Yeah, the guy sounds at least a little like the kind of person that probably wrote the religion books down here. From what I've been told, one book has chapter titles along the lines of 'Islam, atheism and Judaism are evil, be a Catholic!'
(I may be misremembering things, though.)
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Interestingly, note how he mentioned Roy Moore in his post? He's a State Justice who was fired for passing a judgement ruling same-sex marriage immoral, even after a Federal Court ruled the judgement unconstitutional the last time he tried to push it. He was fired for violating legal ethics (allowing personal beliefs to override the law), not for being Christian or Homophobic. His judgement explicitly ruled the matter 'immoral'. As a judge, he can only make judgements based on the law, not morality (the two are not necessarily identical). He acted unprofessionally, as simple as that.
Now, regarding your post... Dude... What... The... Hell? I get that he was being extremely excessive and intolerant, but not all Christians are like that! I should know, I am one! Your post comes off as, honestly, hurtful.
It's mainly an attack to him personally, but ideas drive people. I can separate christianity from Christians, but it's Christianity that has formed the basis for his views.
If other Christians can form better ones from the same basis then it's not addressed to them. Every post you've made in this thread has proven that. I apologise if you thought it was an attack on a group or you and not as an attack on an individual.
Thank you. I can certainly understand that. I've made more than one post on this forum when I was angry and it came off the wrong way to people.
Anyway, back onto the thread topic, if as Jonsills says, Gail Simone and other past writers (who have been writing and developing the character for years) understood that Wonder Woman was bisexual by nature of her origins, then I don't see how that can be a retcon. If the main reason for Sulu being heterosexual was that Gene said so, then the collective views of past WW writers (without whom's contributions WW would be a very different character today) as to her bisexuality should carry just as much weight.
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Oh yes, starswordc, as well as ryan218. I'll apologise to two reasonable people.
It also strikes me how much Christianity is based on Paul and not the central figure's teachings. But then again, Paul was the Ur example of using a religion to build and unify an Empire under siege with the Gospels seemingly added as nothing more than an attempt to give Paul all the divine justification (a prequel of sorts) he needed for his own agenda.
Thank you. I can certainly understand that. I've made more than one post on this forum when I was angry and it came off the wrong way to people.
Yeah, I've met a person very like this in real life and it's a bit unsettling to encounter in England for reasons we've gone over a few pages ago.
People unwilling to respect human rights rub me the wrong way, especially ones so entrenched for reasons that do not make sense.
Anyway, back onto the thread topic, if as Jonsills says, Gail Simone and other past writers (who have been writing and developing the character for years) understood that Wonder Woman was bisexual by nature of her origins, then I don't see how that can be a retcon. If the main reason for Sulu being heterosexual was that Gene said so, then the collective views of past WW writers (without whom's contributions WW would be a very different character today) as to her bisexuality should carry just as much weight.
Well there's also the fact that bisexuality is even less of a retcon as it covers souch a wide array of sexualaties from 'if it's you it's okay' to 'I'm going home with somebody tonight and I don't care who'. It's perfectly possible to be bisexual and only ever formed straight romantic relationships, or only g.ay.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Oh yes, starswordc, as well as ryan218. I'll apologise to two reasonable people.
Don't worry about it, man. Guys like him p*ss me off, too.
I think a lot of it comes from right-wing Christians simply not getting any real exposure to other viewpoints growing up and getting into groupthink: there's nothing stupider than a large group of people. Whereas me, I grew up Protestant (Presbyterian, then Methodist), but one of my uncles is a Reform rabbi and another is Wiccan, and my best friend in fifth grade was a gaming buddy who was Baha'i (and I wish to heck I could find him on Facebook).
It also strikes me how much Christianity is based on Paul and not the central figure's teachings. But then again, Paul was the Ur example of using a religion to build and unify an Empire under siege with the Gospels seemingly added as nothing more than an attempt to give Paul all the divine justification (a prequel of sorts) he needed for his own agenda.
