) ImgOps Google

Yeah, I think that gets at the problem.  One is not very free to speak if they are threatened for speaking, and one can be threatened for speaking when an asymmetry of power exists:  Big company vs. peon employee.  Individual vs. mob.  The threats are not arguments, but silencing.


File: 1562497570570.jpg (136.19 KB, 1200x763, 1200:763, Ca being ca_488aaf_7176818.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

California will start penalizing their legal citizens for not being able to afford healthcare, and they will use the money to fund free healthcare for illegal immigrants.


17 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Unbelievable, we have our own people on the streets and they want to give illegal vermin our tax dollars?  So looking forward to when the middle class dies off there and they run out of tax dollars.  Those politicians are traitors to our nation and people.



Referring to people as "illegal vermin" is not appropriate for the atmosphere of the discussion board, and the rest of the post wasn't exactly constructive, either.  If you've something to say about the OP do try to remain civil about it and make sure to explain your reasoning in order to contribute to a discussion.


It should probably be mentioned that state insurance mandates are somewhat common, and they're not limited to what are typically regarded as "liberal states".

See: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-aca-mandate-states-require-coverage.html

My personal opinion, though, is that it's fundamentally unethical to make people buy a product that they sincerely can't afford due to the whole health care system in the U.S. being such a backward mess.

As far as the illegal immigration question goes, somebody having a heart attack (or whatever else) going to an ER should get treatment regardless of whatever the hell his or her citizenship status is. That's a matter of fundamental morality. We're human beings with consciences. We don't sit back and let our fellow man die when we could do something.


File: 1563769055434.jpg (364.57 KB, 820x1020, 41:51, yul-brynner-actor-and-phot….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm making this thread here because of it's highly controversial nature. I hope we are mature enough to discuss weighty matters, but I also acknowledge that people don't always live up to what we hope they'd be, and one must be prepared for certain eventualities of human emotion. I also don't want to completely dismiss these habits since they reflect an underlying passion on the parts of ourselves and our society; a passion that is essential in keeping our lives and our culture from stagnating. I don't ask for passionlessness, the opposite in fact, but I do hope for mutual respect, even if you are wrong.

Formalities aside. I'd like to have serious and mature discussion about the Golden Age of Hollywood. We all know that peak among the virtues of the silver screen is sex appeal. There is currently much talk about the male gaze and unrealistic body standards in Hollywood. With that end, I would like to have a serious and a mature conversation, with mutual respect, about who are the sexiest stars of the Silver Screen, particularly from the Golden Age of Hollywood when the movies became what we know them as today, and why is the sexiest Yul Brynner.
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Remember when smoking cigarettes was still a thing?  Pepperidge Farm remembers.


Could you clarify when the "Golden Age of Hollywood" beings and ends?



Usually from the end of the silent era in the mid-late 1920s and the period that saw the dismantling of the studio system starting around 1948 with the United States vs Paramount Pictures decision and culminating with the dominance of television in the mid 1950s.


Alright, dudes. We gotta talk about this.

Last week we had a thread talking about male victims of rape and how they were made fun of in comedy. I think the consensus so far in that thread is, that that kind of portrayal is probably not healthy for men, especially male survivors of rape. But maybe someone will pop in here and prove that that is still a point of some contention.

Today, I've brought for your considerations from the same youtube channel some portrayals of sexual assault in harrison ford movies.

I know at least one of you have struggled with thoughts about how you were supposed to be around women in a romantic setting, without being accused of sexual assault. So more discussions about consent and when it's recognized, might be useful for someone.

I'd love to hear what you think of these portrayals as before, and maybe we can have a neat conversation about, what the prevalence of such egregious tropes in popular media, could mean for our society, and how it might give us some clues, as to what some popular myths about courtship might be in our society, that might not be wise to adhere to.
16 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>I see what you're saying, but I think a lot of this also rests on this inordinate obsession we have where the pursuit of a relationship and getting sexual experience, informs too much of a man's self worth. The reason it feels like a catch-22, is because men feel they are worthless without women, and because they feel worthless, they cannot feel that a woman could ever love them genuinely. If we dispell the myth that sexual experience or being in a relationship is essential to manly worth, we teach men that they can expect to be appreciated, and we give them the confidence necesseary to pursue it in the best way possible.

I agree with this and feel like I need to project it more to the men in my life. Sometimes I get a little too caught up in my head and forget to remind the people I love, why I love them.


I'm sure they'll love that <3


I think taking time to remind people that is a really wonderful thing.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]