>>387111
>But Silberkleit contends that the case should be tossed out because white males are not 'a protected class'.
Strictly speaking, the article only says that's what her lawyer's argument is. The first sentence states that she said her employees being white men invalidates their accusations, but the rest only mentions her claiming that she didn't do any of it and has no idea why people think she did. No idea what to believe, personally. Good thing I'm already not buying comics anyway...?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101243971

Article contains a link to a copy of the Archie complaint.

>>387116
This is several staff members (including a woman) with the complaints dating back decades and alleging things like stalking their families.
>Not even a temporary restraining order stopped the behavior. Employees brought in armed guards for protection. A co-trustee brought in to run interference failed to work out.
Chances are low that it's bullshit.

The penis thing might be just what the media locked onto for a different (if valid) reason.
>that's what her lawyer's argument is
I'm sure her lawyers didn't say it without her consent. And it's true, white males aren't a protected class under discrimination workplace laws, which is part of the meat of this story. It makes no sense for white guys to have zero protections in society, and for people to be able to fire or bully an entire class of people just because of their sexual orientation or skin color.

>white males aren't a protected class under discrimination workplace laws

Wait, so if a white guy works for a black employer, and the guy fires him SPECIFICALLY because he is white, making no bones about it, that's totally legal and legit? Seriously??

This whole time I've been going around saying "It's impossible to be racist unless you're white," with a dash of sarcasm and tongue firmly in cheek; and now you're telling me it's legally TRUE. I think I need to go lie down. There's something seriously wrong with the world when my hyperbolic, parodic, cynical assertions prove to be fact.

>>387142
>This whole time I've been going around saying "It's impossible to be racist unless you're white

Stop saying this bullshit, even as a joke.

>gender discrimination
>being called 'penis'
...
Huh.

>>387151
?

>>387152
Well, I've just never considered that specific somewhat obscene nickname "discrimination".

>>387142

It's possible to be bigoted against anyone of any racial or ethnic background if you're not white. That should go without saying.

But racism is built on the structure of one racial group (e.g. Caucasian people) having enormous power and privilege over practically all other racial groups (e.g. non-Caucasian people).

A bigot hates people who don't belong to the bigot's race/ethnic group. A racist uses "the system" (e.g. the government, the economy, the education system) to enhance and entrench their racial bigotry within "the system" itself.

That's the way I see it, anyway. Feel free to tell me I'm a naïve little fuckwad, though.

>>387118

>white males aren't a protected class under discrimination workplace laws

Yeah no you're gonna have to actually present some proof to back that claim up.

>>387154

Hostile work environment. Persistent, low-level harassment can

Also, "race" is a protected class, as is "sex" (which, as per Price Waterhouse, includes "gender expression/stereotyping", and, per Macy v. Holder, includes gender identity). You can discriminate against men, and white folks, and straight folks. Civil Rights Act and FEHA protections are neutral.

>>387159
>Persistent, low-level harassment
Personally, I hope they at least attempted to try and work it out face to face before they actually took legal action.

>>387157
Are you American? The US educational system tends to focus on the country and ignore the rest of the world. You're not naive, just misinformed by a system that doesn't bother updating the knowledge base or improving stale 20th century terminology.

To have the definition you stated work you need to use some kind of pared-down WWII definition of race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29#Biological_definitions_of_race
Note the difference between the 1929 definition and the modern 1997 definition. The old one is based on observing things like skin color or shape of the skull (phrenology ~defunct) while the new one is almost entirely based on genomics.

Let me explain what I mean using the United States as the region and Caucasians in USA being the "racists". For the definition you (probably) quoted to work you need to exclude the following groups from the "Caucasian" race:
1. People living in the Caucasus region.
2. Indians, Pakistanis, Central Asians.
3. North Africans and many Middle Eastern countries.
4. Southwest, South and East Europeans.
5. Latin Americans.
These people are Caucasians who don't have privileged status in USA.
This is what I mean by paring-down (reducing) an old definition of a race to make it fit into some definition of racism which just doesn't define anything very well. BTW there are other definitions of racism (Oxford) which basically state that if you believe there are any differences between races, even obvious ones like skin color, then you're racist.

Nowadays if people want to be taken seriously they talk about oppressive cultures and ethnicities, not oppressive races.


>Yeah no you're gonna have to actually present some proof to back that claim up.
I think its from this >>387117
>Her attorneys rebuff discrimination claims because "white males are not a member of a protected class"

>>387160
>The plaintiffs claim they hired an independent human resources professional who found that Silberkleit's conduct "cannot be tolerated—one employee relayed an instance where he heard Nancy say something like, 'All you penises think you can run me out.' "
>Not even a temporary restraining order stopped the behavior. Employees brought in armed guards for protection. A co-trustee brought in to run interference failed to work out.

>>387118
>>387142
>>387143
>>387159
ITT racists and sexists.

Only the side that holds the power can be the oppressor. Educate yourselves, shitlords.

>>387170
>Only the side that holds the power can be the oppressor.
...That's kind of the point they're trying to make. Yes, overall (macro?), Old White Men hold the power. But on the smaller (micro?) scale, Silberkleit holds 50% of the power at Archie (cause they do some co-CEO shit, unless that changed recently). And you can still be racist if you're in the minority, you just lack the power to actually act on it so no one gives a shit.

If a black woman owned a restaurant and refused to hire someone on the basis that they were a white man (in a public setting, so not just the guy's conspiracy theory), the man can and should sue for discrimination, just as the black woman can and should if the roles were reversed. That owner can spout whatever she likes about hating "crackers", but the moment it actually impacts someone else's life is when it becomes an issue.

Everyone can be racist and sue for racism, but white men will have a harder time proving it because the view of society is that white men tend to have the power, a kind of double-standard. Like the old meme that men can't be raped, even though that's completely false and it has happened; however, the known cases are far eclipsed by the reversal (or even man-on-man rape) so a lot of people turn a blind eye when it happens (if it's even reported; I wouldn't be surprised if men under-report their rape more than women do, though the overall number would still be far lower.)

In short, an injustice is an injustice, no matter who the perpetrator and the victim are.

>>387171
All I hear is racist/sexist whining. Sorry not sorry. Your time is over. Deal with it.

>>387171
this is an issue of terminology over practice.
racism in this context is more akin to patriarchal implicit sexist culture than to individual acts of aggression toward any direction.

it's oppression, which is something that goes beyond discrimination and prejudice. it's systemic.

but that said, i've seen racism used to describe what you're talking about in common speech all the time... but i won't go further since i hate /pol/ threads and this wastes all my precious braaaains

>>387173
>racism is sexism
OK what?

>>387174
MORE. AKIN. TO.
AKIN.
NOT SAME.
Did you do okay on standardized tests, because that would require you understand how analogies work.

we're talking about cultural and institutional ideas that are so ingrained that the oppressors and the oppressed may not even be aware of how they perpetuate the very culture that puts people in positions of power and oppression.

it's similar for both in that sexism is founded on masculinity being of higher importance than femininity and that feminine things are either to be shunned or controlled.

racism has a similar expression. when someone from the oppressed side acts in an unsavory or outright negative way toward the oppressor, that doesn't inherently make it right, but it is more likely a reaction to oppression than itself an act of oppression. i'm not saying it's rational or justified. i'm saying that it's in defiance of the culture, misguided or not.

now that we're done with that, you can go on and argue the ethics of isolated actions and then label them however you want.

>>387176
Oh well, that makes more sense. It doesn't apply very well to the article though.

Man, how thin skinned do you have to be to get seriously upset over being called a "penis?" It's the sort of insult a timid middle schooler would try because they're afraid they'll get in trouble for calling someone a dick.

>>387111

omfg the archie thing is the most bananas thing ive ever read

that said, no one should be sexually harassed or feel threatened at their job. this lawyer is going to get raked over the coals for even trying to pull that
sexual harassment is the worst. its dehumanizing and terrifying and shitty.
even me, a member of the Kill Men Hate Squad, thinks this is some bad shit

>>387180
If I understand correctly, it's not her calling someone a penis (which is a very weak insult, but depending on context/connotation could be very powerful, especially coming from the CEO of your company), but saying penis repeatedly. And using the actual anatomical name can make many uncomfortable when using slang wouldn't (thanks, sexually repressive America!)

I actually think being called a dick would be better than being called a penis in that situation.

And remember, this isn't some random guy passing you on the street calling you a "fag" or similar, where you give him a look and shrug it off; this is the person at the highest point in the power structure doing it. With the random passer-by, you can move away/leave if they continue harassment (until such time as they make it physical, anyway.) With the CEO of your company, if you leave you're likely fired (and could sue afterward anyway, but between the start of the suit and getting fired you have no income), so it's either "Get Fired" or "Listen to them say Penis/Call me a Penis".

If you still don't understand, try this out: Next time you go to work/class, walk around saying "vagina" over and over, see how many people (men and women both) will get offended. (Everyone will be annoyed, but that's not the same level.)

>>387180
gr8 post +1 upboat

any bystanders are encouraged to play "spot the hypocrisy" with that post

>>387182
>even me, a member of the Kill Men Hate Squad, thinks this is some bad shit
surprised.jpg

>>387184
See, again though, I feel like I would be too amused at the inanity of someone just saying "vagina" to even see where the offense could come from. Like if you call someone a dick, or a cock, or a pussy, or a cunt, sure--those words have a little more power. But calling them by strict anatomical terms is just so silly. I don't understand how anyone can be said to be exercising power over a human being with such watered-down nonsense, much less abusing it.