I'm not going to get into specifics on that, but there's certainly been a lot of blood shed falsely in the name of Christ, a pacifist Jewish Palestinian who supported the poor and racial equality. But, that can be said of pretty much any system of thought: people don't need a reason to be d*cks to one another, but it sure makes it easier to have a reason.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I stopped reading sthe's drivel at the point s/he claimed that Christians were being fired and persecuted for their faith.
Where, exactly, is this happening? Because it sure as frak ain't here in the good ol' U. S. of A., my friend. And somehow I don't really think we have that many STO players from, say, Iran or western Pakistan.
Interestingly, note how he mentioned Roy Moore in his post? He's a State Justice who was fired for passing a judgement ruling same-sex marriage immoral, even after a Federal Court ruled the judgement unconstitutional the last time he tried to push it. He was fired for violating legal ethics (allowing personal beliefs to override the law), not for being Christian or Homophobic. His judgement explicitly ruled the matter 'immoral'. As a judge, he can only make judgements based on the law, not morality (the two are not necessarily identical). He acted unprofessionally, as simple as that.
Now, regarding your post... Dude... What... The... Hell? I get that he was being extremely excessive and intolerant, but not all Christians are like that! I should know, I am one! Your post comes off as, honestly, hurtful.
It's mainly an attack to him personally, but ideas drive people. I can separate christianity from Christians, but it's Christianity that has formed the basis for his views.
If other Christians can form better ones from the same basis then it's not addressed to them. Every post you've made in this thread has proven that. I apologise if you thought it was an attack on a group or you and not as an attack on an individual.
Christianity isn't the problem, the problem is Christian leaders who exploit, misinterpret, and misrepresent the bible to push their conservative idiocy on others. These people are no better than those who exploit, misinterpret, and misrepresent Islam to convince people to conduct terrorism. However, these people do not represent all or even most Christians, just like islamic terrorists only represent less than 1 percent of Muslims.
I myself am Christian, but am about as left as you can get on all issues except guns and military spending. Blaming christianity itself for these things is simply incorrect, it's conservatives (religious or otherwise) who are the problem.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Being offended or p*ssed off are a choice... Yes, something/someone may be offensive, but it's for the other party to either allow themselves to be offended by it, or chose to rise above it. See Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended', he sums it up perfectly...
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Being offended or p*ssed off are a choice... Yes, something/someone may be offensive, but it's for the other party to either allow themselves to be offended by it, or chose to rise above it. See Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended', he sums it up perfectly...
I frequently say things that would probably earn me the SJW label (especially on the WoW forums ... it's bad over there), but I never say someone can't say something, I always say that they shouldn't.
The reason I tell people they shouldn't say things is first, I don't want any of my fellow gamers to be uncomfortable because of their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. Second, I don't want my kids reading some of the offensive things I've seen and thinking it is acceptable to treat people horribly.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Being offended or p*ssed off are a choice... Yes, something/someone may be offensive, but it's for the other party to either allow themselves to be offended by it, or chose to rise above it. See Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended', he sums it up perfectly...
I frequently say things that would probably earn me the SJW label (especially on the WoW forums ... it's bad over there), but I never say someone can't say something, I always say that they shouldn't.
The reason I tell people they shouldn't say things is first, I don't want any of my fellow gamers to be uncomfortable because of their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. Second, I don't want my kids reading some of the offensive things I've seen and thinking it is acceptable to treat people horribly.
Noble motives indeed: It still comes down to you dictating what someone else can't do because you have a problem with it...
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
There was never a statement implying anything that would support your comment, "So you don't believe in freedom of speech." In fact, the posted comic supports Free Speech. Free speech not only applies to those who want to express their views, but to those who tell the speaker that his ideas are rubbish.
This tactic is deplorable, and yet it grows more common over time: those who express unpopular views then turn around and label those who disagree with them as intolerant.
