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

/townhall/ - Townhall

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


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

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


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?
23 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


And yet individuals perceived as 'white' aren't told to go back to their ancestral country of origin as an insult.

It's only if you're seen as 'black', 'brown', etc that said rhetoric happens. And it happens regardless of whether or not you're a native U.S. citizen. It's just because of who are you as an ideological category.

Funny, isn't it?

Same kind of funny as how immigration (even illegal migration) from 'white' countries brings about no political controversy whatsoever, particularly among Trump (he's 100% pro-immigration if you're from the 'right' place) and his supporters. Come from someplace being of the 'wrong' racial category, though, and you wind up in an interment camp forcibly separated from your children.

Again... you're living in a separate reality that bears little to no relationship with what I'm seeing.

It's as if I as an LGBT person am walking down the street, somebody screams out "I hope that you get AIDS!", and I hear people going "Well, clearly it's not a homophobic comment since straight people frequently get the disease too." Come on. Context matters.


>Same kind of funny as how immigration (even illegal migration) from 'white' countries brings about no political controversy whatsoever, particularly among Trump (he's 100% pro-immigration if you're from the 'right' place) and his supporters. Come from someplace being of the 'wrong' racial category, though, and you wind up in an interment camp forcibly separated from your children.

>It's as if I as an LGBT person am walking down the street, somebody screams out "I hope that you get AIDS!", and I hear people going "Well, clearly it's not a homophobic comment since straight people frequently get the disease too." Come on. Context matters

Preach, fam


File: 1563542000424.jpg (142.47 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, ted-cruz-rcmp-leaf-flag.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Same kind of funny as how immigration (even illegal migration) from 'white' countries brings about no political controversy whatsoever, particularly among Trump (he's 100% pro-immigration if you're from the 'right' place) and his supporters.
Remember when Trump attacked Ted Cruz on the basis of being born in Canada?

>And yet individuals perceived as 'white' aren't told to go back to their ancestral country of origin as an insult.


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.


I found it interesting.
13 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



Demagogues of this kind also characterize critique and satire as censorship and opposition. They will build an image for themselves as the valiant social pariah, no matter the amount of actual censorship or critique. The same single tweet or video can be used as fuel for framing by every single alt-right/far right or conservative demagogue in existence, and outrage can even be fabricated from nothing at all.

It doesn't matter what we do, essentially, their presentation of themselves remains as it is.


But isn't the alternative literally being everything they say we are? Oversensitive, censor-happy people who'd rather pull authority than argue the points? So much so that even moderate-minded people would lean towards sympathizing with them? It's just hard for me to see that as being a good move, and i don't really see another alternative...


It's not an easy problem, and as such there's not an easy solution.

A lot of this comes down to subjective determinations in the end. As we know, if we had lived nazi germany at the time of world war II we would likely have been nazis ourselves. The banality of evil is such that anyone can engage in it, and be convinced to engage in it.

There's a difference between choosing to platform something, and platforming it responsibly. Discussing naziism in a fact based way with a historical framing is useful and productive.

Letting some demagogue with no expertize argue that we should deport all brown people just because he feels like that's the right solution (and this is often what it boils down to, the stats from these kinds of demagogues are nearly always fabricated), is not responsible. Someone is going to be swayed, because they simply can't be bothered to fact check. That's why we have anti hate-speech laws for public forums in a lot of developed countries.


What are Townhall's thoughts on this kind of portrayal?
23 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


> if a joke implies male victims of rape are weak or cowards, yeah.
"Rape" jokes don't imply that necessarilly either


I generally agree that these sort of portrayals do reinforce some frankly damaging attitudes towards male victims of sexual assault.

Now, I don't believe that such portrayals actually encourage assault. I don't think media can incite action (unless that encitement is explicit and overt) but media does influence attitudes, which in turn effects how people approach those who are male victims of sexual assault.


Right you are, but in this thread we're talking about jokes that make fun of male rape victims.

So notice, that I am not saying, and have never said, that one cannot tell jokes about rape without doing this. Rape jokes can be empowering or humanizing.

I like that take.