It seems like the sort of thing you laugh at someone behind their back for saying, not something that causes a person psychological trauma. Like "Can you believe how much this lady uses the word 'penis?' Let's buy her a thesaurus for christmas."

>>387191
I would be highly amused, as well. And, depending on company, I might even join in at some point.

But we're from the 'chans. We hear about chicks with dicks putting bottles in their ass and see GIFs of limbs being sawed off and we roll our eyes and smirk. Many of us here have also been bullied, or are used to the bullying that goes with 4chan, and have grown thick skin for it. We're not "normal"; we're not even normal for abnormal.

And, again, this isn't a single instance of randomly saying penis. This is saying it constantly, in a mocking tone, in the midst of other verbal abuse or pejoratives. To us, the idea of calling someone a penis (or being called a penis) is quite silly; to someone else, it was something they came to dread being called at work. Being called a name like that, repeatedly, gives the name a new meaning, one of contempt and hatred and loathing, and it wears you down over time to the extent that one day being called "penis" is the same as your average black man being called a "goddamn slave" by some random white dude. In a predominantly-black club. That's not just a personal insult to the target, but a condemnation of every other black person within earshot.

If she'd gone around calling them an anus they would just have a defamation claim on their hand, but since she used "penis" they get to throw sexism in there, as well.

Saying "she called him 'penis'" is just what what grabs attention in an article or two-minute report on a news channel. The claim goes deeper than that.

I think the issue with the guys being called penises is because they're all actually a bunch of pussies.

At least thats what I'd call someone who'd do a fit for being called a penis.

>>387193

Exactly. It's the context, and the repetition. Low-level harassment can do it, especially in the case of it being a CEO.

"a workplace may give rise to liability when it “is permeated with ‘discriminatory [sex-based] intimidation, ridicule, and insult..." and the it weighs on severity vs. pervasiness; more severe (groping, assault) makes up for fewer incidents, more pervasive (in this case, using "penis" in lieu of the names of male employees) makes up for lesser severity. Lyle v. Warner Bros. TV Productions. The harassment need not involve physical touching or even expressions of sexual interest by the harasser; Nichols v. Azteca Resteraunt involved coworkers making fun of a gay server's effeminate mannerisms and calling him a she, and that, long-term, added up to harassment because of sex. And yes, you can have non-sexual, same-sex harassment (other women picking on new female hires, men demeaning not-masculine-enough male coworkers, etc.).

Also, you guys are missing the fact the lady (allegedly) stalked these men as well. That's seriously creepy (if true).

>>387191
Yeah when it's random insults it's usually in good fun, though that's not exactly the way I'd want my boss to act.

But when you keep calling someone a specific name over and over again, especially a sexual name or word, it becomes really creepy and starts to carry connotations or harassment, and can escalate into real harassment. It' be like a male boss calling all of their female employees "Vaginas"; creepy and uncomfortable and inappropriate and nobody bats an eyelash when the sexual harassment lawsuit gets filed.

This isn't going to go well for her, methinks.

>people getting hung up on a word
>nitpicking
She was stalking these people, I'm sure "penis" is not the only word she used, the articles seem to censor the more extreme expletives. Even so, getting called that constantly, way past the line it stops being humorous, after you tell them to stop... is harassment. And it being aimed at the men in the workplace makes it sexual harassment.

>>387195
OK, put your balls where your mouth is and do an experiment:
1. Call all your women acquaintances vagina or uterus.
2. Not by their name, or "hey you", but literally vagina or uterus.
3. Keep doing it constantly for years.
You can start with family members but should eventually find a female friend or two, there are guides on the internet for this:
http://www.wikihow.com/Become-Friends-with-a-Girl

Make another post a year or two from now and tell us how the experiment went, internet tough guy.

>>387195
quality comment upboat +1

>>387204
>getting called that constantly, way past the line it stops being humorous, after you tell them to stop... is harassment

That's really the thing though. Before we even get to the stalker behavior, this is already problematic.

oops meant to post this here earlier today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-incest-case-filthy-and-severely-deformed-children-found-in-remote-farming-community-afte
r-generations-of-inbreeding-8998115.html

Sure is that time of year around here.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/active-shooter-situation-arapahoe-high-school-denver-police-article-1.1547140
(One shooter, no fatalities, 2 injured, shooter killed himself.)

If a woman complained that her male boss only called her "boobs", nobody would argue that it isn't harrasment or descrimination.

http://m.fastcoexist.com/3023128/futurist-forum/this-sleek-spiderman-spacesuit-could-take-astronauts-to-mars#1

Lady Engie makes a neat new suit for mars.

>>387234
Every few generations of incest you need an influx of new genes, it's how isolated communities like the Old Believer communities, Amish and Middle East villages have managed it for centuries. I think these people in Australia really were cut off somehow and just didn't know how to get someone new to join their community until it was too late.
It may appear barbaric or horrifying, but in reality it's the most important thing a group of lifeforms can do.

>>387257
Holy shit, Anime was right!

>>387258
Well since part of the whole thing with space is keeping pressure in then skin suits pretty much are a given with new materials.

>>387259
But the kind of pressure you want is air pressure, not cloth pressure.

>>387260
right she's making it to maintain the minimum amount of needed atmospheric pressure for a surface jaunt on alien worlds and doesn't rely on something gas pressured that won't kill us with a puncture who's inherent bulk just adds to the danger.

>>387258
Actually this spun out of a Sawney Beane like desire to move into a cave and fuck your sister and all of her subsequent child, this is thankfully without the robbery cannibalism though.

>Sawney Beane
OK I didn't know what that was, thanks for scaring the shit out of me.

>>387264
>>387265
Although it's little more than anti-Scots propaganda perpetrated by the English, I've been to the infamous cave near Ballantrae (it's just down the coast from me) and it far out creepy (and surprisingly tiny).

>>387267
I bet it was just a place they hid if someone was looking for them, and not a legit living place.

>>387267
Could be, be like the same vein as A Modest Proposal.

>>387271
It appeared in 18th century leaflets around the same time roughly as the Jacobite uprising to smear the Scottish character (rah, look how beasty and bad these terrible savages are), as was the fashion of the English press at the time. Perpetrated as fact, sadly not satire.

>>387273
But... Scots ARE beastly. Look at this ferocious specimen, it's practically dripping with savagery. Delicious, delicious savagery.

>>387274
I like the accents of that people( phrasing ?). One of the things I find endearing about Brave as a movie is their usage of actual accents.

>>387274
>17 year old me
no

>>387276
watch some parliamo glasgow, see how much you like it then.

>>387267
>>387273
Yes let us make that clear, If there is anything I hate it's when people judge an entire race on a half story.

Yo fuck Australians though right? Buncha inbred fucks.

>>387280
I assume half the country is mutated by inbreeding and radiation like in Mad Max.

Maria de Jesus-Lucungo Although she's originally from Angola and doesn't have fair hair herself, Maria has made it her life goal to campaign for the protection of the UK's blonde population. She believes that England's flaxen-haired brothers and sisters are under threat of extinction and that, if they disappear, "the world will not be so attractive in beauty any more".

From a scientific point of view, there is yet to be any conclusive evidence that blonde hair is either more attractive to other human beings or on the way out. But Maria doesn't care too much for what scientists have to say. Her unconditional love for "pure" blondes transcends reason, walks a narrow tightrope between Mother Teresa and Hitler and can't be halted by any evidence presented to her.

What about gingers? I consider ginger to be the darkest blonde there is.

http://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-angolan-woman-campaigning-to-save-blonde-people

I wondered when blonde people would enter into "endangered phenotype" category.

>>387240
That's not a school shooting, it's a public suicide.

>>387295
No, he did shoot at some people, one girl was in critical condition. Even if he was the only death, it's still a school shooting because it was shooting done at a school.

>>387277
oh look its one of those native language stations I was hearing aboot.

>Stockholm city council plans to introduce "gender aware snow removal". By removing the snow from bussstops, daycare centers, and bikebaths. Before roads and industry get their snow removed. Because men are over represented in the driving pool so cleaning roads is a manifestation of the patriarchy.
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/stockholm/snorojningen-gynnar-man_8807762.svd

>>387298
>remove snow from bikepaths first
>biking in the winter

>>387325
I love biking in winter. That said, that shit is still retarded. Snow on bikepaths isn't quite as likely to actually kill people.

>>387326
This really sounds like some bad idea that could result in deaths or at least bad injuries.

>Cleared out the areas for women and children
>Buses still cannot access those areas due to their service roads being blocked.
>Hypothermia and Frostbite to follow.

Really the goal of society should/is equality not trying to balance crap with placating preferential treatment that is actually kinda insulting to all.

>>387327
True dat.
>The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

Also can't believe they think removing snow will fix income inequality without addressing the fact that pregnant women have to put their careers on pause for 9 months. I guess it's easier to shovel snow in specific places than to invent artificial wombs and free women from the task forever.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge
http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-phone-spying-program-ruled-unconstitutional-federal-judge-1510756
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html?hp=l2

>>387330
Artificial and token means are easier than actually advancing things.

freedom prevails

FUCK YEAH!

Good ruling and all, but don’t celebrate just yet. It’ll be appealed, and Lord knows if it’ll hold up.

>>387338
>goes straight to the Washington Appeals court
>Oh hey new appointee judge in the pocket of the most intrusive admin ever.
>NSA Approved

SHOCK!!! Pppft no not really.

>>387338
In fact, the judge delayed any action taken against the NSA in the very same judgement because he expected it to be appealed.