Why must base motives be assigned to people who do not agree with you? People of good intent can disagree without one or the other being evil. Your post is a sad expose of intolerance on your part, not on his.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
There was never a statement implying anything that would support your comment, "So you don't believe in freedom of speech." In fact, the posted comic supports Free Speech. Free speech not only applies to those who want to express their views, but to those who tell the speaker that his ideas are rubbish.
This tactic is deplorable, and yet it grows more common over time: those who express unpopular views then turn around and label those who disagree with them as intolerant.
Why must base motives be assigned to people who do not agree with you? People of good intent can disagree without one or the other being evil. Your post is a sad expose of intolerance on your part, not on his.
Wow, you and I actually agreed on something. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse? O.O
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
There was never a statement implying anything that would support your comment, "So you don't believe in freedom of speech." In fact, the posted comic supports Free Speech. Free speech not only applies to those who want to express their views, but to those who tell the speaker that his ideas are rubbish.
This tactic is deplorable, and yet it grows more common over time: those who express unpopular views then turn around and label those who disagree with them as intolerant.
Why must base motives be assigned to people who do not agree with you? People of good intent can disagree without one or the other being evil. Your post is a sad expose of intolerance on your part, not on his.
The comment Stephen Fry made, to which I was referring, is about being offended, not about Free Speech.
And yes, the comic does support it, with the last two cells being a snarky attack on 'you', or whoever is directed to read it. The implications of those cells, I not only find unnecessary, but also massively hypocritical, when coming from someone who repeatedly ghost-posts for a banned former forum member, thus breaching the forum's rules on circumventing a ban...
I have no issue with agreeing to disagree with someone, but there is nothing 'deplorable' in pointing out the intellectual fascism which self-appointed bastions of morality try and enforce upon others by deeming things 'problematic'. The behaviour of those people is intolerance, because it is intolerance of an idea they disagree with. There's no emotional or semantic juggling which can disguise the fact, that the so-called SJWs are every bit as intolerant, if not more so, of those they disagree with, coupled with the self-righteous indignation of their echo-chamber social structures.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
You're not denying it. Got it.
No, I don't deny that I consider freedom of speech to include my right to tell other speakers what they can go do with their views and otherwise refuse to simply put up with them.
Why should I?
Are you offended by that?
The knife cuts both ways, pal.
And in regards to ghost-posting for a banned forum member? I did that once, so he could participate in a literary challenge, and requested feedback from the moderators on whether such was acceptable (and have yet to receive any in either direction).
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
You're not denying it. Got it.
No, I don't deny that I consider freedom of speech to include my right to tell other speakers what they can go do with their views and otherwise refuse to simply put up with them.
Why should I?
Are you offended by that?
The knife cuts both ways, pal.
And in regards to ghost-posting for a banned forum member? I did that once, so he could participate in a literary challenge, and requested feedback from the moderators on whether such was acceptable (and have yet to receive any in either direction).
Offended? Not at all. Amused/disappointed, actually, that you can't see the hypocrisy of it, but certainly not surprized or offended...
Once, is bad enough. He's banned from the forum, he doesn't get to participate in it. Period. That's what being banned means... If you have yet to receive any feedback from the moderators, then the thing to do would be to consider their lack of response as the only response forthcoming, and wait until permission is granted. Is it a trivial thing? In itself, yes, but it shows entitlement that you (both) feel the rules don't apply, and thus hypocrisy for posting something which carries the overtones of someone being banned/removed from the community for expressing an opinion which the narrative voice is trying to diminish. Equally, Free Speech doesn't apply to forums anyway, they're not public space, but privately hosted facilities: The host and their appointed representatives are within their right to dictate the behaviour of their guests. But we're not talking about Free Speech on forums, but the notion of one person respecting (or not) the right of another person to hold a different view and express it, without feeling the need to pass judgement upon it. When one uses one'/Free Speech to take another person's Free Speech, then that is not only dictatorial, but it is making the assumption that one's own perspective is of more value than the other's.
