• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

Story Monday, Mar 2, 2020 [Party-128]

Recommended Posts

https://www.egscomics.com/comic/party-128

... actually, pointing out the problem with circular definition is quite nerdy thing to do.

... did the "they are rebooting" already entered mainstream or is it still considered nerdy thing to say?

... that's all I have for comics. Now the commentary:

I don't think I have ADHD ... however reading all that ADHD Alien comics made me feel like I know what they speak about. Like, I don't have it that serious or that often, but lot of it sometimes happen to me. Now ... does it mean I do actually have some very weak case of ADHD? Is it also sideefect of something else I actually have? Or do neurotypical people also feel that way and just need it to be pointed out to realize it?

Wait. ADHD is medicated with stimulants. Maybe I get ADHD-like symptoms when tired? I do often complain that the more tired I am the harder it gets to stop what I'm doing and go to sleep ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

. actually, pointing out the problem with circular definition is quite nerdy thing to do.

Recursive acronyms has a long history in geek culture, so yes.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

did the "they are rebooting" already entered mainstream or is it still considered nerdy thing to say?

It's fairly mainstream now.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

ADHD is medicated with stimulants. Maybe I get ADHD-like symptoms when tired? I do often complain that the more tired I am the harder it gets to stop what I'm doing and go to sleep

It's not quite that simple.  Yes, it's treated with select stimulants, it's not, to the best of my knowledge treated with just any stimulant.  I know that caffeine, at least for me, has little to no effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I don't think I have ADHD ... however reading all that ADHD Alien comics made me feel like I know what they speak about. Like, I don't have it that serious or that often, but lot of it sometimes happen to me. Now ... does it mean I do actually have some very weak case of ADHD? Is it also sideefect of something else I actually have? Or do neurotypical people also feel that way and just need it to be pointed out to realize it?

It's probably similar to autism in that there can be severe cases and barely identifiable cases. Just like Susan has been suggested as being on the autism spectrum (also Tedd, Grace, and Noah) yet she can function fairly normally in society, Tedd's potential ADHD symptoms seem relatively minor and can be mitigated simply by being aware of it, as One Way Road showed, Tedd's resolve to try to balance their work with their friends likely reduced the number of times Tedd got lost in hyperfocus.

Personally, I was diagnosed with ADD (before it was rebranded as ADHD) I wasn't really hyperactive, I'd just lose focus sometimes, or something that seems more interesting to me would drawn my attention away, but if I found something that interested me a lot, I'd end up shutting everything else out, kinda like Ashley in a bookstore. Most of the time something will catch my attention and all go into "ooh what's this" mode and look at it until my curiosity was satisfied, happens mostly when walking by the TV.

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Wait. ADHD is medicated with stimulants. Maybe I get ADHD-like symptoms when tired? I do often complain that the more tired I am the harder it gets to stop what I'm doing and go to sleep ...

From grades 3-8 I was prescribed ritalin which I'm honestly unsure whether it actually did anything for me, I do remember later on there were a number of talk shows that were like "was ritalin actually bad for my kid?" or "studies show that x% of children in the 1980's were misdiagnosed" which initially had me worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I believe I mentioned several comics ago that someone needed to reset the Ashley

And I reacted that doing hard reset from outside is bad idea. It's better if she does the reboot herself ... or, find a way to soft-reset her.

7 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

By putting it off, it will just take longer and she may not be responsive when the Pizza arrives

... I also pointed out that smell of food can be quite useful and safe way to induce soft reset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scotty said:

It's probably similar to autism in that there can be severe cases and barely identifiable cases. Just like Susan has been suggested as being on the autism spectrum (also Tedd, Grace, and Noah) yet she can function fairly normally in society, Tedd's potential ADHD symptoms seem relatively minor and can be mitigated simply by being aware of it, as One Way Road showed, Tedd's resolve to try to balance their work with their friends likely reduced the number of times Tedd got lost in hyperfocus.

Personally, I was diagnosed with ADD (before it was rebranded as ADHD) I wasn't really hyperactive, I'd just lose focus sometimes, or something that seems more interesting to me would drawn my attention away, but if I found something that interested me a lot, I'd end up shutting everything else out, kinda like Ashley in a bookstore. Most of the time something will catch my attention and all go into "ooh what's this" mode and look at it until my curiosity was satisfied, happens mostly when walking by the TV.

From grades 3-8 I was prescribed ritalin which I'm honestly unsure whether it actually did anything for me, I do remember later on there were a number of talk shows that were like "was ritalin actually bad for my kid?" or "studies show that x% of children in the 1980's were misdiagnosed" which initially had me worried.

I tend to view this as "You were showing initiative and undirected interest? We can't have that."  "I'd just lose focus sometimes," describes being a child. Being able to concentrate and focus is a good thing.

