JurgenV's page

Scott Betts wrote:

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, it's certainly better than "I voted for Bush II and have been overcompensating for it ever since by telling everybody that doesn't agree with me that they don't understand how the political process works!"

Shall we trot out your political decisions at age 19 as an example of why you overcompensate, Anklebiter? Or have you always been the firebrand that you are?

I joined the International Socialist Organization when I was 15 or 16.

Then credit to you for sticking to your guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us are allowed to change our views as we're exposed to more of the world.

If by changing your views you mean becoming even more rabidly Democrat, I can see your point. As much as you so clearly hate it, some people are actually happy that the government is bound up in gridlock. That's the way it's supposed to work. And the poor put upon President just can't get anything meaningful done because of all those nasty people who just won't roll over and agree. Why, it's like people have differing views on how the country should run.

But you are just not an enlightened liberal. they know better than you, cannot wait to tell you so and will enforce that on you for your own good given the chance.

JurgenV wrote:

Never said all are bad, just said they are the group most likely to hate on the military

And you've given no evidence other than personal anecdote to support that in the face of both evidence and personal anecdotes rebutting it.

There is no evidence to give, i have met no small number of anti war liberals that hate the military and several of my iraq veteran friends complained about that set giving them grief. It is personal experience that is all.

JurgenV wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

If they're on private land and just doing their own thing with no governmental help, then more power to them. I greatly doubt they are missed back home.

Exactly, now if the government was helping them do this it would be a whole different game

So as tax payers their taxes should be redistributed to other poorer folk elsewhere? Or should their taxes be spent locally?

This is how we get those scifi megatowers with bright crystal spires with shanty towns outside the walls. They flock to the free light like moths.

Well they should be taxed as any other private property and the tax money used as any other. Not sure how land is split up in africa but the equivalent of a township or county should tax them normally i say

Never said all are bad, just said they are the group most likely to hate on the military

JurgenV wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Like facts have ever changed the mind of a republican.

or democrat

So if I've ever changed my mind on something, that would mean you're wrong?

Only as wrong as the one that made the first coment

thejeff wrote:

Avatar-1 wrote:

And in New Zealand as a woman.

I wonder if that difference has anything to do with NYC having nearly twice the population of New Zealand. Not twice the population of the Auckland, the city they tried it in, but of the whole country.

I'd actually like to think it's a matter of culture and deliberate lack of tolerance for the nastier behavior, but I'm not so sure.

.

It is 100% a matter of culture -- that's the point. In Tokyo, whose
population is 13 million compared to NYC's 8.5 million, we would see
similar results like Auckland. Culture.

Plus they have vending machines everywhere not getting vandalized.

If they're on private land and just doing their own thing with no governmental help, then more power to them. I greatly doubt they are missed back home.

Exactly, now if the government was helping them do this it would be a whole different game

JurgenV wrote:

[Because young anti war liberals are he ones that insult and belittle soldiers the most. Democrats are often the ones that want to reduce military spending, that is not good for the men in that industry. Sure they do some good but also enough bad. same with republicans not wanting to increase the pay and benefits though

This isn't the 60's, The Anti-Vietnam protests ended most likely before you were born. We don't have flower power children (many of which whom grew up to be conservative Republicans) shouting baby-killer epithets as a matter of routine.

When it comes to reductions in military spending that Democrats go for it's mainly in the area of big ticket weapon systems, (like do we really need ANOTHER set of billion dollar fighters?) Republicans on the other hand are the ones that tend to after veteran personal benefits. The type of cuts are different.

Tell that to many that i know to come back from iraq to be insulted and threatened by the occupy groups and their ilk

Like facts have ever changed the mind of a republican.

or democrat

I want to see 10 hours walking around nyc as a zombie.

They already sound like a shambling horde without human emotion so not a stretch

Yeah that is high on my list of places im glad i have no reason to even go near

I do not see this as any worse than the chinatown, litle havana, or jewish only neighborhoods here in america. If anything it might be a hair better as they built it from nothing on private land rather than using dirty tricks to make sure only the right kind of people move into an established neighborhood.

My only real gripe with burn is that it makes this class unique in causing itself harm to use it's abilities. each burn brings them closer to death

lorenlord wrote:

i would consider myself not really affiliated with either party, but since i am pro-gun, and pro-military,

I'm curious. Exactly how is the party that voted to give better education benefits to veterans and to keep them from being shot the anti military party?

Because young anti war liberals are he ones that insult and belittle soldiers the most. Democrats are often the ones that want to reduce military spending, that is not good for the men in that industry. Sure they do some good but also enough bad. same with republicans not wanting to increase the pay and benefits though

Things like "interfering with their lives" by making the boss pay them more. Like "interfering with their lives" by letting them get healthcare. Like "interfering with their lives" by keeping their boss from firing them when he finds out their gay. Like "interfering with their lives" but not letting the company up the road poison their water.