And once again, I am going to request that we agree to disagree and stop derailing the thread, because I'm not prepared to give time to an issue which will not be arbitrated, resolved or otherwise agreed upon.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
And what form CAN an intervention take that will not constitute preferential treatment? Affirmative action was an utter train wreck. Racial hiring quotas are a disaster waiting to happen.
Realistically I don't think anything short of an act of God himself can. Why? because the people you are trying to force to "do the right thing" are actively trying to undermine your efforts.
Honestly you have to draw a line somewhere. If it's not criminal behavior, then don't bother trying to force people to not do it.
I'm sure this is exactly the reply @angrytarg was thinking of when they wrote their comment. It's so nice to see people like this exist, it's lovely to get a yard stick of social evolution in practice .
To be perfectly candid, I thought @sthe91 was trolling
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Closing this, as some people have resulted in personal attacks rather excessively.
Thank you for those who have attempted to remain constructive.
/Closed
[10:20] Your Lunge deals 4798 (2580) Physical Damage(Critical) to Tosk of Borg.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator "bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh." "Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness."~Day[9] "Your fun isn't wrong."~LaughingTrendy
Comments
(I may be misremembering things, though.)
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Thank you. I can certainly understand that. I've made more than one post on this forum when I was angry and it came off the wrong way to people.
Anyway, back onto the thread topic, if as Jonsills says, Gail Simone and other past writers (who have been writing and developing the character for years) understood that Wonder Woman was bisexual by nature of her origins, then I don't see how that can be a retcon. If the main reason for Sulu being heterosexual was that Gene said so, then the collective views of past WW writers (without whom's contributions WW would be a very different character today) as to her bisexuality should carry just as much weight.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Oh yes, starswordc, as well as ryan218. I'll apologise to two reasonable people.
It also strikes me how much Christianity is based on Paul and not the central figure's teachings. But then again, Paul was the Ur example of using a religion to build and unify an Empire under siege with the Gospels seemingly added as nothing more than an attempt to give Paul all the divine justification (a prequel of sorts) he needed for his own agenda.
Yeah, I've met a person very like this in real life and it's a bit unsettling to encounter in England for reasons we've gone over a few pages ago.
People unwilling to respect human rights rub me the wrong way, especially ones so entrenched for reasons that do not make sense.
Well there's also the fact that bisexuality is even less of a retcon as it covers souch a wide array of sexualaties from 'if it's you it's okay' to 'I'm going home with somebody tonight and I don't care who'. It's perfectly possible to be bisexual and only ever formed straight romantic relationships, or only g.ay.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I think a lot of it comes from right-wing Christians simply not getting any real exposure to other viewpoints growing up and getting into groupthink: there's nothing stupider than a large group of people. Whereas me, I grew up Protestant (Presbyterian, then Methodist), but one of my uncles is a Reform rabbi and another is Wiccan, and my best friend in fifth grade was a gaming buddy who was Baha'i (and I wish to heck I could find him on Facebook).
I'm not going to get into specifics on that, but there's certainly been a lot of blood shed falsely in the name of Christ, a pacifist Jewish Palestinian who supported the poor and racial equality. But, that can be said of pretty much any system of thought: people don't need a reason to be d*cks to one another, but it sure makes it easier to have a reason.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Where, exactly, is this happening? Because it sure as frak ain't here in the good ol' U. S. of A., my friend. And somehow I don't really think we have that many STO players from, say, Iran or western Pakistan.
Christianity isn't the problem, the problem is Christian leaders who exploit, misinterpret, and misrepresent the bible to push their conservative idiocy on others. These people are no better than those who exploit, misinterpret, and misrepresent Islam to convince people to conduct terrorism. However, these people do not represent all or even most Christians, just like islamic terrorists only represent less than 1 percent of Muslims.
I myself am Christian, but am about as left as you can get on all issues except guns and military spending. Blaming christianity itself for these things is simply incorrect, it's conservatives (religious or otherwise) who are the problem.