I can see why the schools like the Ritalin solution; they have little means to make kids comply relative to back in the day.

You've seen the South Park antidote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I tend to view this as "You were showing initiative and undirected interest? We can't have that."  "I'd just lose focus sometimes," describes being a child. Being able to concentrate and focus is a good thing.

I can see why the schools like the Ritalin solution; they have little means to make kids comply relative to back in the day.

You've seen the South Park antidote?

Looking at the description of the episode, I think I'm missing something: is there actually some effect making people on Ritalin boring? Nothing like that is mentioned on wikipedia page and it's actually used to as a treatment of apathy in patients with Alzheimer's disease ...

... sure, I wouldn't be surprised if some school would start giving Rohypnol to children just to make them quiet, but why would stimulant make children more likely to comply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

<snip>

... sure, I wouldn't be surprised if some school would start giving Rohypnol to children just to make them quiet, but why would stimulant make children more likely to comply?

I know for some students, failure to follow instructions is because of being bored into a stupor. Forcing wakefulness with stimulants might prevent that (while most likely causing other problems).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Looking at the description of the episode, I think I'm missing something: is there actually some effect making people on Ritalin boring? Nothing like that is mentioned on wikipedia page and it's actually used to as a treatment of apathy in patients with Alzheimer's disease ...

... sure, I wouldn't be surprised if some school would start giving Rohypnol to children just to make them quiet, but why would stimulant make children more likely to comply?

It helps them focus. I did some reading, and there was quite a bit of push back on the negative perception of the use of Ritalin. Of course, drug studies being what they are, I don't think anyone really knows what the effect is for an individual who takes it for a decade in their youth.

The South Park episode was very negative about the use of drugs in schools. South Park being what it is, you can't really expect a nuanced portrayal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

South Park being what it is, you can't really expect a nuanced portrayal.

So I shouldn't rely on Comedy Central for news, information, and education?

Please don't tell me I should turn to the "News" channels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Haylo said:

I know for some students, failure to follow instructions is because of being bored into a stupor. Forcing wakefulness with stimulants might prevent that (while most likely causing other problems).

I wasn't aware wakefulness, forced or not, is in any contrast with boredom. I was bored and completely awake multiple times.

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It helps them focus. I did some reading, and there was quite a bit of push back on the negative perception of the use of Ritalin. Of course, drug studies being what they are, I don't think anyone really knows what the effect is for an individual who takes it for a decade in their youth.

Sure, but that's going to apply for ANYTHING they might be taking. Hell, I wouldn't be completely sure PLACEBO would be safe to use in such way.

So, like, is there any specific issue with Ritalin or is it just that Ritalin is the most known drug over-used and given to people who might not even have the diagnosis they are getting it for?

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The South Park episode was very negative about the use of drugs in schools. South Park being what it is, you can't really expect a nuanced portrayal.

Point.

3 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

So I shouldn't rely on Comedy Central for news, information, and education?

Well, MY main source of news is here. Not for the details, mind you: it's just that any issue not mentioned there is likely not important enough to be worth finding details of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

So I shouldn't rely on Comedy Central for news, information, and education?

Please don't tell me I should turn to the "News" channels

John Stewart publicly denied that The Daily Show was a news show when he debated Fox hosts. The context was, "(We do X), but you do X as well." "Yes, but I'm a comedy show." Still, I agree with you, he was not a bad source of current events information, especially putting it in perspective. Ditto John Oliver, (not on Comedy Central) Larry Wilmore, and others. And of course, Trevor.

South Park, not so much. I enjoyed the show at times, but it was often off target. The bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

John Stewart publicly denied that The Daily Show was a news show when he debated Fox hosts. The context was, "(We do X), but you do X as well." "Yes, but I'm a comedy show." Still, I agree with you, he was not a bad source of current events information, especially putting it in perspective. Ditto John Oliver, (not on Comedy Central) Larry Wilmore, and others. And of course, Trevor.

They're comedy shows, but of the satire variety so there's expected to be some truth in what they're saying, well at least for the two Johns, never heard of Larry or Trevor.

Up here in Canada we have "This Hour has 22 Minutes", but there was also "Royal Canadian Air Farce" back in the 90's early 00's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scotty said:

They're comedy shows, but of the satire variety so there's expected to be some truth in what they're saying, well at least for the two Johns, never heard of Larry or Trevor.

Up here in Canada we have "This Hour has 22 Minutes", but there was also "Royal Canadian Air Farce" back in the 90's early 00's.

Trevor is Trevor Noah, the current host of The Daily show, He does very well, but of course, John Stewart's shoes are big ones to fill. He's from South Africa, and was literally illegal at birth. (Yes, literally, he wrote a book to that effect.) He, like John, is a standup comedian, and you can see him as such on You Tube.