It's not about "too much" or "not enough". It's about "in ways which make things better".

Which is also making us pay more for stuff,making them pay for other people's health care, the gay part i agree with as long as they cannot play the victim card to not get fired for real cause. Also with government, give them a little power over you and they will take a lot more. Some of us just want the lines or power and control a bit different than you

I just hate the double standard. Woman too exposed gets how dare you look, man too exposed gets himself arrested.

thejeff wrote:

JurgenV wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:

Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.

I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if reacial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.

You choose your clothes not your skin

But you don't choose to be born a woman.

So unless you're really trying to make this all and only about the one woman who said she dressed provocatively and ignore all the others who didn't, then the clothes are irrelevant.

Even if it was about just her, wearing provactive clothes does not equal an invitation for Harrasment.

It is an invitation to be looked at so one cannot dress however they want and not expect people to look. I would love to see a bunch of fat hairy men run around in thong speedoes and scream at anyone that looks too long or comments.

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:

Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.

I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if reacial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.

You choose your clothes not your skin

Simon Legrande wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Lemmy,

Please stop defending the rights of a*#*$%$%s to be a+#$&!!!s without consequences. People have the right to be racist, sexist, homophbic wankers all they like. They don't have the right to be such and still be considered decent people.

Or would you defend the KKKs right to free expression, and to not be judged racist a~$#+**@s, as strongly as you are people who harrass women on the street? If not, please explain what the difference is.

This comment is almost too stupid to even acknowledge, almost. It looks to me like you've read every comment Lemmy has posted and are willfully misunderstanding them.

Everyone, in the US, has the right to speak freely regardless of the content of their message. EVERYONE. People who are a-holes are not free from the consequences of their stupidity, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a right to be a-holes.

What you said is absolutely true. To think that anyone here is saying anything different from that is truly dumbfounding.

Someone's right to and @$$hole does not exceed someone else's right to feel safe.

Where does that end? who gets to decide when we are safe and who gets silenced?

I think thy all need to be forced to wear nascar style jackets that list the corporate owners of each of them. Then we know who we are really voting in.

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of some of the Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqa on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing, or not wearing. I can understand people staring because of the absurd and anachronistic taboo on even partial nudity in the U.S., but there's no excuse for comments or catcalls, unless the woman in question is standing there waving at people as they pass by.

How you dress is an expression, little different than actual speech. Can you yell out what you want and demand that no one respond? If her appearance makes others uncomfortable do they have no right to respond? What if others take her partial nudity as sexual harassment, since you better bet that a man having his parts out would be seen as such

Huh... I hadn't even thought about the racist tone of the video, and I'm Latino.... Caucasian, but Latino (Fun fact! Someone once told they were surprised I was from Brazil because they thought "Everyone in Brazil is Mexican!". Yup someone not only thought "Mexican" was an ethnicity, but also assumed a country with over 200 million inhabitants only had people of a single ethnicity. Human ignorance never ceases to amaze me). I thought there were more Black and Latino men in the video because the girl went to poorer neighborhoods, where people are, generally speaking, less educated, and in the U.S., Latinos and Black people are, again, generally speaking, not as wealthy as white people.

Shifty wrote:

Anyhow, I think the people taking a shot at this lady trying to call her out as racist or a 'white woman blah blah' are being a bit sad really, they can make their own video if they chose - she owes them no apology or explanation.

You do realize that the same could be said about catcalling, right? After all, everyone has the right of free speech, so they can speak whatever they want*. That includes commenting on other people's appearance.

* Actually it's illegal to say stuff that might cause unnecessary panic, such as scremaing "FIRE! FIRE!" in a building.

Catcalling has long been more of a lower class thing than linked to any one group

ShadowcatX wrote:

Don't like what someone's saying, crack 'em in the mouth. That's the civil way to go about it.

Its surprisingly effective.

Guy acts like a douche, eventually he will be called on it.
He then has the opportunity to shut up and go away.
He has the alternative option of continuing to act like a hat, but its probably going to end in fisticuffs.

I don't see how you guys could do that there, the gun culture sort of ruins the fun when there's a good chance one of the parties is armed up and things are more likely to escalate quickly to a lethal outcome. Here the odds of either party being armed are pretty close to zero - so aside from a bit of a scuff and a bruised ego it is (usually) not going to get any worse than that.

Anyhow, I think the people taking a shot at this lady trying to call her out as racist or a 'white woman blah blah' are being a bit sad really, they can make their own video if they chose - she owes them no apology or explanation.

But her video doesn't blame white men, that is the goal for some. Showing a black guy misbehaving is racist.

JurgenV wrote:

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Doodlebug -- You posted that video, and now you seem to be insisting that this thread is about that video's subtext.

From your original post: "She seems resigned to this kind of thing, but I've been seeing a lot of media about street harassment lately, and I got to wondering."