The reason I personally feellike I do is that I've read a number of studies that indicate that holding certain attitudes can increase the likelyhood of sexual assault, and since we consider jokes like these to be influencing attitudes regarding rape and sexual assault, it seems to me I have to believe that it can influence behavior in some ways too.


File: 1562972421246.jpg (537.85 KB, 883x912, 883:912, CRISPR-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Part A.  Suppose that, 15 years in the future, scientists have discovered certain combinations of alleles affecting general intelligence.  Suppose that one common combination (let's call it "A") is found to be contribute, on average, to an IQ 10 points greater than other common combinations.  Suppose that the distribution is racially uneven, such that 85% of whites have combination A, while only 15% of blacks have combination A.  Further suppose that gene editing techniques have been developed so that parents can conceive a child with an A genotype regardless of their own genotypes.  Should the government fund this treatment for intending parents with a non-A genotype if the treatment costs an average of $10,000 per child (in 2019 dollars)?  What if it costs an average of $100,000 per child?

Part B.  Suppose that patent rights for the treatment are held by a white supremacist who refuses to voluntarily license them for use in the above-mentioned government program.  What should the government do?  
(A) seize the patent rights under eminent domain, paying fair market value (FMV) compensation as determined by a court,
(B) enact a law requiring that patents for such treatment be compulsorily licensed on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms,
(C) exempt human gene editing from patents altogether, or
(D) do something else (please specify).
29 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Sounds like the same thing we've been doing the last couple hundred years and it's really working out swell.

I can vouch for it. I'm only here today because experimental medicine saved my life when i was an newborn. If we were less willing to move forward, less willing to take risks moving forward, i'd have died before i was a month old.


Since intelligence is only 50% to 75% heritable and nurture plays such an immense role, wouldn't it make more sense to spend money ending the war on drugs, ending environmental racism, ending the school-to-prison pipeline, fixing the health care system for children, setting up a guaranteed minimum income, et cetera?
It's objectively clear that most African-Americans spend their early years in a more hostile environment compared to essentially all other groups, and that harms intelligence as much as it harms everything else.

It seems so much cheaper and easier. Not to mention less controversial. Less risk of genetic fuckery in terms of side effects too.


> wouldn't it make more sense to spend money ...
I dunno, I'd have to run the numbers.  

>spend money ending the war on drugs
Or more likely save money by ending the war on drugs by defunding the DEA (which shouldn't even exist anyway if the government actually obeyed the Constitution).


File: 1562500101526.jpeg (219.6 KB, 1152x712, 144:89, 971033.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Felt bored might delete later.

In general this is a thread about projects and stuff. Post about projects you're doing or have done in detail. Feel free to ask questions, critique or just blog about your own stuff. Usual rules apply.

This is more to I guess gauge how this kind of topic will go. I don't guarantee I'll complete my project in this thread.
18 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1563106263763.jpeg (219.69 KB, 1280x688, 80:43, 1003916.jpeg) ImgOps Google

I wanted to progress further than I did this weekend. I ended up just writing the make file and writing the glue code, reading from the I2C bus, putting it into structs and writing out to a serial port. I should really use something with a build system rather than writing make files by hand.

I'll just make the excuse that I'm tired.


>What algorithm are you using to get that far?
To be clear, this isn't my software, I'm just using it.  The algorithm is called scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT).  It finds correlated points based on textures.  Then with a bunch of, I'm guessing, linear algebra, the computer resolves the camera location and 3-space position of the correlated points from the images.


I admit I don't know much about classifiers, but that's pretty cool. I'll read more about it later.


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.


14 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1562790939177.jpg (69.74 KB, 492x600, 41:50, 1557872338031.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should the government have the power to levy a tax on people who don't eat enough broccoli?


If that's what the people represented by the politicians want, I would argue yes, they should at least have the option.


I think there's a good argument for it. Especially if you're looking at healthcare. After all, people who don't take care of themselves are a burden on the healthcare system. I'd argue that if they completely opt out of the health care system, or if they completely, 100% cover their own health expenses, being no burden on either private or public insurance, then the government has no right to tell them how to live, but only under those conditions.