Larry Wilmore was one of The Daily Show's correspondents. He got his own show for a while, but it didn't last. He is quite insightful and knows how to present information. His show focused on black issues, and often Black Lives Matter; important topics, but the narrower focus probably cost him viewership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

and often Black Lives Matter; important topics, but the narrower focus probably cost him viewership.

Maybe wider focus like All Lives Matter would help? :)

(Yeah, I know, those hashtags don't mean what they say ... )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. All lives matter is part of the backlash, and I'm not pointing a finger at you, you don't live here and probably don't know the situation, not all lives are equally at risk. White people in the US are not generally afraid of the police, because they are not likely to be arbitrarily shot or otherwise killed for no good reason. Black folks have good reason to fear, black folks are killed without cause on a regular basis, and the cops usually get off Scott free. Or, as Larry Wilmore put it, "If you really believe that all lives matter, then you should be taking a stand that black lives matter." Think Jews in WW II Europe. Or, Black Lives Matter, Too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Heh. All lives matter is part of the backlash, and I'm not pointing a finger at you, you don't live here and probably don't know the situation

That's what I meant saying "Yeah, I know, those hashtags don't mean what they say". I'm aware of how it was used and even why, I just find it weird.

22 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

not all lives are equally at risk. White people in the US are not generally afraid of the police, because they are not likely to be arbitrarily shot or otherwise killed for no good reason. Black folks have good reason to fear, black folks are killed without cause on a regular basis, and the cops usually get off Scott free.

Yeah, unbelievable what can happen in country claiming to be civilized.

To be fair, there is more "low level" criminals between those black folks - because there is more poverty between them as well, and "low level" criminality is powered by poverty. Of course, that doesn't give ordinary people, much less police, right to shot black people just because of their color.

(High level criminals are rarely shot at, no matter their color. Mostly because earth-to-air missiles are hard to get. Middle level criminals are shot at more often, but color still doesn't matter, as everyone looks same behind the dark window of limousine. And they are likely more often white because of opportunity.)

22 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Think Jews in WW II Europe.

If you mean Germany - controlled territory (Poland, France ...), like, seriously? If the situation would be THAT bad NOONE would dare tweet "Black Lives Matter", because doing that would get you AND your family being shot at - and you would know exactly what was the cause. It would also be clearly written into all official papers and the policemen doing it would not just get off free, they will be praised for following orders.

In worst case the situation might be like Jews BEFORE WW II.

22 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Or, Black Lives Matter, Too.

Black Lives Matter Too would be much more logical tag, because THAT's what's that SUPPOSED to mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yeah, unbelievable what can happen in country claiming to be civilized.

I'm pretty sure almost every last blessed person on the planet thinks of themselves as civilized. Even terrorists think you're the one that's wrong. You don't have to dig very deep under the surface to find that for the most part, we're all crazy. The US has plenty of problems, and is blissfully unaware of it, but it ain't just us. We have no monopoly on ignorance. (We do seem to be a high producer of religious crazy, which we package and export.)

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

To be fair, there is more "low level" criminals between those black folks - because there is more poverty between them as well, and "low level" criminality is powered by poverty. Of course, that doesn't give ordinary people, much less police, right to shot black people just because of their color.

(High level criminals are rarely shot at, no matter their color. Mostly because earth-to-air missiles are hard to get. Middle level criminals are shot at more often, but color still doesn't matter, as everyone looks same behind the dark window of limousine. And they are likely more often white because of opportunity.)

It is not that simple. While there is truth in what you say, it is an incomplete picture. Police will deal more harshly with folks of color for the same crime as white folks. Take minor drug possession. A white person is likely to get off with minor consequences. The numbers say that a person of color is going to see jail time, maybe prison ("War on Drug, y'know), and have a permanent record that makes them less employable and exacerbates the problem.

High level crimes are considered to be "White collar crimes" (Office crimes, as opposed to Blue collar crimes, working class crimes, like actually taking an object), and are punished on a lighter scale for being inherently nonviolent, even though they affect a far larger number of people and ruin lives. An Air Force base I was stationed at hosted a white collar prison. The inmates worked on the base, some doing odd jobs like picking up trash, some in their primary skill; the legal office had a big name lawyer who was an inmate. They were not restrained, they could easily walk off. The deterrent was, "When we catch you, you'll go to a real prison." Nobody ever left. To be fair, these were legitimately nonviolent people; I did not feel threatened by their presence. Also, they were almost exclusively white (I say almost, because I don't really know, only saw a sample, possibly actually exclusively white).

In the mean time, Johnny Hoodrat spends years in actual prison for possession of a fairly small amount of weed. This also happens to be a nonviolent crime. He got caught because the police constantly surveil his neighborhood. His white peers that do the same thing are not busted, because they live in nice homes. No one suspects.