Racist video is totally on topic.

"I'd appreciate an apology, and please stop trying to steer the entire thread in that direction."

Sorry, but no. National discussions sparked by a video demonizing men of color as sexual predators doesn't get to be discussed colorblindedly.

Does the video demonize them or does it show that this issue might be worse with some demographics?

I would be wary of drawing any such conclusion from a video from which all (or most?) of the white perpetrators were removed by the editor.

I am drawing no conclusion, i m questioning what it shows. Seeing the whole unedited might be revealing.

Statistics versus profiling

Are you trying too start a flame war?

Statistics make youth more dangerous in gangs than gangs of the elderly......

Im picturing a geriatric gang on golf carts

JurgenV wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Kirth wrote:

This is the part I'm undecided on, because as we've seen, the places in the U.S. cited as having the strongest social contracts forbidding speaking to others in public (e.g., NYC) ."

Yeah but there's 0 repercussions to breaking those contracts.

In Australia, it wouldn't be too long before someone gave them a crack in the mouth.

When we keep making laws about things we shift the responsibility to the Police to sort everything out, as opposed to a social contract where its everyones bag. Education, not legislation.

Don't like what someone's saying, crack 'em in the mouth. That's the civil way to go about it.

Maybe but there is something to be said for people reacting n the spot as opposed to hoping the gov steps in. We once lived in a world that used shaming and the occasional bit of violence to be a more polite proper place.

And back then a lot of the guys in that video would have been hung if they'd made those comments, even the mildest ones, to a white woman.

Of course the white guys would have been making the same kinds of comments, at least to any unaccompanied women.

The myth of the better past is pretty much just that.

not all rosy but more people stood up to bullies and troublemakers. Now too many would rather look away

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Doodlebug -- You posted that video, and now you seem to be insisting that this thread is about that video's subtext.

From your original post: "She seems resigned to this kind of thing, but I've been seeing a lot of media about street harassment lately, and I got to wondering."

Racist video is totally on topic.

"I'd appreciate an apology, and please stop trying to steer the entire thread in that direction."

Sorry, but no. National discussions sparked by a video demonizing men of color as sexual predators doesn't get to be discussed colorblindedly.

Does the video demonize them or does it show that this issue might be worse with some demographics?

Shifty wrote:

Kirth wrote:

This is the part I'm undecided on, because as we've seen, the places in the U.S. cited as having the strongest social contracts forbidding speaking to others in public (e.g., NYC) ."

Yeah but there's 0 repercussions to breaking those contracts.

In Australia, it wouldn't be too long before someone gave them a crack in the mouth.

When we keep making laws about things we shift the responsibility to the Police to sort everything out, as opposed to a social contract where its everyones bag. Education, not legislation.

Don't like what someone's saying, crack 'em in the mouth. That's the civil way to go about it.

Maybe but there is something to be said for people reacting n the spot as opposed to hoping the gov steps in. We once lived in a world that used shaming and the occasional bit of violence to be a more polite proper place.

KenderKin wrote:

I think I will continue my greetings, salutations

The verbal ones are.....
"Sir"
"Mam"
"Morning"
"Evening"

Quote:

Don't call me "sir!" I work for a living.

Anything can be offensive in the wrong context.

Or to someone looking to be offended

JurgenV wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Clearly I'm unsual in not saying hello to random strangers I've never met before. Apparently this is commonplace behaviour.

It's strange how rarely I see such apparently commonplace behaviour on the streets of London, given it appears to be perfectly ordinary to try to start conversations with strangers just walking past for no apparent reason.

maybe we are just friendlier in my neck of the woods. Here we say hi to others, we greet cashiers, waiters, and salespeople in stores. We hold doors open for strangers and say goodmorning or the like as they go by. And we don't even feel threatened by it. Maybe not being from an urban hell is part of it.

The bolded portion, those aren't just random passerby's. Those are people you're having a direct interaction with and probably already talking to.

Being in an urban environment isn't hell. It's just a lot of people.

If you walked past 3500+ people during your day, would you say "hi" to everyone of them individually?

If you're in a smaller town and only walk past 50 people a day, I agree with you, it makes for a friendly environment. When I lived in a small town on a lake, it was customary to wave at every passing boat in the channels. It wasn't a big deal and made it seem friendly.

When I'm in rush hour traffic, I don't wave at every passing car though.

Maybe not, still no reason to have a fit if someone does say hi

Sounds dehumanizing to live in a place like that

ShadowcatX,

Well, yes, but that's more for dishonestly conflating being polite to workers who you are choosing to interact with and who are doing their jobs to doing the same thing with random members of the public who did not choose to interact with you. Yes, that would leave me frothing at the mouth, because I can't beleive antyone is so stupid as to think they're the same thing, so bringing them up just looks like deflection and deliberate obliviousness.

