1 | Practical Philosophy » Ethics of Hacking » 7/25/2016 5:16 pm |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 5
-
Does the moral problem change is the Uploader posted the photo with malicious intent after the Hacker asked the Uploader not to?
I'm apt to side with the Uploader as long as the photo is his property, though when I think of potentially analogous situations it may be more gray than that. When the private property of one becomes threatening to another, it is sometimes legal for "another" to destroy it. When the neighbor's dog runs into my yard and behaves menacingly towards me, for example. A court would likely not fault me for shooting it.
| Practical Philosophy » Political Correctness: Why? » 6/17/2016 9:45 pm |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 15
-
In regards to the discussion about whether or not being politically correct (even on an elementary level) is simply to adhere to proper social decorum, I side heavily with iwpoe and JT. We've reached a point in American society in which even engaging in the mere discussion of items having to do with race or sex or gender can be construed as racist/sexist/whatever, which is absurd.
An example from work 3 weeks ago:
I live in Iowa. There aren't many non-whites in my town, which is small and rural. Typically, the organization that employs me has 1-2 black people on staff at any given time out of 30-40 positions. I made a comment the other day about how our current token black guy, a pal of mine named Thomas who is currently serving his second stint with our org, was originally hired post-JJ and pre-Erica, two of our other black former employees. A young coworker of mine immediately interjected sarcastically, "that isn't racist at all."
This incident says to me that political correctness has become so important and so grave that I can't mention in conversation two former employees who happen to be black without being accused of making a racial slight. Taken further and applied to the political sphere, we observe the same phenomenon when conservatives are branded as racists for not supporting welfare expansion, amnesty, or education funding because of some racial connotation with those issues.
Sometimes I feel as if I exist in a world in which everyone around me has been brainwashed.
| Practical Philosophy » Political Correctness: Why? » 6/11/2016 5:39 pm |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 15
-
Alexander wrote:My own reason has always been: Manners cost nothing.
Maybe it's different in the UK, but adhering to accepted political correctness standards in America is something far beyond basic manners. On a basic level, sure, PCness is about not being overtly sexist or racist, but the spirit behind this thread is to go deeper. "Not being racist" used to mean something like "treat everyone with respect and don't use slurs." Right now, I couldn't tell you how not to be "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" (itself a clever misnomer) because those labels are abused so flippantly.
Perhaps some examples are in order.
| Practical Philosophy » Political Correctness: Why? » 6/10/2016 8:26 pm |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 15
-
A couple of other guys here encouraged me to start this thread. I posted one with a similar title on another forum over a year ago to highlight all of the insane things over which people express outrage in modern Western society, how little it takes to get fired these days, and how things like proper grammar (e.g. pronouns) are now considered inappropriate.
This site is significantly more high-brow than that one, so instead of just posting a bunch of examples of how PCness has gone off the tracks maybe we'd do best to discuss the merits and detriments of political correctness from a more intellectual position.
What's the value in adhering to stringent political correctness?
| Chit-Chat » Trump is the Republican Nominee » 5/06/2016 5:37 pm |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 53
-
Timotheos wrote:
How far right are we talking here? Don't worry, as a Texan I'm almost certain that I can take it.
Right there with you in the pro-life contingent though; the main reason I'll probably have to suck it up and vote Trump will be in a desperate attempt to stop Clinton because of her Emperor Palpatine status in the pro-choice movement...My main "issues" are abortion and 2nd Amendment preservation. I can't get any farther to the right on the former as I'm pretty uncomfortable with abortion even in the case of rape, and concerning the legality of firearms and other weaponry... well, let's just say I draw the line somewhere near mortars.
Regarding Hillary's Palpatine status among pro-choicers, I was concerned last fall when Bernie was accusing her of not being progressive enough during their preliminary debates that the mods were going to roll a newborn onto the stage in a cart so she could smother it.iwpoe wrote:You always talk a big game, Jimmy, but then I want to take back the Sudetenland and you get all pissy.
I'm not opposed to fascist rule on principle, only in America. Partition Poland, I say!