Johnny's years in prison amount to a graduate level curriculum in criminal activity. He'll learn from the best, because, when you come right down to it, there's not that much else for him to do during those years.

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

If you mean Germany - controlled territory (Poland, France ...), like, seriously? If the situation would be THAT bad NOONE would dare tweet "Black Lives Matter", because doing that would get you AND your family being shot at - and you would know exactly what was the cause. It would also be clearly written into all official papers and the policemen doing it would not just get off free, they will be praised for following orders.

In worst case the situation might be like Jews BEFORE WW II.

That's entirely fair, and I agree with you, sometime before Hitler was fully in control; but similar elements are present, including actual Neo-Nazis.

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

 

Black Lives Matter Too would be much more logical tag, because THAT's what's that SUPPOSED to mean.

It would be clearer. It's a weaker statement of an obvious fact, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
21 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yeah, unbelievable what can happen in country claiming to be civilized.

I'm pretty sure almost every last blessed person on the planet thinks of themselves as civilized.

There are supposed to still be some native tribes who don't know meaning of that word ...

And, well, do Amishs considers themselves civilized?

16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Even terrorists think you're the one that's wrong.

Considering many of those terrorists are religions fanatics, they are probably convinced about it MORE.

16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The US has plenty of problems, and is blissfully unaware of it, but it ain't just us. We have no monopoly on ignorance. (We do seem to be a high producer of religious crazy, which we package and export.)

At least you package it. Other producers send the crazy in people.

16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It is not that simple. While there is truth in what you say, it is an incomplete picture. Police will deal more harshly with folks of color for the same crime as white folks. Take minor drug possession. A white person is likely to get off with minor consequences. The numbers say that a person of color is going to see jail time, maybe prison ("War on Drug, y'know), and have a permanent record that makes them less employable and exacerbates the problem.

Yup, lot of ways to exacerbate the problem ... however, I wasn't trying for complete description.

16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

High level crimes are considered to be "White collar crimes" (Office crimes, as opposed to Blue collar crimes, working class crimes, like actually taking an object), and are punished on a lighter scale for being inherently nonviolent, even though they affect a far larger number of people and ruin lives. An Air Force base I was stationed at hosted a white collar prison. The inmates worked on the base, some doing odd jobs like picking up trash, some in their primary skill; the legal office had a big name lawyer who was an inmate. They were not restrained, they could easily walk off. The deterrent was, "When we catch you, you'll go to a real prison." Nobody ever left. To be fair, these were legitimately nonviolent people; I did not feel threatened by their presence. Also, they were almost exclusively white (I say almost, because I don't really know, only saw a sample, possibly actually exclusively white).

I think this actually makes sense. Only thing you may get when you put non-violent criminals in same prison as violent ones is more violence, that's not what you want, is it?

16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

In the mean time, Johnny Hoodrat spends years in actual prison for possession of a fairly small amount of weed. This also happens to be a nonviolent crime. He got caught because the police constantly surveil his neighborhood. His white peers that do the same thing are not busted, because they live in nice homes. No one suspects.

Johnny's years in prison amount to a graduate level curriculum in criminal activity. He'll learn from the best, because, when you come right down to it, there's not that much else for him to do during those years.

.... meanwhile, this totally doesn't make sense and in fact it shows WHY you should put different kinds of criminals in different prisons.

The problem is that you need to differentiate which kind of criminal that person is by something else than skin color. Something which is not apparent on first look. But, like, if the court can't see the difference it's really sloppy ... oh, right, we already established that.

16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
21 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Black Lives Matter Too would be much more logical tag, because THAT's what's that SUPPOSED to mean.

It would be clearer. It's a weaker statement of an obvious fact, though.

Clarity is more important. And it would make harder for opponents to make effective counter-tag.

16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
21 hours ago, hkmaly said:

In worst case the situation might be like Jews BEFORE WW II.

That's entirely fair, and I agree with you, sometime before Hitler was fully in control; but similar elements are present, including actual Neo-Nazis.

Note that Jews actually were in same situation in lot of periods in history - because they formed close subcommunities inside other countries and lot of them were rich, in time period when nationality was even more important than today.

I suppose that was the motivation why to give them own country after WWII. The mistake was to give them country which was already occupied.

(I might already noted that my recommendation for Jerusalem is to make it radioactive enough that even the most religious people will limit their visit to just few hours. Or die - that works too.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

There are supposed to still be some native tribes who don't know meaning of that word ...

And, well, do Amishs considers themselves civilized?