File: 1563082716224.jpg (32.74 KB, 435x679, 435:679, 610mLB-9MCL._SY679_.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I would like to discuss the recent film "Vice", and the aspects of the George W. Bush presidency and the time immediately before and following the 9/11 attacks covered by that film.

It's been nearly 20 years now since the George W. Bush administration began and a lot of the people who post on this site are too young to remember the events surrounding it with much clarity or context, if at all. A lot of things have come to light about the administration and actions taken by it in the intervening time, most notably the amount of of misleading information that was spread at the time.

I feel this film does a good job of covering the basics of that information in a factual, yet entertaining way.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


I'd prefer people watch the movie before we discuss so that everyone is up to speed on the topic. But if you're knowledgeable about the topic, you can certainly weigh in.


I'm not! I'll just be lurking.

A movie is a large barrier for entry, though, not sure how likely it is you'll get much discussion going.


>A movie is a large barrier for entry

I thought it a smaller barrier for entry than having a vast knowledge of the Bush administration and the 9/11 attacks, which happened while many posters here were still children or infants.

This way, we can limit the scope of the discussion to only the issues covered in the movie, such as the Patriot Act.


File: 1561570214520.png (210.27 KB, 829x1063, 829:1063, 5db9e63df83eeb51fca73c2e32….png) ImgOps Google

This isn't so much of a debate topic or anything as a general sense of questions that have bugged me lately. There's three things sticking on my mind after spending too much time looking at 4chan /lgbt/.

A)What do you think is the best and succinct way to explain being 'non-binary' to people, like in a paragraph speech form?

B)What do you think is the best way to explain this as being distinct from being 'stereotypically transgender' in the sense of having to take hormones, eventually have surgery, and so on?

C)Do you agree with the idea of there being a kind of 'transgender umbrella' that extends over a wide group of people, or would you define that term more narrowly?
17 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


np <3

This is Eph, btw. Hope you're doing well.


I used to watch videos by this one youtuber a while back. Was never a huge fan, but caught a couple of their videos because they were on a site with other contributors. In one video I saw her reviewing an anime, and they were utterly perplexed when they saw a male character urinate and then shake up and down a little after he did so. She went on to explain her asking her male friends about it. Turns out she was completely unaware of the after-pee dick shake male people do. It was kind of hilarious to me. Like I get that she wouldn't know about it because she was female, but to think something that is part of my life daily would so confuse someone else was shocking in a funny way.

Years go by, and later on I hear that the person who created that video had come out as transsexual and was living as a man now. it made me think, Isn't someone who had so little knowledge of the male experience living as a man now sort of strange? How does that work? I've never had a good time or place to bring it up, but it's been in the back of my mind for a while now.



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?

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



They aren't sovereign.  They lost.  The north conquered the south and enforced their own ideas upon them.  And while they're granted many rights by their captors, another attempt at secession would be met with the same results.


True. Though, they were, and so, secession and fighting for your home wasn't treason at that time.

>another attempt at secession would be met with the same results.
This I doubt. Mostly because I do not think thanks to developments in information, from video to the internet, means that the North is less likely to get away with their massive pile of scorched earth warcrimes tactics they had going on last time.
It's a lot easier to surrender when the alternative is literally having your homes burned down, your family's livelihood ruined, your economy completely crippled, and entire cities destroyed.

On the other hand, now a days, you try that shit, suddenly a whole lot of other powers in the world say "Hey, that's not cool", arm your rebels, and maybe even get a foot in if the thing looks spicy enough.



Fair, I couldn't guarantee success, but I still don't know that the US in general would be okay with secession, I could imagine that still resulting in war.

But then, maybe not, maybe someone tries to secede and the rest of the country is just "Good, thank god we don't have to put up with them anymore."  It depends a lot on who's trying to secede and the political environment at the time.

 No.407[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Debate footage starts at 2:00:44.

So the first Democratic Presidential Debate was last night, the other half of contenders are going on tonight.  To anyone who watched it, what were your opinions?  Who would you say made themselves look good in that debate, and who are supporting right now?