Being offended or p*ssed off are a choice... Yes, something/someone may be offensive, but it's for the other party to either allow themselves to be offended by it, or chose to rise above it. See Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended', he sums it up perfectly...
I frequently say things that would probably earn me the SJW label (especially on the WoW forums ... it's bad over there), but I never say someone can't say something, I always say that they shouldn't.
The reason I tell people they shouldn't say things is first, I don't want any of my fellow gamers to be uncomfortable because of their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. Second, I don't want my kids reading some of the offensive things I've seen and thinking it is acceptable to treat people horribly.
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
There was never a statement implying anything that would support your comment, "So you don't believe in freedom of speech." In fact, the posted comic supports Free Speech. Free speech not only applies to those who want to express their views, but to those who tell the speaker that his ideas are rubbish.
This tactic is deplorable, and yet it grows more common over time: those who express unpopular views then turn around and label those who disagree with them as intolerant.
Why must base motives be assigned to people who do not agree with you? People of good intent can disagree without one or the other being evil. Your post is a sad expose of intolerance on your part, not on his.
Wow, you and I actually agreed on something. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse? O.O
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
And yes, the comic does support it, with the last two cells being a snarky attack on 'you', or whoever is directed to read it. The implications of those cells, I not only find unnecessary, but also massively hypocritical, when coming from someone who repeatedly ghost-posts for a banned former forum member, thus breaching the forum's rules on circumventing a ban...
I have no issue with agreeing to disagree with someone, but there is nothing 'deplorable' in pointing out the intellectual fascism which self-appointed bastions of morality try and enforce upon others by deeming things 'problematic'. The behaviour of those people is intolerance, because it is intolerance of an idea they disagree with. There's no emotional or semantic juggling which can disguise the fact, that the so-called SJWs are every bit as intolerant, if not more so, of those they disagree with, coupled with the self-righteous indignation of their echo-chamber social structures.
No, I don't deny that I consider freedom of speech to include my right to tell other speakers what they can go do with their views and otherwise refuse to simply put up with them.
Why should I?
Are you offended by that?
The knife cuts both ways, pal.
And in regards to ghost-posting for a banned forum member? I did that once, so he could participate in a literary challenge, and requested feedback from the moderators on whether such was acceptable (and have yet to receive any in either direction).
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Once, is bad enough. He's banned from the forum, he doesn't get to participate in it. Period. That's what being banned means... If you have yet to receive any feedback from the moderators, then the thing to do would be to consider their lack of response as the only response forthcoming, and wait until permission is granted. Is it a trivial thing? In itself, yes, but it shows entitlement that you (both) feel the rules don't apply, and thus hypocrisy for posting something which carries the overtones of someone being banned/removed from the community for expressing an opinion which the narrative voice is trying to diminish. Equally, Free Speech doesn't apply to forums anyway, they're not public space, but privately hosted facilities: The host and their appointed representatives are within their right to dictate the behaviour of their guests. But we're not talking about Free Speech on forums, but the notion of one person respecting (or not) the right of another person to hold a different view and express it, without feeling the need to pass judgement upon it. When one uses one'/Free Speech to take another person's Free Speech, then that is not only dictatorial, but it is making the assumption that one's own perspective is of more value than the other's.
And once again, I am going to request that we agree to disagree and stop derailing the thread, because I'm not prepared to give time to an issue which will not be arbitrated, resolved or otherwise agreed upon.
Realistically I don't think anything short of an act of God himself can. Why? because the people you are trying to force to "do the right thing" are actively trying to undermine your efforts.
Honestly you have to draw a line somewhere. If it's not criminal behavior, then don't bother trying to force people to not do it.
My character Tsin'xing
To be perfectly candid, I thought @sthe91 was trolling
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Thank you for those who have attempted to remain constructive.
/Closed
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
"bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh."
"Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness." ~Day[9]
"Your fun isn't wrong." ~LaughingTrendy
Find me on Twitterverse - @jodarkrider