Being civilized is less about having technology (even the Neolithic-age Mesopotamians in places like Sumer and Ur six thousand and more years ago are considered to be civilizations), and is more about having such social niceties as using laws and courts and diplomacy rather than making violence the first resort of any dispute. A barbarian goes and kills his enemy in a duel. A "civilized" person goes and sues an enemy in court. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

There are supposed to still be some native tribes who don't know meaning of that word ...

And, well, do Amishs considers themselves civilized?

Considering many of those terrorists are religions fanatics, they are probably convinced about it MORE.

I guar-damn-tee that those native tribes name for themselves equates to "The People", and their name for outsiders equates to "The Others", who obviously "Don't know our ways", and so "Aren't People".

The question about the Amish, you answered your own question in your next comment. The Amish are amazing in their own way, making money farming when everyone else is going broke farming. They do it by a lot of hard work, eschewing expensive modern methods and relying on old but effective technology (their tractors make fertilizer), living frugally, and supporting each other. That's not why they do it. They live their lifestyle because they are benign religious fanatics.

 

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yup, lot of ways to exacerbate the problem ... however, I wasn't trying for complete description.

I think this actually makes sense. Only thing you may get when you put non-violent criminals in same prison as violent ones is more violence, that's not what you want, is it?

.... meanwhile, this totally doesn't make sense and in fact it shows WHY you should put different kinds of criminals in different prisons.

The problem is that you need to differentiate which kind of criminal that person is by something else than skin color. Something which is not apparent on first look. But, like, if the court can't see the difference it's really sloppy ... oh, right, we already established that.

It did not make sense to target Johnny Hoodrat either. First, let me make it clear that I am not a fan of recreational drug use. I've seen the end result, and it is not pretty. But criminalizing it is just stupid; it's not even a deterrent. Why isn't drug use treated like what it is, a medical issue? (I think that's part of the crazy we're exporting. We didn't invent drug laws, but we were an early adopter and we push them on others.)

Existing drug laws in the US are primarily based on racism and political maneuvering.  Nixon more than doubled down on the laws of his time as a means to suppress his opponents.

From an interview of John Ehrlichman done late in his life,

Quote

 

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

 

I mean, really, when Rash Lame-Bag can rant to the effect of "Every one knows <ethnicity> is a bunch of drug abusers", then get off Scott free and garner sympathy for abusing oxycontim, how do you conclude the drug laws are anything but racist bullshit?

 

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Clarity is more important. And it would make harder for opponents to make effective counter-tag.

Hmm. I think those that don't know there's a problem are choosing to not see it; clear but wishy-washy would have less value.

Take for example, Blue Lives Matter (police lives matter), a reactionary movement to Black Lives Matter. The thing is, no one disputes that police lives matter; it is generally appreciated that police lay their lives on the line on a daily basis and the occupation commands a degree of respect for that. It is evident in the numbers that the flip side is not true.

 

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Note that Jews actually were in same situation in lot of periods in history - because they formed close subcommunities inside other countries and lot of them were rich, in time period when nationality was even more important than today.

"The Others", who obviously "Don't know our ways", and so "Aren't People" - and it is two sided. I scratch my head and wonder, "Did you not learn anything from the Holocaust?" when I see how the Palestinians are treated.

In the entire world, colonial powers treated indigenous people similarly. Actually mostly still do. Then there's the Romani. Or the Kurds. Or the Armenian genocide that 'never happened'.

 

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I suppose that was the motivation why to give them own country after WWII. The mistake was to give them country which was already occupied.

Oo? It's ALL already occupied, the whole damn rock. Yes there are vast tracts of barely habitable land available; even those support about as many people as they can handle. We are exhausting it; much of the ecosphere is disappearing. The Levant is not exactly user friendly, either; it took a lot of dedication to make it blossom.

 

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(I might already noted that my recommendation for Jerusalem is to make it radioactive enough that even the most religious people will limit their visit to just few hours. Or die - that works too.)

That would not set well with several cultures.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2020 at 5:51 AM, ijuin said:
On 3/7/2020 at 3:44 AM, hkmaly said:

There are supposed to still be some native tribes who don't know meaning of that word ...

And, well, do Amishs considers themselves civilized?

Being civilized is less about having technology (even the Neolithic-age Mesopotamians in places like Sumer and Ur six thousand and more years ago are considered to be civilizations), and is more about having such social niceties as using laws and courts and diplomacy rather than making violence the first resort of any dispute. A barbarian goes and kills his enemy in a duel. A "civilized" person goes and sues an enemy in court. :D

Mesopotamians had plenty of technology. Metalworking, glassmaking, textile weaving, food control, water storage and irrigation, writing, the wheel ...

Also, killing your enemy in a duel is considered civilized. You know, with all those rules as opposed to just killing him when he's not looking.