I think Beto o'Rourke and Gabbard went off on some weird tangents in there.  De Blasio seems to have some pretty extreme viewpoints, but they're viewpoints a lot of people could support, too.  I thought Klobuchar, Booker, and Castro all gave pretty even handed answers.

Tonight I'm really looking forward to high pollers like Sanders and the former VP.  But I'm especially looking forward to Yang, who's still my favorite for the nomination, even though he's currently sort of behind.  This might be his chance to really get into the public light.

As some further questioning, what did you think of Hillary Clinton's race the last go around, and what do you think the democratic party needs to succeed this time?
213 posts and 30 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


But why spend billions upon billions on a wall when there are already fences along the border?

This doesn't make any sense. I don't know how people even entertain this idea.

It's like there's a miasma around Donald Trump that just kills everyone's brains.


>the latter is just simply a rediculous idea. Unfeasible by any stretch of imagination.

There are active tunnels that people use to get into the United States from Mexico right now  We semi-frequently discover them and shut them down, but it's far from unfeasible.

I'm not sure it's entirely moral to shoot down civilian boats, either.


>I'm not sure it's entirely moral to shoot down civilian boats, either.
You know how the saying goes though.

Don't expect sound moral reasoning from someone willing to place impoverished people in indentured servitude.


File: 1561657236508.png (470.13 KB, 680x425, 8:5, 387.png) ImgOps Google

I would like to propose an topic of discussion after reading and reviewing several Reddit threads and websites around Tech support Stories.

It's a very well known fact that in today's society computers and technology are not only a common thing, but practically required to be used in many cases.
Office jobs require computers for typing, paperwork, communication and data storage.
Along with that stores and restaurants are also moving towards automated and technical approaches to service with self-checkouts, ordering kiosks, and even little digital table menu's that you can pay your bill on.

With all of this going on it would seem common sense that people should have some sort of computer knowledge or at least some ability to be able to use the most basic of functions on a computer, even if it's pecking typing. More often than not though it seems there's a complete lack of understanding on using a computer, and in many cases a complete unwillingness to even try to learn or educate oneself.

Altogether this boils down to an interesting situation where many people do need jobs to survive and will work in jobs that require the use of technical equipment, and more often than not these people also have no ability to use a computer though it is a constant in their jobs. Granted people can avoid needing to use computers at some extent outside of the work, however at work many require and depend on computers.

The big problem I seem to see is many go to supervisors, managers, tech support, and colleagues asking about doing simple tasks over and over without ever learning, and it ends up leading to a lot of stress and frustration on all parts. And with a lot of jobs if they require the use of tools or knowledge they have to get a license or a permit to be able to do the job legally. Even someone working in fast food needs a food handler's permit.

So, my thought comes to this, with computers being so widespread and part of the mainstream of life nowadays, wouldn't it be a good idea of it was requires for people that have to work on computers to need a license or permit saying they're at least know enough about computers to know how to work a mouse or even turn it on, or would this be considered too restrictive of an idea and prevent people from getting access to necessary work to be able to live
10 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


If you can point and click a mouse you can use Linux...


You can't really install new programs on Linux. What the fuck is a "directory"?


It's really easy. Most have in built graphical package managers. As in you search for software and click 'install'.


This video from How To ADHD recently explains the differences between ASD and ADHD, and it's very informative. I want to open this as a discussion of the differences highlighted and ones not covered, and invite everyone with ADHD or ASD to share their experiences if they feel comfortable. let's all learn to understand each other
normies are welcome too.
Posting on townhall because I don't want this to get too silly and this is a sensitive topic for some people


I have ADHD, well, it was called ADD when I was a kid, not sure when they added the H, or if I have hyperactivity.

But in either case, I was curious about this video because of that. But this video is really too casual and anecdotal for me. I'd be interested in a most scientific and/or informative exploration on this, if someone made that.


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?
67 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The friend zone is a myth, sure, but you'll never quite understand that until you ha e actual life experience.

It's one of those things that you just need experience with. Like a lot of things.


kind of puts a monetary barrier in place, but that might just be an unavoidable barrier for entry I suppose.


You can also go dutch, make your own drinks, or do something that doesn't cost money.

Previous [1] [2] [3]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]