Guess it'll be up to Snowball to release some more stuff.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/isps-to-include-porn-filters-as-standard-in-uk-by-2014/
> Parental filters for pornographic content will come as a default setting for all homes in the UK by the end of 2013, says David Cameron's special advisor on preventing the sexualization and commercialization of childhood, Claire Perry MP.
>Perry said parents were "complacent" about the risks of online pornography, pointing out that only four in 10 parents use some kind of Internet filtering at home.
And like 3 in 10 probably don't let their kids near a computer. So, let me get this: Because a minute percentage of minute portion of the population are too lazy to protect their own kids the government are going to take a shit on 100% of the population?

At this level of nannystateism I don't get why the government doesn't simply take kids away at birth to be raised collectively by robots (according to media, teachers are all pedophiles and cant be trusted).

>>387360
that has been one iteration of "it takes a village" here in the states. the "village" of course now being government instead of community

>>387362
That statement in the modern age means baby shower gifts and family helping with babysitting.

>>387378
I feel like that's taken a different turn in the modern age, actually. Just loading materialism on a kid is a little less important than having their parents not be crazy. There is some need for a "nanny state" as provided by child protection services and foster homes, but that entire system is still woefully underfunded and falling through the cracks. People may hate the notion that the government can come in and take their kids away if they're an unfit parent, but the reality is that there are some people so unfit to be a parent that they should probably be held criminally liable for it (like chasing your kid around with a knife unfit).

I feel like porn and sexuality is an issue that still needs to be addressed by society, but blocking it is just more head-in-the-sand stuff. You'd at least prefer like a .xxx domain or something, something easy to block with existing whitelist/blacklist tech from your home pc. It doesn't really force parents to talk to their kids about it or talk about its' widespread proliferation.

>>387420
Yea sexuality not being addressed I think causes more grief then it needs to. Is why I'm writing some books that have that subject included. Kinda glad hearing the current Pope going the old school route of inclusive attitude towards people instead of excluding them like its been for a while. Also get a chuckle at the small groups of Catholic idiots that gripe "HE DOESN'T PAY ATTENTION TO US!!"

>>387420
>There is some need for a "nanny state" as provided by child protection services and foster homes
The problem here is not funding but structure. And the inherent nature of crimes being undetectable until after the damage is done.


The .xxx idea is pretty good, although the warning before entering a website is enough. Similar to how it's enough for TV.
IF they want to ban internet in this way then I demand they also ban any TV channel with sex, violence and profanity.

>>387421
I'm of the opinion that if kids and teens can handle serial murders and mutilation of bodies on regular television they can probably handle anything.

>>387425
>The .xxx idea is pretty good
At one time I agreed, but now I think it's a pretty bad idea. If you're trying to seriously "protect" someone from something, you don't send them into the wild and try to build fences around what you don't want them to see/interact: it's a losing fight. Instead, you keep them in designated, safe areas where you can monitor them.

We need the opposite: .kids With .kids, the "nanny state" can make whatever rules and regulations over it they like in the name of "protecting the children". They can set up an extra application system with .kids where you prove your intentions and have to follow certain standards. They can make a version of FireFox that will only ever access .kids domains and has nice, big buttons or something for easy browsing.

More importantly, .kids can't be used to hassle and beat down the Adult Entertainment industry or otherwise restrict adults in any way that just want to use the internet. .xxx almost certainly will be used in this capacity.

The triple X domain is also kinda like a big PSSST GO HERE sign. If whatever regulations are planned have any user input, some kids will probably be smart enough to work around them or parents not be smart enough to use them properly.

>>387431
Kids don't need a bubble, wall or fence, or they'll never grow up. Kids need a signpost, a warning that tells them what they're about to enter and explains what they would see there.

I expect parents to supervise their kids access to devices that stream porn. This requires almost no effort, it's 4 clicks on my computer to enable parental controls on any account, and 5 clicks to make new password protected accounts.

Think of what kind of parenting you can expect from a person that can't click nine times with a mouse to protect their child. You cant stop that person from being a bad parent by putting a bandaid over their deficiency.

>>387420
>There is some need for a "nanny state" as provided by child protection services and foster homes,
Also, pretty sure this isn't nanny statism. Nanny states exercise their power when there's no real cause to do so, such as treating regular citizens like criminals, curtailing freedoms for no reason, or accusing people of precrime. Like banning gluten, peanut butter, kinder eggs or popsicle sticks because people might hurt themselves on it.

A foster home or CPS can only operate if there's a cause, so that's just a good policy. The proper policy in the case of UK would be to educate parents on how to setup safe accounts, have the schools release a pamphlet with a 10 step process the parent has to sign.

>>387434

I'm sure things are different now, but back when I had to deal with AOL's blockers, I still saw my fair share of porn. Just for the record.

It also blocked a bunch of harmless sites which is another issue entirely.

>>387436
>AOL
What is the meaning of these arcane symbols?

But seriously, the standard porn blocker back on Windows Vista could be time locked, stop BBS sites, censor bad speech and report what the kid saw, which helps the parent have a sitdown chat.
The ones on Windows 7 and 8 allow for far more customized apps.

Of course the simplest method is just make an account that can't access internet unless the kid is being supervised, leave them educational materials and a few gigs of offline games to fool around on.

Also don't think this new law will actually prevent porn, it's not meant to do that, the purpose is to shit on the population....

>>387440
be part of that damned kill switch the govermemt has been so keen on getting these last few years.

>>387431
>.kids

I actually see that as more dangerous then an .xxx domain, cause then you're saying "this is where all the kids are". Reminds me of any "newbie" forum or low-skill game bracket. That's just waiting for Trolling, let alone harassment and targeting. The adult industry at large can still operate even with that sort of barrier, and there isn't a potential for the targeting of kids.

I will admit that even as a child, the lines between what is and isn't "acceptable content" have really defined my internet experience, as I was more often on the side of more questionable elements in forums and in my larger web search abilities. But I feel like one of the bigger problems with content filtering right now is the problem of selecting the proper words to block. .xxx solves the problem of wayward porn sites and sites that are explicitly not about pornography being incorrectly filtered by putting up a big sign that essentially says "here lies titties", whereas when I was a kid, I didn't even need forums or interacting with people to just go look at porn. You encountered questionable subject material, yeah, but it was always within the context of other people. The ease of access may have problematic effects for adults who find themselves facing pornography addicting and without true working blockers.

"Default Blocking" feels like an early step towards Tiered Internet, which may end up being inevitable. But it wouldn't be my first choice

>>387434
>Kids don't need a bubble, wall or fence, or they'll never grow up.
I absolutely agree, but if they're going to fuck around and try to play Big Brother I'd rather limit their damage using .kids, which is more likely to work as a protection level, than .xxx, which is more likely to be used for as a way of beating porn sites over the head.

>>387444
>Reminds me of any "newbie" forum or low-skill game bracket.
Interaction would be extremely limited between users of .kids sites, if any. At best you'd get the limited kind of system Nintendo loves to use in their online interactions, where you can select from a predefined list of responses, sayings, and/or greetings.

When I say .kids, I'm imagining sites for 10/11 year olds or younger. If they want to go beyond that, they could do a .tween/.teen which they could still tightly monitor, but would be less restrictive.

>>387444
that system I remember being discussed in the upper levels back in the Netflix infancy with networks talking about how it would cause bottlenecks and stuff and have plans for different levels of net usage (this one for only news blogs and info, this for video etc) Course now it just looks like a nifty way to backdoor censorship.

>>387453
Eh, you can't make any kind of subsection of the net truly open to multiple developers if you want to have security for such a thing. You're talking about the restriction of a single network and device family over which a single group of companies has an incredible degree of control. Again, I feel like a "kids zone" in the internet wild west is just an open target. It may not be great for porn, and there may be some very good reasons that such a thing hasn't happened yet, but I feel like that industry could field such a restriction better than the groups who'd have to deal with it with a kids zone.

What I'm really wondering is what is hoped to be accomplished by this.

>>387454

A 'tiered' Internet looks like censorship because of how it could segregate parts of the population from accessing content publication platforms based on their level of income/wealth. Blocking people from accessing blogging platforms such as Tumblr based on how much they can afford to pay for Internet service would reek of the rich enforcing a sort-of 'speech tax' on the poor.

It would also make widespread use and development of platforms/technology such as Twitter or YouTube much harder: why bother developing a communication standard or a video-sharing site when you'd have to fight an uphill climb to get it onto any given tier of Internet service on a single Internet service provider AND pray that all the major ISPs decide to accept it as a standard worthy of cross-ISP usage?

A non-neutral Internet -- a tiered, paywalled, segregated, technologically-stagnant Internet -- might not resemble the Internet we have today. I pray we'll never have to find out.

>>387458
the response to that was the talk of development of a decentralized networking system that used an entirley new type of address system and would be untraceable. First heard about it five years ago, I think bitcoin is the spawn of some of that early talk.

>>387459

Yeah, stuff like peer-to-peer DNS and cryptocurrency technology (as well as advances in P2P communication services) have come as a response to all the 'tiered'/'non-neutral' Internet talk in the past few years.

>>387457
>What I'm really wondering is what is hoped to be accomplished by this.
Giving the nanny types something they can squabble over internally in the hopes that they'll leave the rest of us the hell alone.

>>387469
While that may be the case, my inner hustler says "look for a play". I feel like there has to be a good ancillary reason to really push this through.