21 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I guar-damn-tee that those native tribes name for themselves equates to "The People", and their name for outsiders equates to "The Others", who obviously "Don't know our ways", and so "Aren't People".

Good point, "Don't know our ways" is basically translation of "not civilized".

21 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The question about the Amish, you answered your own question in your next comment. The Amish are amazing in their own way, making money farming when everyone else is going broke farming. They do it by a lot of hard work, eschewing expensive modern methods and relying on old but effective technology (their tractors make fertilizer), living frugally, and supporting each other. That's not why they do it. They live their lifestyle because they are benign religious fanatics.

The thing is, they actively reject technology. So, do they also actively reject civilization, or at least do they claim so?

21 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

First, let me make it clear that I am not a fan of recreational drug use. I've seen the end result, and it is not pretty. But criminalizing it is just stupid; it's not even a deterrent. Why isn't drug use treated like what it is, a medical issue? (I think that's part of the crazy we're exporting. We didn't invent drug laws, but we were an early adopter and we push them on others.)

I've seen the end result of recreational alcohol use and it's worse than marijuana. However, since the "spectacular" failure of prohibition, the attempts to criminalize it's use are quite rare.

I would say that recreational drug use MIGHT work if people would know when to end, but, well, not common with alcohol either ...

Regardless, criminalization is bad idea and the path paved with it leads exactly where the prohibition was: gang wars.

21 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I mean, really, when Rash Lame-Bag can rant to the effect of "Every one knows <ethnicity> is a bunch of drug abusers", then get off Scott free and garner sympathy for abusing oxycontim, how do you conclude the drug laws are anything but racist bullshit?

By seeing it as so big bullshit the racist part is rarely visible behind it?

21 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

"The Others", who obviously "Don't know our ways", and so "Aren't People" - and it is two sided. I scratch my head and wonder, "Did you not learn anything from the Holocaust?" when I see how the Palestinians are treated.

... I would be more worried they learned the wrong lesson from that.

21 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

In the entire world, colonial powers treated indigenous people similarly. Actually mostly still do. Then there's the Romani. Or the Kurds. Or the Armenian genocide that 'never happened'.

I assure you that in Europe we protect the Romani people so much that soon people would snap and start civil war against them. Romani are another case where the "Don't know our ways" works both way ... and, unfortunately, it's not possible for "majority" people and Romani people to live each in their way too close to each other.

(And, well, the Romani who decided to live our way are treated unfairly from both "us" and other Romani, which doesn't motivate many to try.)

But Kurds and Armenian are good example. Actually, Romani might also be good example not long ago, those laws protecting them are not so old.

21 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
On 3/7/2020 at 3:44 AM, hkmaly said:

I suppose that was the motivation why to give them own country after WWII. The mistake was to give them country which was already occupied.

Oo? It's ALL already occupied, the whole damn rock. Yes there are vast tracts of barely habitable land available; even those support about as many people as they can handle. We are exhausting it; much of the ecosphere is disappearing. The Levant is not exactly user friendly, either; it took a lot of dedication to make it blossom.

Well, it won't became good idea just because we didn't have choice.

(Also, after WWII, it was considerably less occupied than now. I don't think anyone even tried to propose some alternative, did they? ... hmmm ... not that it would be good for anything, as Jews were not willing to settle for anything less. I suppose it was clear from start it would be bad idea, but after the experience with WWII, they might think alternatives would be even worse ...)

21 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
On 3/7/2020 at 3:44 AM, hkmaly said:

(I might already noted that my recommendation for Jerusalem is to make it radioactive enough that even the most religious people will limit their visit to just few hours. Or die - that works too.)

That would not set well with several cultures.

It would be better if that would be accident with noone to blame, yeah ...

It's those cultures fault they proved multiple times they are not able to share.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Mesopotamians had plenty of technology. Metalworking, glassmaking, textile weaving, food control, water storage and irrigation, writing, the wheel ...

[...]

The thing is, [the Amish] actively reject technology. So, do they also actively reject civilization, or at least do they claim so?

The Amish don't reject metalworking, glassmaking, etc. - they just chose to stop accepting most new technological advancement after a certain point. So while they may be refusing to change their culture with the times, they certainly aren't rejecting civilization completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(Amish)

The thing is, they actively reject technology. So, do they also actively reject civilization, or at least do they claim so?

Yes, of course. You are uncivilized for embracing technology. ;) 

They are also not ignorant of the culture around them. They have a practice, called Rumspringa, where young people of age experience our culture and decide if they want to continue to be Amish.

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I've seen the end result of recreational alcohol use and it's worse than marijuana.

I agree that alcohol abuse is more immediately destructive than marijuana. As one comedian pointed out, alcoholics run red lights, pot heads wait for the stop sign to turn green.