Greg wrote:Trump recently hired a pro-life advocate as his policy director and got a sort-of endorsement from Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, which means he is immediately moving to bring pro-lifers under his umbrella. The gestures seem somewhat nominal given Trump's history and the fact that he defends torture and defended killing families of ISIS members for months. But they seem to be working pretty well; I see a handful of Catholics on Facebook starting the "Trump's not so bad" rationalizations.
…
And the small gestures work becau
| Chit-Chat » Trump is the Republican Nominee » 5/05/2016 11:42 am |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 53
-
z10 wrote:
I get the impression that most of the members here are right wing?
I'm far to the right of most of the folks I've encountered during my brief time here, though there seems to be a strong anti-abortion contingent in which I feel right at home.
Then again, I'm far to the right of most folks anywhere.
| Chit-Chat » Trump is the Republican Nominee » 5/04/2016 3:27 pm |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 53
-
I've been skeptical of Trump's ability to win in the general until recently, but there are a few things that give me hope:
1. Hillary inspires nobody on the left.
2. Republican turnout at caucuses and primaries has been enormous.
3. Trump is stealing white working class Dem voters in troves.
4. Trump polls better with blacks than any other Republican in recent memory.
3 is the key, I think. Every Dem Trump steals counts twice as it takes a vote from the other side and adds it to his own, whereas all of the Bernie supporters who stay home or write their guy in instead of voting Hillary are merely "not voting."
I'm not sure what to make of claims from Republicans who say they will never vote for Trump. I have to think their hatred for Hillary will win out once election day comes.
| Chit-Chat » 2016: Who would you vote for? » 4/03/2016 9:30 pm |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 70
-
I actually like Ted and would be hard-pressed to pick another guy in government whose policies are closer to my own personal political ideals than his, but I did not caucus for him precisely because of the things you just said. He's too goofy-looking, gentlemanly, and his Texan accent doesn't help either. He'd probably crush Hillary in a debate intellectually, but that's not what those things are about.
Trump couldn't have been any more vague about most of his policies in the Republican debates, but he drove anti-establishment bloodlust through the roof by belittling Jeb and being himself rather than attempting to mimic all the political polish of his opponents. People are fickle, and most don't know enough about our system of government to even understand half of the policy arguments, hence why I don't think Ted's debate skill does him any good against Hillary. Trump serves the visceral, angry voter. If he can reel it back in, as you say, he might end up being exactly what the Republican party needs this election.
| Chit-Chat » 2016: Who would you vote for? » 4/02/2016 6:24 pm |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 70
-
Why is everyone convinced Trump is sunk in a general election? Hillary has only tried to spar with him once so far in a meaningful way and he ate her alive. What does she really have on him?
H: Donald funded my campaign!
D: See how easy it is to buy her?
H: Donald is bad for women!
D: I'm not the one who shames victims of sexual assault. (Insert list of Bill's floozies who Hillary has called liars)
H: Donald is racist against Muslims!
D: I'm just trying to keep us safe. 4 Americans died in Benghazi because Hillary didn't do her job.
Trump can refute or deflect anything Hillary throws at him simply by airing all her dirty laundry. He'll unleash the full power of his melodrama on her--except with Hillary it won't be melodrama.
| Chit-Chat » Mid-Western America » 4/01/2016 8:51 pm |
- Last Rites
- Replies: 12
-
I've lived in Minnesota and Iowa almost my entire life. If you're looking to stay above 0 degrees Fahrenheit, then the Dakotas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are all out. In the Twin Cities area in Minnesota a few years ago we set a city record for most consecutive days below freezing and below 0 F. You would probably die. I say that for your benefit, not insultingly.
Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois are a bit warmer if you move to the right place. I live along the Mississippi in Iowa right now and I don't think we had a single day below 0 F this year. It was a pretty tame winter overall. We actually had 50s in December for a while. That's not to say it doesn't still happen from time to time though. You may honestly be best suited to shack up in Kansas if you're set on the Midwest but don't want to battle super-harsh winters.