>>387480
its restriction and control. Because new addresses will need "approval" or some such crap so make sure they fit in the right categories to "protect the children". Same tripe they peddle with some of those Anti-Piracy (Pro Hollywood-Censorship) when they yammer on about the children. Thing is seeing how utterly broken they already made one system they attempted to build from scratch kinda fear them touching the internet.

http://www.neowin.net/news/get-around-the-uks-national-porn-filters-with-a-simple-chrome-extension

yep screen door on a submarine.

>In practice, however, sites that are far from inappropriate or illegal are also being blocked. Examples include rape crisis centres, gay lifestyle (not porn) sites, and even the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community site for one of the UK's political parties, the Liberal Democrats, as Guido Fawkes reports.
For fucks sakes.

This is what happens when you give government power, sooner or later they misuse it or turn it against you.

>>387489
Did anyone seriously not see this coming?
Just a bunch of out of touch idiots ruling the world with a boney fist.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/20/federal-judge-rules-utahs-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/

Holy shit, Utah!

>>387494
In part makes sense. Rumor has it Mormons are doing a "we scratch your back you'll scratch ours." to get Polygamy legalized nationally.

>>387494
They're right. As long as marriage provides rights and privileges to straight couples that gay couples can't enjoy, it's against the constitution.

Although imo regardless of who CAN marry, having a church or a state choose who can or can't get privileges is even MORE unconstitutional. Proper fix needs to be the removal of privileges associated with state/church based marriage and grant them to common law marriages instead.

>>387496
There is also a republican contingent who are on the side of homosexuality mainly out of the fear of "bedroom police."

>>387500
ie the last remaining libertarian republicans, after the religious takeover of GOP.

>>387501
I really love how after the shut down Rove and McCain were like standing back in awe going "WHAT HAVE WE CREATED?"

>>387489
So how despised is Cameron now anyway?

>>387501
Should start vetting and putting out their nominee now. Something of a gripe I always had in the Pol Sci classes is waiting till after everyone else does fuck all toward actually winning against the other parties. And really this one would be the time to push for it. GOP could give a shit about siding with Conservatives and are squabbling with each other over minutia and Democrats seem to be falling out of favor as well. Libertarians really need a Leader to drive this thing home, is there one that I'm missing?

>>387504
>is there one that I'm missing?

Nope. Every time a Libertarian is put up on the national stage, they have to attempt to defend their views, and their view are always either disgustingly backwards or just plain unrealistic and overoptimistic.

That's the problem with 3rd parties in America. The big parties get by on broud platforms and broad rhetoric. The 3rd parties get by by being as extreme as possible and alienation 95% of the country.

>>387499

>Proper fix needs to be the removal of privileges associated with state/church based marriage and grant them to common law marriages instead.

Wait, wut? Im not sure im getting you. Common law marriage is still the state regulating who gets the privileges associated with marriage and denying it to people who don't meet certain criteria; not "holding each other out as husband and wife", not cohabitating, not doing those things for X years, etc. its nice because it lets people who dont want to go through a judge/church get a legally recognized marriage, but why deny regular marriage to people who want it? why not just let people go through a judge and get the license same-day? As long as the requirements are reasonable, dont deny marriage to certain groups, are minimally restrictive, and universally applied, what's wrong with state marriage?

Is your objection to the government being the marriage game period, perhaps. Marriage, from a government perspective, is about protecting property rights, protecting spouses from abuse by their spouses and others (spouses have a fiduciary duty to each other, can't give away all the community property without consent, if you're married domestic violence statutes apply, can sue others for wrongful death and loss of consortium, etc), and protecting the children of the marriage by holding the parents responsible. The state is necessarily involved in all of those. Even minarchists believe in the state's role as protector of private property and enforcer of contracts. So marriage is rightly an affair that the state is involved in. The rules around it are fair to debate--forbidding consenting adult incest, multiple marriage, the age of consent, mandatory blood testing, etc--but I don't see how society can function with a government blind to the creation of new familial relationships.

The biggest problem facing the Libertarian party is that their entire platform is inherently self-contradictory. You can't support both the free market and capitalism, because the two are mutually exclusive with one another. A free market cannot exist in a situation where success in the market enables one to alter the market to one's own favor, and even though that's a problem that is exacerbated by money in politics, it would still be true even if Wal-Mart had no better chance of getting a congressman on their side than a local farmer's market did.

>>387508
>Market liberalization takes power out of the hands of legislators and places it into the hands of whoever holds the most capital.

BasicShitMostLibertariansDoNotUnderstand.mp4

so would it take the collapse of both parties to actually create something that works.

>>387511
You could get something that WORKS just by letting the Republican Civil War that's happening take its natural course. Now whether or not it's a GOOD system or just a FUNCTIONAL one will still be questionable.

The best possible outcome, which is pretty much never going to happen, would be a Constitutional Convention and a full rewrite of the constitution along the lines of modern democracies. The US Constitution was a good effort, especially for the time it was written in, but a better understanding of how government and citizens interact has come along since then that makes much of the current form of the US Government obsolete, but actively contrary to its intended purposes.

The biggest problem facing this is the degree to which the Founding Fathers and the Constitution have been Mythologized in the US. It has become a State Religion that is almost inescapable--any attempt to acknowledge that times have changed since the Founding is met with people decrying the heresy of suggesting we try to operate like it's 2013--2014 in a couple of weeks--instead of 1776.

But then again....it's getting less and less heretical to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the United States, and that a full revision might be necessary. But the problem that then arises is--if we DO call a Constitutional Convention, will human nature ensure that more problems are baked in to the NEW Constitution by special interests than we already have? The answer is probably yes, sad to say.

that was one of the reasons it was constructed. the way it was. Most founders would wonder why thomgs hadn't been rebuilt in 200 so years

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/20/anti-ageing-human-trials

Alright fuckers, we're going down to the wire. It's THE FUTURE or the T-Virus, either way we're looking at some crazy bullshit.

>>387522
Fuck ti was either this or those damned Gene Modded bugs in the Everglades.

>>387523
though with how the US handles Madcow and such outbreaks. Eh what's leveling a town or two with napalm gonna harm.

>>387522
>ageing

>>387509
>Market liberalization takes some power out of the hands of legislators and places more of it into the hands of whoever holds the capital, regardless of how much of it they hold, from small businesses to larger corporations.
>The second option is giving power exclusively to legislators who will auction that power piecemeal to whoever has the capital to outbid everyone else, which they will of course use to amass more capital and legislate smaller competitors out of business. (<<<current system)
>And of course the third option is to give power to tyrants who are beholden to no one but their own insanity.

BasicShitMostStatistsDoNotUnderstand.mp4

>>387527
The legislators, even the ones who are corrupt, are subject to being voted out of office. Sufficiently powerful businesses are not.

Market liberalization is like getting rid of the police force and replacing it with superheroes. It sounds cool because the system we have has flaws, but it would make everything worse than it already is. Also, it is something that only works in teenage power fantasies written by hack writers who don't let things like "human nature" get in the way of their daydreams.

>>387529
I think blanket term limits could be at least a partial fix for some of this. Ten years limit max all offices. That and severe restriction on income during service. Say like a prenup for elected officials. You leave with what you came in with no more, no less. Any income earned while in office after departure goes into the public coffers.

>>387532
Actually, no. Term limits would INCREASE the power of lobbyists, because lobbyists would then be the most experienced lawmakers in Washington by default.

What really needs to be focused on right now is campaign finance reform. Do like Europe and make it to where if you get enough signatures on a petition, you get to run for office regardless of party, and then the government gives each candidate who got those signatures the money they will use to run. A set value, which is equal amongst all candidates, again, regardless of party.

>>387529
Voted out... and replaced with perfect paragons of virtue?

>Sufficiently powerful businesses are not.
Nope. Only businessmen safe from being fired are those that own 100% of their company, which is mostly noblemen, craftsmen and small time mom and pop shops.

The corporations way of choosing leadership is waaaaay more efficient than what we have in the political sphere:
- You're the CEO until you die or they find someone better. Every year there are thousands of bright, intelligent young people graduating to try and vie for your position. In the political sphere you depend on patronship (cronyism/corruption) to sway a party to take you as their candidate, so there's only a one or two options for replacing the president, and they're usually not based on merit.

- In a standard configuration, corporations have term limits while at the same time the boards convene every quarter to vote on whether the CEO did a good job. So it's literally unknown for a CEO to reach a term limit before being voted out for some small mistake, if profits are down for a quarter you're likely to be replaced. Imagine if every citizen (stockholder) of a state voted every 3 months on whether we should keep a president or congressman. Currently they can't even balance the budget, let alone make a profit!

>>387535
>Imagine if every citizen (stockholder) of a state voted every 3 months on whether we should keep a president or congressman.
ex. Bush would have been voted out in 2004.

>>387535
It doesn't matter if the CEO has term limits, because the stockholders do not, and they're the ones who are being granted greater freedom than the rest of us by having direct control over a Governing body when megacorporations are allowed to run rampant. Libertarianism, whether the adherents realize it or not, is about creating a ruling class that most of us cannot EVER be part of, once stock prices get out of the range of the average citizen.

Any person, regardless of their wages has a right to vote in a US election. When Wal-Mart becomes the government (the natural consequence of unchecked capitalism), only those who can afford Wal-Mart stock have the right to vote.

>>387538
>only those who can afford Wal-Mart stock have the right to vote.
More like only those who can afford 51% of Wal-Mart stock. You need a LOT more money to have any say in a world ruled by markets. Hell, it's mostly true for our current system.