I am of a mind that marijuana has legitimate uses, but can be abused. I've known pot heads who seem to become out of touch with life. One was very talented and creative, but could not commit to applying effort and was continually depressed, eventually taking his own life. I'm not sure about cause and effect, though. The excessive pot smoking might be a symptom, rather than the cause. My guess is it is a factor, but not just on its own.

I'm really not convinced that smoking marijuana doesn't have similar problems to smoking cigarettes. Or pretty much any plant substance. But we're not at a place where we can even address those questions like adults, are we?

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

By seeing it as so big bullshit the racist part is rarely visible behind it?

Yeah, on the surface, the laws don't seem racist, if you are white. I had to see the explanation, and much later the Ehrlichman quote confirming it. But when you connect the dots, it's the picture you see.

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(Holocaust)

... I would be more worried they learned the wrong lesson from that.

How so?

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(Israel)

Well, it won't became good idea just because we didn't have choice.

(Also, after WWII, it was considerably less occupied than now. I don't think anyone even tried to propose some alternative, did they? ... hmmm ... not that it would be good for anything, as Jews were not willing to settle for anything less. I suppose it was clear from start it would be bad idea, but after the experience with WWII, they might think alternatives would be even worse ...)

I think you're right; a homeland in Palestine was D'Israel's goal long before WW II.

Re: unoccupied land, the increase has gone into expansion of urban areas, rather than incorporating new uninhabited land, no? If there is a forerunner of what you are saying, two com to mind; Israel irrigating desert to become farmland, and Brazil deforesting the Amazon basin for farm land. The latter is not universally acclaimed, especially by the indigenous tribes that are displaced or slaughtered.

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

It's those cultures fault they proved multiple times they are not able to share.

The constitution of the US prohibits laws favoring a religious point of view over a different one (including none).

                  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

                   or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It is amazing in how little regard we hold that clause when it goes against our beliefs.

I think "My way is right, damn you all for thinking differently" is the norm for the human experience.

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I assure you that in Europe we protect the Romani people so much that soon people would snap and start civil war against them. Romani are another case where the "Don't know our ways" works both way ... and, unfortunately, it's not possible for "majority" people and Romani people to live each in their way too close to each other.

(And, well, the Romani who decided to live our way are treated unfairly from both "us" and other Romani, which doesn't motivate many to try.)

But Kurds and Armenian are good example. Actually, Romani might also be good example not long ago, those laws protecting them are not so old.

I've known a couple of Romani, there are some in the US. They didn't seem all  that different from anyone else; insular culture, suspicious, not open to outsiders. Jeeze, who couldn't you apply that to?

They blend in well enough here that they aren't a target. (Instead, we target Sikhs and Hindus after 9/11 for wearing turbans. Not that targeting Arabs would be a whole lot better, but there is a certain quintessential ignorance there.) (The turbans don't even look the same. It's like being told your target is wearing a Fedora, and bringing in a dude who's wearing a Stetson. Or would that be paying too much attention to details?) (You know, the specific Arabs who perpetrated this died doing it, right? All you're accomplishing is proving them right by living down to their level of ignorance.) 

I'm guessing your Romani protective laws are selectively enforced or ignored. It's a given that they are in place because the need was there, the status quo was already broken.

Living too close to each other is the modern way. Thirty years ago, you and I would not be having this chat, would we?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 3:26 PM, ChronosCat said:
On 3/8/2020 at 11:02 AM, hkmaly said:

Mesopotamians had plenty of technology. Metalworking, glassmaking, textile weaving, food control, water storage and irrigation, writing, the wheel ...

[...]

The thing is, [the Amish] actively reject technology. So, do they also actively reject civilization, or at least do they claim so?

The Amish don't reject metalworking, glassmaking, etc. - they just chose to stop accepting most new technological advancement after a certain point. So while they may be refusing to change their culture with the times, they certainly aren't rejecting civilization completely.

Good point :)

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

They are also not ignorant of the culture around them. They have a practice, called Rumspringa, where young people of age experience our culture and decide if they want to continue to be Amish.

Not convinced they actually do enough experiencing.

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

I am of a mind that marijuana has legitimate uses, but can be abused. I've known pot heads who seem to become out of touch with life. One was very talented and creative, but could not commit to applying effort and was continually depressed, eventually taking his own life. I'm not sure about cause and effect, though. The excessive pot smoking might be a symptom, rather than the cause. My guess is it is a factor, but not just on its own.

Some drug experience should be mandatorily discussed with psychologist. It's even more important in case of LSD. Yeah, I would also guess it was a symptom or factor, not cause.

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

I'm really not convinced that smoking marijuana doesn't have similar problems to smoking cigarettes. Or pretty much any plant substance. But we're not at a place where we can even address those questions like adults, are we?

