"Your beloved Jefferson and the Dem party has a horrible history of treatment of people of color."
This is certainly true, as the Democratic Party prior to the realignment in the 50s-60s were as or more hardline anti-civil rights than the Republicans. On the other hand, the opposite has been the case since that realignement. So, shall we focus on what these parties had done in the first half of this century, or shall we focus on what they've done more recently and at present?
And, while Jefferson certainly had among the worst flaws imaginable in being a slave owner, I would stand by the statement that his work has brought more freedom to the world than any other person in the history of the planet.
"Not to mention your Darwinist friends in the communist party that have put many millions in the ground."
When is this canard about Darwin=Communist going to end? It's not accurate, it's barely correlative, and the term "Darwinist" doesn't even make sense....
"Covering Trump this way isn’t freeing. It’s uncomfortable, both for individual journalists and for the broader institutions they serve. I think, if anything, the likely reaction will be overcorrection: The press would be so happy to have a semi-normal Republican candidate it could cover respectfully that whoever follows Trump is likely to benefit from a bit of halo effect just by comparison."
And not just by the media, mind you. The next Republican Presidential candidate is already guaranteed to appear more likable, more sane, more Presidential by virtue of following this fiasco of a cycle. It's funny, but four years ago Ted Cruz was unelectable because of his place on the political spectrum being too extreme. What a Trump candidacy may have done is shift the American public's zero-point on the political spectrum to the right, far more than Bernie Sanders did so to the left. In 2020, Ted Cruz may still be considered extreme, but will likely realize less of a penalty for that extremeness because of this election cycle.
And that should be terrifying. It's also yet another reason why the press should not be engaging in false dichotomy and slaving itself to concepts of equal time that are undeserving.
"You have raised an interesting point, but in doing so, you also contradict yourself. Your aptly point out that vaccination not causing things like autism is a theory. However, you contradict yourself by making the assertion that it is the correct answer."
This is a PERFECT example of somebody not understanding how scientific evidence and terminology is used. That vaccines do not cause autism is not a "theory". That they DO cause autism IS the theory. The lack of a scientific link is not the standard against which the evidence should be offered, it's the LINK that is measured by evidence. That's the entire point.
So, when we talk about whether two sides deserve equal looks or time, that's not how science works. The one making the claim (that autism and vaccines are linked) has a MUCH higher evidence mountain to climb than the side that makes no claim at all (that there is no link). That's why the calls for open debate on the topic miss the point, because unless there is HIGHLY credible evidence for the claim, the claim can and should be dismissed.
Re: Re: Miami Brewing is about to lose its trademark
It absolutely happens. The way it works is that the organization being attacked by the holder of the overly broad trademark can respond by seeking to invalidate the trademark entirely. The dust up between a Kentucky distillery and the U of Kentucky featured this kind of petition, though I don't believe it was successful in that instance....
This event did not take place in a theater. And no one yelled "fire."
If you're going to use this tired example, at least make sure it's relevant.
Not to mention that the whole "shouting fire in a crowded theater" cliche comes from the opinion of an over-praised judge writing in an opinion for a court that imprisoned American socialists for passing out fliers opposing the draft for WWI, which is about as anti-free speech as it gets. That ruling was OVERTURNED in the 60s, which means that everyone citing fires and crowded theaters is essentially citing a losing opinion in a losing verdict.
In other words, it's an incredibly stupid thing to rely on to argue a point....
""Whatever they are" being the operative word here. We still don't know, in any meaningful way, what the consequences are, because not enough time has passed for any but the most trivial and short-term of consequences to have actually come about.
Many times, something that looks good at first turns out to be bad in the long run, and vice versa."
Exactly correct. I have my suspicions as to whether a retreat from globalism and regionalism will work out well or poorly for the retreaters, but we don't know specifically yet how this will work out for the UK, which is why I phrased it in the way you quoted.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Got a few barnfuls of hay for that needle hunt you were busy with...'
"He championed freedom in the world but overlooked it in his own back yard. Some might say that is hypocritical."