>>387539
Yeah, that's the other thing--it's not a one man, one vote system. It's a "As many votes as you can afford" system. So yet more examples of reasons that the "Libertarian Paradise" is one in which the Rich are given privilege and the poor are expected to bend over and take it.

It is absolutely hilarious, in a rather "Gallows Humor" sort of way, that the rich are given unprecedented levels of freedom and power in the US right now, and yet they still try to play themselves off as the victims of everything.

I absolutely cannot wait until some of them get together and actually do build their Libertarian Paradise in some Micronation somewhere, and suddenly realize that without a poor and middle class to to mooch off of, they have absolutely zero useful skills to make money off of anymore.

>>387538
Yea I'm seeing a number of companies being run into the ground just to make more money for the holders NOW. These idiots have no interest in the companies longevity as long as they can make it all now and then move on to the next when then divest and leave it to rot after they've killed it.

>>387509

Market liberalization is beneficial to a point, but an unregulated, or insufficiently regulated, market is a self-destroying vacuum, as is a state of anarchy (or a state too weak to prevent lapsing into anarchy). Too little state, you end up with another state; too lilttle market regulation, and you get monopolies, and then poof goes all that consumer choice and price-lowering and innovation-driving competition.

Libertarianism can't go mainstream unless it moderates. Most people have some empathy and don't give a shit about Austrian economics, and you can't win elections saying "Our policy for the poor is cut taxes and regulations, and the economic growth will make everything better for everyone!" If the platform had room for some social safety net, some consumer, environmental, antii-discrimination, and anti-trust regulation, and the acknowledgement that short-sighted, selfish greed is just as damaging to human society as heavy-handed government, then people would flock to it. You've got sex, drugs, guns, privacy, no war, less bureaucratic bullshit in your life...all the stuff that makes people libertarian to begin with. But to make it big, you need a heart, common sense, and leader without the skeletons in their closet of the Pauls (racism) who can articulate that platform.

>>387540

>Yeah, that's the other thing--it's not a one man, one vote system. It's a "As many votes as you can afford" system.

If we changed how our elections are financed, it might be a bit different. Of course, the rich could still afford more speech, but if campaign contributions are capped and public/banned, the implications of quid quo pro and election-buying wouldn't be as big.

>I absolutely cannot wait until some of them get together and actually do build their Libertarian Paradise in some Micronation somewhere, and suddenly realize that without a poor and middle class to to mooch off of, they have absolutely zero useful skills to make money off of anymore.

As a Rapture-esque hidden elf village, yeah, they'd fail quickly. Realistically, as part of the grander world, they'd probably just make their money as a tax-shelter, like some small countries do. Add tourism, a home for federal regulation (and, depending on the dominant strain of libertarian, IP law)-free bio/pharma/tech research, and possibly drug/gun trafficking, and they're made, until the US decides to bring them some freedom to the pirate paradise.

>>387539
That's not how it works, members of board of directors don't need to have more than 1 share each, they are often economic intellectuals, professors or authors that the shareholders vote for because they know how to run a business. Directors just represent the stockholders who support them, kind of like a parliament, and even someone with 1 share in a company can sway a vote for a board member.

Of course the larger the corporation the lower the amount of power a single share wields, but the same is true of political votes. Nowadays you need to organize a movement just to have enough votes to influence municipal elections.
It's kind of like voting based on how much you contribute to a country (amount of taxes you pay). On one hand, you don't want to pay taxes because it's money lost, on the other hand you need to be heard. People who want to be active in politics need to pay a lot, people who don't can opt to sell their votes for huge amounts of money to people who do.

Also it makes no sense for you to buy a large amount of stock in a single investment, because you're putting your eggs in one basket. Even incredibly rich people like Bill Gates might only own half a dozen shares per company.

>>387540
Currently only the richest people can finance an election campaign anyway, I dare you to find me a president with a net worth under a million. Also do you think the Rich (as you capitalize it, you damn capitalist) don't get to control the politicians that are elected by a one vote one person system? That's horribly naive.
The only difference between corporation elections and political elections is that the corporation has more checks and balances, and is far more fair towards people with less money or interest in the outcome.

>>387547
>If we changed how our elections are financed, it might be a bit different.
How to do that though? So far ITT the suggestion is that the government currently in power decides how much money their challengers get from taxes they collect. Not to mention that the major parties would still be choosing who represents them.
That's kind of insane.

>>387551
>the corporation has more checks and balances
That is the most ridiculous fantasy I've ever heard, but it makes it clear there's no point in this argument since I'm arguing about how things work on Earth, and you're arguing about how things work in Fairyland.

>>387522
>Anti-aging. ("ageing" if you're British, apparently)
>Soon we will be immortal!

Actually, no. Statistically speaking, a person in the first-world is about 50% likely to die by non-natural means rather than old age or old-age-related disease. Given an average human lifespan of 75 years, that means that you would be 98.4% likely (basically guaranteed) to die by age 450 years, by something like a car wreck, falling off a ladder, getting shot, etc. That's still a really long time, but it means we'd be more like Elves than Gods.

So until we get indestructible robot bodies or brain-backups, no dice.


>treatment would be $50,000 a day

First of all, it makes no sense that you'd need it everyday. If it can turn a 50-year-old into a 20-year-old in short order, you'd only need to get a rejuvenation once per decade or so, to be Heinlein-esque about it. But even if it WERE, that's only $18.25 million per year, or $1.825 billion per century. Plenty of 1%-ers can afford that.

Of course, it was mentioned in the comments the implication that the rich will become superhumans who prevent the commoners access to it, basically giving them absolute power. It's easy for them to bribe politicians as-is; imagine how much more effective it would be if the bribe were not a million dollars, but a promise to live youthful for hundreds of years.

>>387552
Oh cool, lets check how many CEOs were fired in the last 10 years compared to how many presidents were impeached during the same time.

Surely since government has checks and balances, and both positions are filled by equally flawed humans, the numbers should be greater on the side of politics.

seeing as yesterday was the anniversary: al megrahi was innocent, gaddafi was paid to take the blame, the lockerbie bombing was retaliation against america for iran air flight 655 and was never meant to go down over scotland. discuss.

>>387569
That arguemeny doesn't really hold, considering that in the past ten years we had a big total of two presidents. Pretty sure there are a LOT more than two CEOs in the US of A, so the likehood of some of them getting fired increases.

>>387578
If it makes you feel better go ahead and compare the percentages, even though if you pause to think about it CEOs term limits are a hell of a lot longer than a presidents, which gives your side of the argument more likelyhood of being right. And it still manages to be wrong.

>>387582
Is it fair to include the amount of politicians that were voted out of office? Because I'm pretty sure that's a higher percentage than in the private sector.

>>387584
Or the number of times an executive's orders got cancelled out by legislative or judicial power? Since we're just talking about checks and balances here.

>>387587
One of the reasons I think the Judiciary should be separate from the Executive more than it is.

>>387588
Probably true, but the point is that it is a check/balance that Business doesn't have to deal with as much, especially under the effects of Market Liberalization.

>>387584
>Is it fair to include the amount of politicians that were voted out of office?
Were they voted out before they term was up, or were they just being replaced once their term was up?

>>387587
That would kind of prove the point that government has less checks and balances, considering they wield that kind of power with no check or balance.

>>387593
What do you mean they wield that power with no checks and balances? The Judicial branch's check is that it is selected by the executive branch and has to be approved by the legislative branch. The Executive Branch AND the Legislative branch are both checked by one another in numerous ways, AND they are both subject to being voted out of office by citizens, all of whom (theoretically) have the same amount of power as one another.

Now of course, in practice the Primary system means that the extremists have the most power among ordinary citizens, and the "vetting" system means that the biggest contributors to the campaigns have even more power than them, which is a real concern. But even WITH all of those problems, letting businesses be the government is FAR WORSE IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.

Unless of course you're rich. If you're rich, it's a better system because you get to have more power than the people who have less money than you, and the Libertarian cult really pushes the Calvinistic idea that THIS IS AS IT SHOULD BE. If you have more money, it means you're "more worthy" than the people who have less, and therefore SHOULD have more say in how society is run than the poor. This is what happens when you base your political philosophy on an antisocial drug addict like Ayn Rand.

>>387596
So the governments check and balance is the government, except when people vote out a politician if they do something bad, which practically never happens. Solid.

Now, lets see the check and balances of the corporation:
1. Like the government, the internal working of the corporation and their stockholders are both considered checks, except the stockholders are a hell of a lot more active than political voters and hold a lot more clout.
2. The customers buying their product are the second largest check for businesses. Government doesn't worry about this because it doesn't have a product.
3. Competitors are the third largest check, if a business makes a mistake they are seriously set back, if a government makes a mistake they say "oops" (sometimes) and revert it.
4. And of course businesses have to worry about the government itself and any cockamimie laws they figure out, another check on top of the 3 previous.

>letting businesses be the government
lol no one is advocating that. I'm just saying businesses have more checks and balances, which is factually true.

>Libertarian cult
Are you serious? This is reaching the level of trolling. Please don't talk about libertarianism as if you actually know jack shit about it.

>>387596
Also you need to stop thinking of government as being that different from businesses.
Government is just an (inefficient) business that's big enough to hire a bunch of thugs to defend its territory and enforce its laws... every law of which happens to benefit the government first and foremost.
And of course their chief way of making profit is in the form of forcing everyone living in said territory to pay a tithe in the form of a third of what they make each year.

The nightmare you talk about where the business is the government? You're living in it.