I'm pretty sure that smoking empty paper would be bad as well. However, smoking isn't only way how to consume marijuana.

Wait, we are not?

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:
On 3/8/2020 at 11:02 AM, hkmaly said:

By seeing it as so big bullshit the racist part is rarely visible behind it?

Yeah, on the surface, the laws don't seem racist, if you are white. I had to see the explanation, and much later the Ehrlichman quote confirming it. But when you connect the dots, it's the picture you see.

The laws themselves are not. The MOTIVATION was racist (if that quote is true) and they currently seem to affect white less seriously than others, but that can (theoretically) change without the laws themselves changing.

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:
On 3/8/2020 at 11:02 AM, hkmaly said:

(Holocaust)

... I would be more worried they learned the wrong lesson from that.

How so?

I mean like lesson that they need to not be too public about that. Instead of not doing it.

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

Re: unoccupied land, the increase has gone into expansion of urban areas, rather than incorporating new uninhabited land, no? If there is a forerunner of what you are saying, two com to mind; Israel irrigating desert to become farmland, and Brazil deforesting the Amazon basin for farm land. The latter is not universally acclaimed, especially by the indigenous tribes that are displaced or slaughtered.

I think there would be more examples, but Brazil deforesting the Amazon basin was what I was thinking about. I'm not sure how dense the indigenous tribes are there ...

Generally, "uninhabited land" is not clearly defined ; it can be argued there is still uninhabited land in Europe - but only really small patches of it, and getting smaller every day. Obviously, for country with size of Israel, finding continuous space of uninhabited land is the problem.

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:
On 3/8/2020 at 11:02 AM, hkmaly said:

It's those cultures fault they proved multiple times they are not able to share.

The constitution of the US prohibits laws favoring a religious point of view over a different one (including none).

                  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

                   or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It is amazing in how little regard we hold that clause when it goes against our beliefs.

I think "My way is right, damn you all for thinking differently" is the norm for the human experience.

Yeeeeaaaah ... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." .... "So help me God".

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

I've known a couple of Romani, there are some in the US. They didn't seem all  that different from anyone else; insular culture, suspicious, not open to outsiders. Jeeze, who couldn't you apply that to?

They blend in well enough here that they aren't a target.

I'm pretty sure there are Romani like this around here as well. It's just not the ones you imagine when talking about them. And, well, I think they accepted our culture for most parts, while the ones who remain true to their culture don't blend well.

(Although I must admit I'm not that big expert on their culture.)

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

I'm guessing your Romani protective laws are selectively enforced or ignored. It's a given that they are in place because the need was there, the status quo was already broken.

It's the positive discrimination part of that protection which makes people so angry. They get away with things white would not because it would be hard to prove that it wasn't racial discrimination. Many of them are not even trying to work.

And, actually, not sure about it ... there probably WAS need for SOME laws, but I think we got too much inspiration from US for situation which is different.

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

Living too close to each other is the modern way.

Modern way is also not throwing trash around your home, not being too loud ... Now, I'm not entirely sure how much of it are just the worst cases and how much is normal, but people living next to them consider it serious enough to move if they can. I'm lucky to NOT live next to them.

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

Thirty years ago, you and I would not be having this chat, would we?

It's not really argument for living close considering we communicate in way which ignores distance. We could be on different PLANETS and not notice.

Theoretically, thirty years ago, we could have this chat by phone if we somehow knew each other. Now, forty years ago, that would be considerably more problematic ... I'm not sure what country are you in but I suspect there was iron curtain between us, so I might get into serious problems due to that. I mean, if I would be old enough to talk.

On 3/8/2020 at 4:34 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

(Instead, we target Sikhs and Hindus after 9/11 for wearing turbans. Not that targeting Arabs would be a whole lot better, but there is a certain quintessential ignorance there.) (The turbans don't even look the same. It's like being told your target is wearing a Fedora, and bringing in a dude who's wearing a Stetson. Or would that be paying too much attention to details?) (You know, the specific Arabs who perpetrated this died doing it, right? All you're accomplishing is proving them right by living down to their level of ignorance.)

You can argue that the "specific Arabs" should include ones who PLANNED it as well, and those might not all die yet. The al-Qaeda still operates. They are also unlikely to live in US, of course, unless they are just preparing another attack.

However, yes ... their basic motivation is assumption that Christians are enemies of Islam. This may turn to be self-fulfilling assumption. By making it true, you ARE helping them.

Only way to make them lose is to have a popular organization which is clearly Muslim, clearly opposed to terrorism ... and clearly accepted as such by general Christians. Two of three is not going to make it.

... and targeting Sikhs and Hindus would definitely make the situation worse. That said, I'm not surprised many Americans have trouble telling those apart: there is clearly need for some sort of posters showing that.

i3tEfsJ.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this