| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 01 2019 01:47 IgnE wrote: why would you hide the rules from people who want to know what they are? seems cruel Under the same rationale that (game company of your choice) doesn't divulge criteria or methods for detecting botting or cheating tools, I'd imagine. It's certainly cruel, but primarily to botters and cheaters (and to the false positives, but that's what appeals and reasoning are for). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On March 01 2019 02:16 JimmiC wrote: It looks like the US doesn't have the monopoly on leaders getting trouble for their actions. Israel's Netanyahu is going to be charged and it is possible that Trudeau in Canada will soon follow! Netanyahu is charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/middleeast/israel-benjamin-netanyahu-indictment-intl/index.html Trudeau is accused of putting undue pressure on the AG to not pursue charges on a big Quebec company for bribing Lybia. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/unlike-trump-trudeau-is-in-real-trouble/ar-BBUcBch?li=AAggNb9 Edit: I should mention that a change in leadership with two of the US's closest allies would have huge impacts on the US. JT could have done literally nothing for the rest of his term and coasted to an easy minority. Instead he's doing his best to get the PCs re-elected as quickly as possible. What a dumbass. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/28/18244752/google-organizers-fair-act-bill-forced-arbitration Of course, all these bills are dead in the Senate because do nothing McConnell is still in charge. On another note, the Verge did an amazing piece of content moderators in Facebook. The most troubling part of the piece is that Facebook's moderators are being radicalized by the very content they are monitoring. Further fuel on the fire that the regulations surrounding companies like Facebook, Youtube and Twitter need to be updated. Including the 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona | ||
|
brian
United States9641 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 01 2019 02:31 TheTenthDoc wrote: Under the same rationale that (game company of your choice) doesn't divulge criteria or methods for detecting botting or cheating tools, I'd imagine. It's certainly cruel, but primarily to botters and cheaters (and to the false positives, but that's what appeals and reasoning are for). you know, I think a lot of sociopaths have a pretty good understanding of the rules. that’s what allows them to circumvent them. most people explicitly asking about the rules want, i think, two things: to understand the rules, and to understand their justification. it seems like a lot of people here undervalue the social good provided by persuasive justification, especially justification as a rhetoric of the ethical. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On March 01 2019 04:10 IgnE wrote: you know, I think a lot of sociopaths have a pretty good understanding of the rules. that’s what allows them to circumvent them. most people explicitly asking about the rules want, i think, two things: to understand the rules, and to understand their justification. I don't think point two is accurate actually. Most people just want to know what rules they have to follow and then go on with their day/life. It's a minority who want to know - or even particularly care - about the justification unless the rule is annoying or inconvenient in some fashion. Like 'do not walk on the grass'. I doubt many people actually care about the reason behind it. | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On March 01 2019 03:45 Plansix wrote: On another note, the Verge did an amazing piece of content moderators in Facebook. The most troubling part of the piece is that Facebook's moderators are being radicalized by the very content they are monitoring. Further fuel on the fire that the regulations surrounding companies like Facebook, Youtube and Twitter need to be updated. Including the 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona This was a really great piece, thank you for sharing it. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 01 2019 00:29 xM(Z wrote: "The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race" has very little to do with Urinary bladder cancer or histology, unless you are seriously trying to tell me that ethno-nationalism is based upon incidence of Urinary bladder cancer and microvascular vasodilatory function.that was on the lines of: racialism, (what people used early on/since the beginnings of time/fuck know since when((assumed for the sake of argument/as placeholder, the origin and initial form is not known)), to differentiate between different groups of people; you morphed it into racism, gave it intent and heading(superiority, etc) and left the layman without the original meaning and the original word. (mainly, you replaced an/the ancestral word and its meaning) basically, people run to concepts that exemplify differences but reject the guilt. so, ethno-nationalism. now, before going <epithets>, realize that for some/many people, difference is good, is positive. maybe i should've wrote "there's no loaded word left to describe differences", but come on ... Edit: and those terms are similar in this context; they pertain to ethnicity(in research you use ethnicity when trying to not offend people by using the word race), ethnic variance. They are also neither distinctive nor are abilities for that matter, so you fail even by your own defintions; what you wrote is garbage anyways. Also, why the hell are you posting like fluidrone? It makes your posts almost impossible to understand, which is why people are talking around you about seperate political matters, rather than the total garbage you are writing. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Also, this serves as another instance of Trump taking a dictator at his word despite everything to the contrary, including from his own intelligence agencies. I think that is due to him being too feckless to stand up to them in person and admiring them. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 01 2019 04:19 iamthedave wrote: I don't think point two is accurate actually. Most people just want to know what rules they have to follow and then go on with their day/life. It's a minority who want to know - or even particularly care - about the justification unless the rule is annoying or inconvenient in some fashion. Like 'do not walk on the grass'. I doubt many people actually care about the reason behind it. perhaps, but then most people dont ask what the rules are, they operate in one way until they are told to act differently. it seems to me that most people who respond to being told to act differently by asking the question are after something kore | ||