>>387603
>lol no one is advocating that.
That is the result of market liberalization. You do not get to decrease the amount of authority in a capitalist system. You only get to choose between "governments have the control" and "corporations have the control."

>>387606
It takes an incredible sort of naivete to think that the corporations can't collect votes or sway the opinions of politicians. Currently this kind of lobbying makes one truth plain, when "governments have the control" then "corporations have the control", the two are directly correlated. But when you take power away from both, the people and their personal choices are all that's left.

No libertarian would imagine removing all government because at it's simplest a government is a collective of people making sure everyone plays by the same ruleset. However the larger a government becomes and the more power it accrues the more damage it's capable of doing when influenced by the wrong people, so the chief libertarian philosophy is: the only good government is a government small enough for the people to control.

>>387640
But that's exactly the point: megacorporations aren't small enough for people to control, they're less controllable than a larger government would be, and they will absolutely take on the same roles that we take away from government as they become more powerful.

And I have admitted from the start that corporations corrupt government--but this is something that can be fought at the governmental level, and still affords them less control than just throwing open the doors and say "Okay guys! No more rules!"

>>387653
>megacorporations
The real big international ones couldn't really exist without government regulating their regional competitors out of business. So when people say they want more government regulation, that's like saying they want more oil on the fire.

This isn't something that can be fought at the governmental level because it's not the corporations that are corrupting politicians, the power granted to the politicians is corrupting them. And the solution is more power? No way.

Only rational thing to do is take the power away in increments until a more stable situation is reached.

>"Okay guys! No more rules!"
See pic in >>387603

>>387654
I'm exaggerrating for effect, because the rules and regulations placed on businesses are already excessively laissez faire, and the complaints by libertarians that they're draconian are based on asinine beliefs about how much of a burden they truly place on businesses and how much they limit the economy. Especially given the number of businesses which are captive-businesses--there is no way to outsource wait staff, or shop clerks, or warehouse workers, so the argument that "Fewer regulations would mean more jobs in America" is ridiculous. We are never going to compete with countries that allow businesses to treat their workers as subhumans, and the idea that businesses that are willing to do so to increase their profits would ever return to America, or that we would ever want those jobs to come to America, is absolutely ridiculous.

It takes a truly crazy political philosophy to think that getting Apple to move its factories here by making it legal for them to treat American workers the way they treat Chinese workers would be a net benefit for the US. The only people who would benefit from that would be Apple.

The corporate tax rate in the United States is one of the lowest in the world, and is as low as it has ever been in American History. The regulations placed on businesses in the United States are about as lax as they can be without actually making it legal for the rich to hunt the poor for sport. The idea that there are still people arguing that business owners need LESS regulation is a complete farce.

TSA Kids Animation

>>387603
>business has more checks and balances

Except that has never been true and government regulation has been required numerous times to reign in business practices that one could describe as "fairly evil". Plus, the research on regulations suggests that the whole "anti-regulation" movement is largely a bunch of whiny (old, white, wow look at this pattern) crybabies who don't want to actually be stopped from doing shit that one might describe as "destroying the economy". Proper regulation actually improves economies and business:
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/regulation_for_business_success

>>387654
>power granted to politicians is corrupting them
Um. No. Huge mega-corporations with lots of money and various ways to hide their payments to the politicians are corrupting their values towards various causes. It's why half the political structure seems like they're constantly desperately trying to convince everyone else that these ideas you're espousing are the best course when any decent evidence-based research into them suggests that the opposite is actually true. Business is in no way inherently self-regulatory. They only need to make money. In theory, at least, Politicians are actually obligated to help the people, especially if they pay taxes. And in a lot of unseen ways they do.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/att-the-internet-is-awesome-so-lets-get-rid-of-phone-regulations/

>>387603
Wanting to be able to fight a war against an unjust government without wanting access to tanks and rocket launchers represents an argument either divorced from reality (I think I'll do fine fighting a war without making these weapons available to me) or an argument completely illogical (I know the weapons I want will be ineffectual, but I want them anyway for that purpose).


Wanting the government to fear armed revolt requires one of two things:

One is a military force who's interests significantly diverge from their own (which would include giving people actual tanks, as well as aircraft and strategic weapons in the case of the United States).

The other, if you're uncomfortable with the idea of the occasional military coup, is not about access to small arms. Small arms can be accessed at supplied easily and cheaply. The real hard to get tools and skills for modern irregular warfare is demolitions, which are also the most effective. That's not an argument for the right to own small arms and ammunition, except as an incidental matter. It's an argument to own ANFO and detonation triggers.

If the idea of using car bombs and other weapons of terror, and military coups makes you uneasy, than you're not serious about the government being in danger of being overthrown, and you're just engaging in fantasy. Buy some Hulk Hands.

>>387693
2 million own military grade explosive weapons such as grenades
3.1 million own machine guns
55-70 million own some kind of firearm
There are close to 300 million firearms freely available
And the number that can make explosives, and make or modify guns is quite high as well
The US government doesn't have the money or resources to fight of 10% of 10% of 10% of armed people in America. Recently, ~25k terrorists have put up a serious twelve year fight against 500k government forces in Afghanistan adding 5 trillion to the federal debt, and they still aren't pacified.

Read history regarding insurgencies and guerrilla warfare.

>>387680
>power granted to politicians is corrupting them
>Um. No.
Read every book with a power lesson ever written. Also look into all of recorded history please, starting with Sumer and Akkad.

This is why we can't have nice things...

>>387657
Tax rates I'll agree with but current US regulations are excessive, unclear and pointed in the wrong directions.

We need clear and concise regulations that protect people, not giant piles of bullshit any group of lawyers can step around. You can't make it more effective by making the shit pile bigger.

>>387696
>You can't make it more effective by making the shit pile bigger.

Hence the biggest problem with government in its current state and why any kind of National Anything or any kinda endeavor of that scale in the US is doomed from the start.

If it doesn't work then regulate it more, make more laws and more departments to oversee shit. "reform" of any sort is the proverbial Cross to Dracula for these people who act more like children trying to see who can build the biggest cardboard fort then actually do work.

>>387697
The truly sad part is that there are so many laws that we physically don't have the resources to enforce all of them. So to compensate for massive number of laws, the government hires extra law enforcement officers even though there's no money to train or fund them properly. This means that while national debt grows, a goodly portion of the LEOs are either improperly trained or forced into corruption to supplement their shitty paychecks.

An inefficient spiral of destruction.

>>387694
I actually did a good chunk of my degree on the Provos campaigns. But let's look at Afghanistan.

http://icasualties.org/oef/Fatalities.aspx

So far we have 386 deaths by hostile small arms fire exclusively, 1 death by small arms sniper fire, and an additional 81 small arms related deaths from Green on Blue killings. Machine gun fire also accounted for one death.

So a little over 10% of coalition fatalities in Afghanistan are caused by an Afghani owning a gun in the first place, and shooting it at a member of the Coalition forces.

For comparison, 194 of those deaths have been from non-hostile sources.

Any way you slice it, the vast bulk of the damage done has been with weapons other than firearms. IED and IED attacks not combined with firearms attacks account for 1362 fatalities.

>>387699
>And the number that can make explosives, and make or modify guns is quite high as well
You can make explosives and demolition tools in a forest, with rocks and sticks. Can even make military grade plastique, if you have formaldehyde.

>>387698
Its an historic spiral, I'm kinda amazed of how much Man repeats itself historically. But right now we're on the path of ever tightening fist that eventually controls nothing and attempts to oppress everyone since nobody is happy by that point.

>>387702
To note I also see a possible Rice Broker type situation in China, lets see if they catch themselves before the power shift.

>>387700
Can you clarify whether or not you're still disputing that small arms are not the primary tool of modern irregular warfare?

>>387705
Aircraft are the primary tool of modern warfare between states, does that mean we should dispense with tanks and ships?

Losing firearms means you can't protect the people making the bombs, or engage in any kind of real guerrilla warfare, or actually end the conflict and overthrow a bad leader.

>>387694
>read any book with a power lesson ever written
OR how about reading the history of businesses? Or about Governmental Regulation and money? Shit like The 48 Laws of Power and any book with "Power Lessons" is actually ridiculous horseshit made to sell to people who don't actually understand how the power works (hint, it comes with responsibility), and want some short-cut "easy-mode" to power.

If you actually look at the real financial transactions of history, just about every single one of them suggests that Business goes out of its' way at break-neck pace to influence Government. Government often has to come in and make businesses try not to be soulless devils, and usually after the fact. The suggestion that regulation is bad for business is scientifically ridiculous, and the only people screaming otherwise are the people who have been influenced by the rich business owners to try and re-enforce everything that keeps them in the money but slowly destroys our economy and leaves millions of people feeling like rushing capital hill.

No seriously, read up on business, because you are really incorrect here. If any corruption comes to politicians, it is in collusion with business, not regardless of it.

>>387721
If I take your argument seriously, yes, we should. Your entire argument is premised on the idea that a military force should dispense with tanks and ships.

>>387747
>Your entire argument is premised on the idea that a military force should dispense with tanks and ships.
wtf are you talking about? Did you miss the point of the analogy or something?

>>387770
Your entire point is that a military force is neccesary to overthrow a government, but it's not like they're crazy and want tanks and rocket launchers.

So yeah, if I take your argument seriously, military forces have no problem disposing of tanks, ships, planes and armor peircing weapons.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/26/poll-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/?iid=tsmodule

>>387787
Well it is one that is more concerned with Party Politics than the security and representation of the Legislative Branch.