Oh, it was ABSOLUTELY hypocritical, in quite possibly the most direct possible way. But that doesn't simply erase the First Amendment, for instance, which was largely the creation of Jefferson and one of the most liberating and important legal victories in human history.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Got a few barnfuls of hay for that needle hunt you were busy with...'
"Lincoln, the original civil rights activist."
Da fuq? There were tons of abolitionists at the time of the Revolution, long before Lincoln.
"Uh, you just admitted that you would overlook slavery and rape because he did some good."
I did nothing of the sort, as you well know. What I said was Jefferson and Lincoln were both positives for freedom in different ways. Jefferson much, much, much more so when corrected for the context of his time.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Got a few barnfuls of hay for that needle hunt you were busy with...'
"They are less likely to protest because they are fully willing and able to sit down and have a discussion."
That MAY be true, but you're missing my point. Conservative positions are usually those of tradition or emplacement, which means that they would naturally have less to protest than the progressive side of things. That was my point.
"It is the tactic of those with a weak position to resort to name calling, protest and violence."
The tendency to protest has NOTHING to do with the weakness or strength of a position, as I'm sure you know. Neither does violence or name-calling, really. For instance, were someone in the mid 1800s to organize a protest against slavery, calling slave-owners douchebags and setting a plantation on fire, none of that would indicate that anti-slavery was a weak position.
"As for the MLK reference, you do know it was the southern democrats leading the charge against equal rights?"
Yes, I do, but that wasn't my point. My point is that MLK was obviously an extreme leftist by every notion of the word and there is no conservative analogy for him.
"The left does not tolerate differences in opinion which is why they shout it down."
This kind of over-generalization is laughably false. It would be equally laughably false if someone attempted to apply it to the right.
"The founder of the Dem party, Jefferson, had slaves and raped and fathered children with them. The founder of the Republican party is called the Great Emancipator. So there's that."
Are you REALLY arguing here that Jefferson was not an advocate for advancing freedom? Of course he owned slaves and of course he fathered children with them, and he was morally wrong to do so on both accounts. But Jefferson, who was not the SOLE founder of the democratic party, when placed in the context of his time, was a force for good and freedom in America and the world. Suggesting otherwise doesn't make even a tiny bit of sense.
For his part, Lincoln neither founded the Republican party, nor were his motivations for the abolition of slavery particularly noble when he emancipated them. That said, again, placed in the context of his time, Lincoln was no doubt a force for freedom in America, though his efforts did little to effect freedom around the world (unlike Jefferson's). I don't mean to demean what Lincoln accomplished, but any understanding of history would make demeaning Jefferson in favor of Lincoln a silly attempt....
Re: Re: Re: 'Got a few barnfuls of hay for that needle hunt you were busy with...'
A conservative party by its nature would be less likely to protest in general, being more of an establishment group by definition (establishment meaning established power, not establishment meaning being in politics).
With that being said, please give me the conservative equivalent of a non-violent protest leader such as Martin Luther King Jr.?
Good to see our first to comments missed the point of the post entirely. If you allow the weaponizing of funded lawsuits like this in order to kill off one publication (that you may not like), you allow it to be used against ALL publications. Given the Free Speech concerns at issue, that's a massive problem....
"From what I understand the guy took the movie, changed the viewing format to a much lower quality, with a filter to make effectively nebulas instead of rain for background movement, and then published it as if the AI reinterpreted the movie."
I do not believe this is correct. Instead, Broad took the individual frames of the movie, reduced those frames to a numerical value of high compression (as opposed to having the AI view low-res frames by "sight"), and then had the AI use the numerical values to reconstruct the movie frame by frame. Think of it like someone translating the bible into a numerical code and then having someone in China re-translate it to Chinese from the numbers, and then you compare the two for accuracy.
That the machine got things so correct is amazing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
"I would absolutely change my views if presented with real facts, not theories, that disproved the bible. But nobody has come up with that yet."
Uh, yes they most certainly have. There are no facts that have disproven the existence of God, but disproving the biblical stories upon which the premise of Christ is built is trivially easy. Take the story of Exodus, for instance. That story has been disproven through Israeli archaeology.
Fun thing about Christ is that he tied the legitimacy of his claims to the Old Testament. If the Exodus story is a lie, Christ's claims are as well. And that should be the end of it.