|
Proko
United States1022 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On March 01 2019 05:03 IgnE wrote: perhaps, but then most people dont ask what the rules are, they operate in one way until they are told to act differently. it seems to me that most people who respond to being told to act differently by asking the question are after something kore Maybe it's just me and mine, but I always ask if I'm in an unfamiliar situation where I don't know the rules. I once asked about the proper way to do things in a fancy-ish restaurant because I'd never been in one before. Could be an English thing, but almost everyone I know is the same. We get into an unfamiliar position and we're all about asking to find out the state of play. Nobody asks 'why' though. It's all 'what are we meant to do? That? Okay, we'll all do that. Whew. Order is restored'. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12463 Posts
On February 28 2019 22:25 xM(Z wrote: or, because the word racism was equated with discrimination and prejudice so there's no word left to describe differences. good thing though is that there are and will continue to be studies/research in medicine using racial differences to actually save lives. random:or: there are more example like those and the interest for that kind of research is growing so you know, you can carry on up in here because where it matters, it is a thing. Just thinking of you and your friends, about to have a challenging discussion about microvascular vasodilatory function, and being stopped by the idea that it's racist. Sad :/ | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On March 01 2019 06:55 iamthedave wrote: This is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down.Maybe it's just me and mine, but I always ask if I'm in an unfamiliar situation where I don't know the rules. I once asked about the proper way to do things in a fancy-ish restaurant because I'd never been in one before. Could be an English thing, but almost everyone I know is the same. We get into an unfamiliar position and we're all about asking to find out the state of play. Nobody asks 'why' though. It's all 'what are we meant to do? That? Okay, we'll all do that. Whew. Order is restored'. From my limited and indirect experience with individuals from the incel community, I assume, that they don't want to know the rules so they can play by them. They want to know the rules so they can plan a straight path that leads them to victory, i.e., sex. It's not about understanding human interaction and realising that every woman /potential partner can be different and functions by a different ruleset, so to speak, but about gaming the system, cracking the code, making it impossible for the "female" to resist giving sex. I'll quote a famous pirate here: "the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" There are no god damn set in stone rules that will, inevitably, lead you to your goal of doing the thing. It's so incredibly aggravating that people think that the code is a thing. Or even defend others "simply asking for the rules". Mind-boggling. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
On March 01 2019 06:55 iamthedave wrote: Maybe it's just me and mine, but I always ask if I'm in an unfamiliar situation where I don't know the rules. I once asked about the proper way to do things in a fancy-ish restaurant because I'd never been in one before. Could be an English thing, but almost everyone I know is the same. We get into an unfamiliar position and we're all about asking to find out the state of play. Nobody asks 'why' though. It's all 'what are we meant to do? That? Okay, we'll all do that. Whew. Order is restored'. There is a difference between that and the to me classical example of this "what are the rules???" that is being discussed here, which is the question "How can i have sex with a women without it being rape/sexual harassment of some sort??? What are the rules for that???" which seems to appear every time the discussion turns to consent and the like. The rules are quite simple: Make very sure that the other person is also okay with everything that you are doing, even if that means not doing something that you want to do. And if you are unsure, don't do it. However, the people asking that question usually do not want that answer. Instead, they want all sorts of edge cases clearly defined, quite obviously with the goal of finding some sort of loophole. "Can i do stuff if she is drunk?" "How drunk can she be?" "What if she only had one beer?" "what if i am also drunk?" "How drunk do i have to be for the "she is drunk" rule to not apply anymore?" "what if i can't quite understand what she said, but am sure that she agreed?" etc... (This discussion has happened in this thread multiple times already) The goal is not to find an agreed upon safe behaviour, it is to find the minimum amount of compliance to social standards while still doing the maximum amount of selfish things that you can get away with. Some rules work better if they are not explicitly concretely formulated in lawyerspeak, and as long as people actually want to comply with the spirit of the rule that is not a problem. It only becomes a problem when people want to find ways to violate the spirit of the rules while barely staying within the letter of the law. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games gofns21559 summit1g15756 tarik_tv13324 Liquid`RaSZi3511 FrodaN2156 Pyrionflax158 UpATreeSC37 fpsfer  2 |
|
OSC
Replay Cast
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