>>387781
I have no idea what you're talking about, can't follow the line of logic.

OK so
1. Because multiple governments were overthrown by citizens through history
2. And governments can kill tanks easily but have no idea how to deal with a guerrilla war
3. That means guns have no necessity in USA

The fuck is going on here? And what was that tangent about explosives?

>>387787
It's only news if Congress has a positive approval rating.

Remember the knockout "game"? We all knew this would happen eventually.

> Feds: 'Knockout' attack was a hate crime
> The suspect made a video of the attack November 24, the complaint said. In the video, he allegedly commented that "the plan is to see if I were to hit a black person, would this be nationally televised?"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/26/justice/texas-knockout-charge/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

>>387803
Fuck that guy.
Fuck anyone who thinks assault is a game. How do people even get this messed up in the head? Where they just never told that attacking people is bad?

>>387805
He's just a troll trying to expose hypocrisy in media. Like them not calling it a hatecrime when a bunch of black guys were punching 80 year old crackers.

I don't care what excuse he has. He attacked an innocent man unprovoked. He brought physical harm to someone who did nothing to deserve it.

Fuck that. That's unjustifiable.

Not-so-breaking News: NSA still terrible
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catalog-reveals-nsa-has-back-doors-for-numerous-devices-a-940994.html

>>387818
When has that ever happened unprovoked in any regard?

>>387873
The media trolling or the knockout game?

>>387818
and that justifies him punching an elderly man hard enough to break his jaw in two places how?

>>387818

Here's what someone who actually wanted to expose media hypocrisy would do: they would create a hoax video, in which it appears that they're performing the knockout game, but in reality nobody is actually being hurt by it.

This guy just wanted an excuse to punch old black people. What a piece of filth.

>>387876
>>387877
Uh no, it's not about justification, the kid committed assault and will do time for it. The problem is that this has been going on for awhile but it wasn't a "hate" crime until today, and the FBI certainly didn't intervene on the part of the hundreds of previous victims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u85kXAxYeQ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U-Z1fZ9F3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev5D46nk7VU

There's even self defense vids for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFPXXxkWx5A

>>387885
Did you watch these videos? They believed that they had been anti-semetic attacks, but because of the random nature of the assaults, and that assailants claimed it was not a hate crime (protip: you can't tell someone is Jewish just by glancing at them as they walk down an alley, really, you can't) it didn't hold water. also, not all of the assailants were black, and not all of the victims were white. There is one assault in the second video towards the end where both the assailant and victim are black.

This is a hate crime because the guy said he wanted to assault a black person. He made it very clear he picked his target because of his race.

You are an idiot.

>>387889
>There is one assault in the second video towards the end where both the assailant and victim are black.
Oh great, well as long as there was one such case. If I go punch a white guy now, does that mean this kid is off the hook?

You're an idiot if you think absolutely none of the previous crimes were hate crimes. The only difference is that nobody cared.

I'm going to punch you both if this keeps up and it will definitely be a hate crime because I'm FULL OF HATE.

>>387911
I'm gonna criminally hug you and commit the first Love Crime in history.

>>387913
HUGS AS LETHAL WEAPONS!!!! YES!!!!

http://www.storyleak.com/dhs-constitution-free-zones-us/
http://rt.com/usa/court-upholds-laptop-border-searches-041/

>>387914

>>388025
>Exactly the entire state of Florida.
hilarious.

Lucky for me, I seem to be just north of it. Not that it'll simply stay like that for long.

>>388041
TBH that map under-estimates the reach of the digital spying capabilities at least. To say those zones are "constitution free" is a bit rich, especially when the application of the constitution is so varied by individual cases and people.

>>388041
From what I've read it seems to give a pretty large area around international airports as well, not just the border.

>>388041
As well as the entirety of several northeast states, and most of several others.

>>388042
That's not about the digital spying, though; that's about the FBI/DEA/Customs/ICE/etc. being able to legally and physically search your papers and computers without warrant. They can rifle through your things on nothing more than a "hunch" within those zones.

>>388042
Physical searching is a hell of a lot more violating, especially when you realize they can snap on a pair of latex gloves and literally violate you.

Nobody cared back when the government did this shit during the cold war.
So why do we care so much now?
Anything can happen, and the NSA is just trying to prepare for that.

Someday you'll be thankful they have as much freedom to operate as they do now.
Hell, I bet some of you whiners are the same people who'll go "GOVERNMENT SAVE ME" when shit gets real.
Ignore the Redditor hype and get with the real world.
Large governments need large oversight to prevent large problems.
Losers.

>>388113
People no longer trust the system due to seeing flaws and the idiotic nonsense of the parties constantly shitting on each other instead of playing nice and keeping that crap in the backroom.

>>388114
>2014
>still thinking a country is run by its elected officials

>>388113
Almost responded before I remembered it was Moe talking.

>>388113
>Nobody cared back when the government did this shit during the cold war.
>Nobody cared
Millions of people cared. They had huge protests, interdicted wars, changed the culture of the entire western world.

If anything people today are too apathetic.

>>388113
Then they can get that large oversight through large legislation instead of large overreaches of authority.

>>388114
>>388120
>>388127
>>388128
Read the first letter of each line.

>>388150
Clever.

However, unlike everyone else, I stopped reading when I saw your name, Moe. You're a master ruseman, but you have to get up pretty early (4 AM) to fool me.

That being said, you still got it, as evidenced by those replies.

>>388150
You are a fucking master. My heart skipped a beat, I think I'd fellate you if you were close enough.

>>388150
Speaking as someone who fell for it and responded...

...well done.

Mein Kampf topped Amazon ebook charts, a few groups are asking for its removal from the list.

>>388244
yep because that will send the correct message. I mean looking around it looks like its gaining because people can look it over and then judge it then delete it.

>>388245
Even beyond that, though, there is a lot of historical value to be found in reading the memoirs of a person who went down as bad a path as Hitler. It can help give us insights both into what sorts of things were going through his mind, and the thing that people never want to discuss which is....it can humanize him, and make us empathize with him.

Which, the kneejerk reaction would say is BAD because he's evil, but the fact that he's evil is exactly why humanizing him and empathizing with him is GOOD. If we see his human side and sympathize with what he says of his life, it reminds us that "I am capable of being just as despicable as he was, if I don't make the right choices with how to live my life."

That absolutely is something that people should know.

>>388246
those that don't learn are doomed to repeat. Though looking at man, has a bad habit of that anyway sadly.

>>388246
Kind of reminds me of pic related but on a larger scale.

>>388257
Those that learn history are doomed to watch those who did not and are in power repeat it.

A big thing for that right now is secret treaties. That was a huge part of why WWI happened; from what we know of current leaked treaties, it won't cause WWIII, but it will certainly fuck humanity over in a different fashion.

>>388265
yea some weird game of consolidation of global power some seems to be about stomping all over Europe, which nobody is happy about.

>>388267
I'm really hoping that the EU tells America to fuck off soon. Our country needs to be taken down a few pegs in many areas.

Most countries in the EU became "socialist" because they were bombed to hell and back in the early 20th century, and building back from that taught them the value of community and how being adversarial can be devastating. All America learned was that war=profit, because outside of Pearl Harbor we, as a country, were barely scratched by either war. I think that if we had suffered the same devastation at that time, we'd be a very different country politically.

Many of the "socialist" countries getting more right-wing governments (that are still left of America) is a sign to me of the generations that experienced such tragedy have died off or are mostly powerless/senile, and younger generations that don't understand the need for their systems (because no one pays heed to the silent doors, only the squeaky ones) are trying to tear them down.

>>388271
>Our country needs to be taken down a few pegs in many areas.
Your country is doing fine. Out of the 50 states there are maybe 10 or so that are kinda fucked up, and none of them at the level of some European countries like Albania or Moldova. The problem is that the American people get such a hardon outdoing each other in patriotism that they don't spot routine flaws in time to fix them.

>and building back from that taught them the value of billions in aid from USA
Fixd, the Marshall Plan isn't exactly a secret. Also EU only got socialist after importing the counterculture movement (~70s).

ARE WE TALKING UP CANADA, OH BOY LEMME JOIN!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/11/nunavut-food-prices-protest-inuit-poverty_n_1588144.html

>Many of the "socialist" countries getting more right-wing governments (that are still left of America) is a sign to me of the generations that experienced such tragedy have died off or are mostly powerless/senile

Coincidentally, America is becoming more liberal as the old farts die off and take their racism, sexism, homophobia, and class warfare with them.

>>388348
The baby boomers are the hippie generation of America.

Are you people listening to yourselves? Your theories make no sense.

>>388356
won't find a more greedy and self centered generation among peoples. Born with silver spoons and thinking they should have all the spoons too.