EDIT: And I don't beleive there's much cross-over between the people justifying the flashbang and those condemning street harrassment.

Your frothing madness is misplaced. I am explaining a difference in general atmosphere. With reactions like that maybe your area needs more friendliness badly.

Clearly I'm unsual in not saying hello to random strangers I've never met before. Apparently this is commonplace behaviour.

It's strange how rarely I see such apparently commonplace behaviour on the streets of London, given it appears to be perfectly ordinary to try to start conversations with strangers just walking past for no apparent reason.

maybe we are just friendlier in my neck of the woods. Here we say hi to others, we greet cashiers, waiters, and salespeople in stores. We hold doors open for strangers and say goodmorning or the like as they go by. And we don't even feel threatened by it. Maybe not being from an urban hell is part of it.

We have people saying that men saying "Hi" and "good morning" are now sexually harassing. Anyone that sensitive needs to live in a padded room. I don't want to live in this world anymore if this is to be the standard.

And yes, women do get special rules in the work place, women fire fighters, women in the military, etc.

I wish we lived in a world where when someone says they want equality we could treat them the same instead of meaning "we want all the perks, but....."

9mm wrote:

so after a few tries, I can't get the kinetist to be Ezra Scarlet. Sad times.

After seeing the He-Man build, I'm thinking she's more of a Synthesist Summoner. The kineticist seems more for Gray and Leon, as well as Natsu, Wendy, and the other dragon slayers.

Erza would be more like the Aegis from the psionics 3pp book

So why is no one whining that asians are using european stereotype themes? White ninja racist, yellow knight ok?

Sweet we can now make characters very similar to Avatar the last airbender.

Sounds like you might as well write your own system

Oh after re reading i see i failed to notice that you WANT charisma to be nothing but a dump stat for almost all classes as a benifit for all but a couple of classes.

Keeping charisma skills as they are now makes sense with charisma purely as force of personality. That said traits to make bluff int based (smart enough to come up with good lies) or diplomacy wis based (being able to read the person to know what the right thing to say to them is) would be great to have available too.

JurgenV wrote:

yellowdingo wrote:

LazarX wrote:

If Nigeria, of all places, can contain this, we should manage.

Nigeria is a commonwealth nation with socialized medicine. The usa is still struggling with equality of healthcare.

It is much smaller and easier to manage. Socialism is not the answer every time

I'm not sure an actual socialist health care system is required to deal with Ebola, but some organized government level of intervention is. Especially for those of you calling for quarantines and travel bans.

More generally, a purely free market health care system can't deal with epidemics. Infected people need to be treated and isolated, generally at significant expense, even if they can't pay, in order to keep them from passing the disease on to others.

I think that isolation is the biggest part. It needs to run it's course without another infection and then it is over

How much longer?

I am afraid it will end up a battlefield before this is over.

more fun
http://www.examiner.com/article/video-ferguson-protesters-attack-young-whit e-man-who-wants-to-go-home
How much longer before this really explodes?

LazarX wrote:

If Nigeria, of all places, can contain this, we should manage.

Nigeria is a commonwealth nation with socialized medicine. The usa is still struggling with equality of healthcare.

It is much smaller and easier to manage. Socialism is not the answer every time

Here's a nice quick Endgaget article about the game (trailer).

So...apparently, in this game, you play as a mentally disturbed (nay, insane) former elite operator on a killing spree. According to the developer, there is no logic, rationale, or motivation of any kind prompting the events in the game; it is purely, simply, mass-murder insanity.

Just my opinion, but what sane, emotionally-stable person would even remotely enjoy this?

The kind that play GTA to beat hookers and shoot innocents

Hoping to do an overnight in a supposedly haunted location

Also i find the whole thing a bit racist. If you look asian (doesn't matter if you are chinese, loation, or vietnamese) no one cares, if you are a white dude insults are to be expected.

Do you think that police brutality, corruption and abuse of power is something we should accept quietly? Or do you think people should stand up to them and call attention to their wrong doings?

The other aspect of what he did is help lend his voice to what other people were already doing. He didn't start that protest or was the sole organizer. He showed up to lend his voice and credentials, to show support for the locals and help magnify their cause.

Some random guy gets arrested in a protest in Ferguson, it just gets lumped in with the numbers. Cornel West, a former Harvard professor gets arrested, you get additional art and column space nationally, helping maintain a higher profile for the situation.

Really what I get from you is that the people of Ferguson should shut up and accept their lot in life. That people outside of Ferguson should stop thinking about the topic and let it go away. That's what I get from you when you say "this isn't newsworthy". You might not intend that, but that's how it comes across.

They should not stop others from doing their business or robbing and destroying the property of others. That makes them NEED to get some extra police attention

Anti gun democrat senator arrested, while carrying a gun and drunk, causing trouble at the protest. hypocrite.