>>388356
>baby boomers=hippies

er, no. Baby boomers are the children of the hippies, being born between 1946 and 1964 according to Wikipedia. Their defining trait is that they are the children of that generation, being born in the post-WWII "baby boom" that occurred when the troops came home, and being coddled by the relative affluence and abundance that their parents generation lived in. Baby Boomers were the first generation where the parents said "we're only going to be awesome parents", without anyone really understanding how to do that (i.e. maintain a certain level of discipline and order while still allowing relatively free exploration of ideas). The Boomers dominated through the 70s and 80s, Generation X being their children who were born largely disdaining the previous ideals of absolute freedom and general privilege, but still living with them. Millennials came around in the 90s and are largely children of the Net, many of them not having solid family lives or ideals because there hasn't really been a unifying theme amongst parents about how to handle what Millennials want to be (gay, gender-fluid, highly non-traditional, once again trying to re-accept minorities and people who have been structurally denied and with more of an eye towards the future than their parents). In the meantime, due to economic forces, we've seen a kind of population and intellectual schism emerge between Rural America and Urban America (and I don't mean African Americans, I'm talking large Urban Centers like New York, Detroit, Boston, Chicago, etc.). The difference in mentality is in part how some parts of the country could become so insular, particularly the rural parts, where it's very easy to go there and just forget that time passes. The Urban Centers have been battling other problems that come with large centralized populations, things like gun control, drug trafficking, failing or underfunded infrastructure that does not adequately make up for differences in the wealth of neighborhoods (poor neighborhoods get poor schools, wealthy neighborhoods get good schools), all in addition to the decentralization of business made possible by the internet and the increasing lack of "dumb" jobs in America, jobs where you didn't really need to know anything going in and the job itself was a kind of education in that industry.

The demographic shifts in geographic location seems to be what produces such wide variances of opinion and understandings of what is going on in the country. The gun control debate in particular is split between rural, where you need a shotgun or two to drive off foxes and such, and almost never use it on a person, and urban, where the crowds of people mean even holdout pistols are wildly dangerous.

Sorry, rambling. But your assumptions about what the baby-boomers are is slightly incorrect.

>>388356
Calling the Baby Boomers "the hippie generation" is like calling Generation X "the goth generation." It was a relatively small subculture that existed within the baby boomers' ranks. Probably 80-90% of the hippie population of America was at Woodstock.

>>388362
> The gun control debate in particular is split between rural, where you need a shotgun or two to drive off foxes and such, and almost never use it on a person, and urban, where the crowds of people mean even holdout pistols are wildly dangerous.
This is an important point, I think, and one that's not expressed enough. Not only is the divide roughly along rural/urban (except in Texas, where everyone is packing), when politicians get whipped into an anti-gun frenzy they tend to go after the types of weapons that would be used by the rural crowd for protection from wild animals or hunting over the types used by urban criminals for their own gain.

In addition, because of the proliferation of weapons in rural settings the owners tend to be more responsible and their children better understand how to safely handle (or avoid) firearms as well, even if they don't use them personally. My school had as part of its PE class a hunter's safety course, the end of which had a day of going to a shooting range and actually firing a weapon (might have been blanks, I can't recall; I was on a trip when it happened). Sure, there are still accidental shootings (see: Dick Cheney), but AFAIK they're not as prevalent as in cities where firearms aren't strictly controlled.

At least, anecdotally, all the small midwest towns I've lived in had a rifle or two in almost every home I entered, some even on display, but they were all behind thick glass and locked with the ammo stored separately.

Focusing more on the rural/urban split for a moment, it's an important piece of American politics. I support the idea of splitting the country into smaller countries that can be more homogenous, and then have an American Union with Mexico and Canada, but that will only do a bit to fix the rural/urban split. This is an interesting article about the "Urban Archipelago": http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813 I thought there was a domain with a really purdy version of this, but the attached image is sufficient. The giant population density in the cities is the primary reason that Democrats (the "left") get elected, but as you can see from the image the vast majority of the country (by land mass) is Republican, but they barely have the population density to catch up so you're more likely to have "swing cities" instead of "swing states".

This is also why gerrymandering is a problem, because politicians will take these cities and slice them up into super-weird-looking districts that expand into the rural areas to diminish the power of the cities as much as possible. It's why the rules need to change to make districts based on an algorithm as well as allow multiple reps for one district, so those large cities will have multiple reps where the top 5 or whatever win.

>>388367
>>388362
>Baby boomers are the children of the hippies, being born between 1946 and 1964 according to Wikipedia.
lol wow, you realize the counterculture sort of started in the early 60s, just when the first boomers would have been coddled 20-somethings?

WWII Americans return from war, USA replaces a ruined europe on world stage, there's a shitload of jobs and people have a lot of babies because they can. End result is a lot of babies (boomers) that were born during a time when America is arguably the easiest place in the world to live (ties into this >>388360). Resulting generation, with too much time on their hands goes off to get higher education... and also to get high and start the counterculture.

We need to introduce a class on recent history, because people apparently forget this shit.

>>388433
I'm not seeing how anything you said here is a response to >>388367.

>>388433
>because people apparently forget this shit.

Like you for example. And throw in reading comprehension lessons as well.

And your post doesn't refute anything because no one is claiming that these groups don't exist or that they weren't part of said groups. People are telling you that it's erroneous to refer to an entire generation of people as hippies seeing as they were a subculture.

>>388437
Oh wait, it's erroneous for me to say the boomer generation is responsible for the paradigm shift of the counterculture, something that's actually a true historical fact... but it's not erroneous for you to say they're all a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic class warriors, something which is just an ignorant opinion?

That's perfectly fair.

>>388439
I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I'm just pointing out that referring to baby boomers as hippies is silly when hippies are a subset of baby boomers. Venn diagrams, yo.

>but it's not erroneous for you to say they're all a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic class warriors, something which is just an ignorant opinion?

Where did I do this?

And even if I did (I didn't--the post you just responded to was my first on the matter), that's an entirely different issue than you not knowing what a subset is.

Net Neutrality is dead apparently.

>>388450
Not quite, but it did get a huge gut punch.

>>388439
... what the fuck are you actually reading? Who said that? Who even implied that?

>>388452
time to get back to the next evolution of the internet talks.

>>388447
>>388481
see >>388348

Are you even part of this argument or did you just ignore 99% of it and come in at the end to be as much of a douchebag as possible?

NSA still assholes. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/nsa-collects-millions-text-messages-daily-untargeted-global-sweep
Sorry for our sins, UK friends.

>>388489
I don't see how pointing out that not all boomers are hippies makes me a douchebag.

I also still don't understand what you're even arguing against or why you're taking it out on me. Or what any of this has to do with you not knowing what a hippie is in the first place.

>>388489
Ahahahaha no. No, you need to work on your reading comprehension. As the older generations die off, a lot of Racists, Homophobes, and the like will pass on. That doesn't mean they're all racists and shit, it just means that we all have to die sometime, and when the eldest generation goes we're going to be losing a good chunk of racist, homophobic bullshit. They are similarly not all hippies. Your interpretation of the demographics isn't wide enough, you're thinking they're all 1 thing. It's like trying to define "gamer"; it's just a marketing term to describe a nebulous set of traits for the purposes of simplification.

http://www.israellycool.com/resources/buycott/

So in the past three days America's fascist police have beat a man half to death, beat a man to deaf and has literally torn the testicles of a 16 year old.

>>388741
shhh, no one cares, stuff is happening in ukraine

>>388741

Dude, this is america. Six armed cops can beat a unarmed, homeless schizophrenic to death while he begs for his life and calls for his dad to save him, have it all caught on video and audio, and get acquitted by a jury.

There's no fucking justice in this nation, and the cops are above the laws they enforce on us.

I live in a shitty 3rd world country.
Sometimes I'm amazed americans find stuff to complain about. As legit as their complaints are.

>>388774
Although if you own a PC and a net connection plus enough time to waste on imageboards you're probably in the upper crust for any third world country.

Which makes me wonder why you haven't sold your PC and bought a harem yet.

>>388775
Haha, joke's on you.
I have neither of those things.

And I've at the very least browsed imageboards because economic flow WAS a thing where I'm from, but due to this country's retarded-ass backwards anti-moneyflow corrupt government leaders the whole cash thing's come to a standstill, so
yeah,
maybe historically I would've been upper crust but since there's no dosh going nowhere except out, no, not anymore.

>>388801
Seriously though, fuck this country's fucked up laws not allowing for fucking anyone to actually develop any kind of business. Like, do people think all those people leaving the country illegally do so for kicks? Its completely an economic factor.

Yeah, I'm in the upper crust. Hell, anyone that's set foot in a school with the teacher actually knowing the teaching material qualifies as upper crust.
Which is remarkably few.

Fuck, I don't care, I just hope I can afford to leave for Gemany soon, myself.

>>388775
Its perfectly common to hire a cheap phone line or service in poor countries to just spend time online. Its the best way to forget how shitty the place you live in is.

>>388801

What country? If you can't say, what region? It's not Iran, is it?

>>388801
>>388803
Cuba?

It's incredibly douchey anywhere. "We're stuck on this shit of a country, so you're stuck with us, like it or not".

>>388880
Not him, but probably Mexico.

>Watching SOTU
>Talking about all the other countries the US helped this year with humanitarian aid, rebuilding facilities, etc.
>Not a single clap
>Mentions the Winter Olympics
>Wild clapping, hooting, congressmen start chanting "USA! USA! USA!"

I nearly died laughing

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685819/billionaire-compares-outrage-over-rich-in-s-f-to-kristallnacht?ft=1&f=1006
>"I would call attention to the parallels of Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich.'
This is why we can't have nice countries.

>>388891
I dunno. That kinda makes sense to me.
Humility in kindness, boldness in competition.

Sometimes my response to racism isn't rancor but confusion and disappointment due to it just trying WAAAAAAAY too hard to be racist.

Like come on, your brain hears Erica and turns it into this?

>>388903

I'm guessing you have never watched a SOTU, but they clap for almost every sentence normally.

>>388916
Interviewers usually ask the person they talk to how to spell their names. At least they did the one time I was interviewed.

>>388916
Nah; she just wrecks air. Aang better watch out!

>>388916
Maybe she's named in honor of an airplane wreck?