prev <-> next
[2014-04-11 13:00:58] - mig: i think it's basically all the stuff you use your cell-phone for, you just don't need to take your cell-phone out of your pocket. ~a
[2014-04-11 13:00:19] - xpovos: a gopro would be way better for that. time-lapse will not work if you're filming from your head. ~a
[2014-04-11 11:26:48] - mig: Just once I want to film my evening commute and time-lapse it. I figure Google-glass would be good for that. But that's kind of a lark to spend $1500 on. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-11 11:11:55] - I'm still unsure of what I'd do with google glass if I had one. - mig
[2014-04-11 10:41:33] - two of my coworkers have them sitting on their desk. going . . . unused. i could probably ask to borrow them and nobody would say no. so what i'm telling you is, i could use a google glass for free, and even i am not using it. ~a
[2014-04-11 10:30:13] - a: Yeah, I think I sadly agree with you based on things I've heard. I'm really excited about the idea, but I'm not terribly interested in being a beta tester right now. I'll wait until the commercial version is out and ready to go. -Paul
[2014-04-11 10:15:36] - paul: i don't know if you want a google glass. i have lots of coworkers with them, and i'm not impressed. it's just not useful enough and it's too annoying. until it looks just like a pair of glasses, i'm out. ~a
[2014-04-11 10:10:11] - paul: though if they had fired or otherwise forced her out earlier, the administration would probably in a much better place pr-wise given how things played out. - mig
[2014-04-11 10:04:17] - mig: That way it doesn't look like she was forced out as a failure. -Paul
[2014-04-11 10:03:44] - mig: Yeah, I don't really know how to take that news. I guess they both wanted her out (Sebelius and Obama), but they figured the best time wasn't when there were huge problems and decided to wait until things were quieter? -Paul
[2014-04-11 10:02:18] - Aaron: I saw that and was very tempted (are you going to get a pair?), but I figured (A) I do want $1,500 and (B) it might be cheaper and/or a better model if I wait for it to be commercially available. -Paul
[2014-04-11 09:57:01] - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/10/hhs-secretary-sebelius-resigns/7567733/ hhs sectretary resigns. the timing does make sense in a weird "my work is done here" sort of way, but it definitely looks odd with the backdrop of the administration celebrating the recent good pr developments over signups or ACA. - mig
[2014-04-11 09:38:48] - http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-to-get-one/ google is selling google glass on april 15th and only april 15th... some sort of weird one-day-only thing, limited supplies, so if you want google glass and don't want $1,500 here is your chance - aaron
[2014-04-10 13:11:53] - mig: It'll also be interesting to see how he pronounces his name.
-Paul[2014-04-10 13:05:49] - a: If I can't find time to watch Colbert's show every night, then there's no way I'm watching Leno/Conan/Letterman.
-Paul[2014-04-10 13:05:22] - a: I don't often watch them either. I used to watch Leno somewhat consistently, but haven't in years. Conan I never really intentionally watched, but his show ended up on the TV sometimes, and Letterman I mostly just watched youtube clips on occasion. -Paul
[2014-04-10 13:02:03] - it's weird, i don't watch those shows . . . ever. why do people watch them? i guess it's like the daily show, but not funny. why would i want that? ~a
[2014-04-10 12:59:45] - Aaron: I've admittedly only seen a few Conan shows and not even a full Letterman show (just segments here and there)... -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:59:05] - Aaron: And on the flip side, I found O'Brien and Letterman to be really bad. The differences were just so stark that I was wondering what I was missing. I figured it must not have been much since, again, the ratings favored Leno. Maybe I just haven't watched enough of their shows? -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:57:27] - Aaron: Right, and I can totally understand personal preference and whatnot. The disconnect just always seemed weird to me. Leno got the ratings, but I don't know if I have ever heard of anybody in the media (or even just among friends) who ever thought he was even decent. -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:54:21] - It's just a random rant that I've had in me for a while. Sorry. Maybe this would've been better on Facebook so people can tell me how much of an idiot I am. Anyway, Colbert sounds like he would be an incredible upgrade for CBS. Might even start watching his show if I have time to see how it is. -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:53:06] - paul: i couldn't really tell you. as a teenager i though conan was the funniest of the three. i haven't really watched them enough as a grownup to give them a fair comparison. i know leno's supposedly the more family-oriented of the three, so maybe there's some resentment for that reason? - aaron
[2014-04-10 12:52:48] - If people want to blame Leno for what went down with O'Brien at NBC, I guess that's fair. I have no idea what happened so I can't say for sure he's not a jerk or anything like that, but I just don't get why people think Letterman and O'Brien are so much better as comedians. -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:50:09] - Aaron: I'm not saying Leno is great. His jokes are pretty obvious and it's rare that I ever hear anything particularly clever from him, but I've also watched Letterman and O'Brien and I've found them to be painfully bad. -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:48:51] - Aaron: But I've just read so many articles that go on and on about how great Letterman (or O'Brien) are and how it's such a shame that nobody understands their genius and instead people watch crap like Leno. -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:48:00] - Aaron: Honestly, I still think Jay had a bit of a raw deal (he was forced out by NBC when he was a clear #1 for a guy who failed miserably at the job) and got blamed more than he deserved, but I also have no idea what he might've been doing in the background. Maybe he's a really clever backstabber who just never got caught. -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:47:40] - paul: It'll be interesting to see Colbert doing comedy outside of his Colbert Report persona. - mig
[2014-04-10 12:46:49] - Aaron: Yeah, sorry, I guess I should've been more specific. I more meant their abilities as comedians and late night hosts, rather than if they were nice people or not. -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:41:31] - paul: did you hear the whole jay/conan debacle, with their time slots shifting and how conan eventually left TBS as a result? it kind of paints jay in a bad light even if it wasn't entirely his fault. - aaron
[2014-04-10 12:38:49] - aaron: He wasn't there yesterday. It's a interal Post-to-Post advertising thing. He'll likely be gone tomorrow. So, to answer your question, with a question: Jeff Bezos? -- Xpovos
[2014-04-10 12:33:27] - I know it's all a matter of opinion, but the ratings backed it up. Leno routinely wiped the floor ratings-wise against those guys. Why can't some people just accept that a lot more people found Jay Leno funnier than O'Brien and Letterman? -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:32:34] - Also, pretty off topic, but I'll never understand the hatred people have for Jay Leno and the reverence for Conan O'Brien and David Letterman. I've seen all three of their shows, and Letterman and O'Brien were very rarely amusing to me, while Leno at least got me to smile a few times. -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:31:02] - http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2014/04/10/cbs-late-show-david-letterman-stephen-colbert/7547269/ Holy crap. Not sure why I'm surprised, but Colbert is replacing Letterman on the Late Show. -Paul
[2014-04-10 12:30:18] - xpovos: why is there a chinese man covered in bees in the middle of your article?? or perhaps a better question... why isn't there a chinese man covered in bees in the middle of every article? - aaron
[2014-04-10 11:51:53] - Xpovos: Although I guess the article you posted is a little different, since it has less to do with political beliefs and more to do with... I guess who somebody is? -Paul
[2014-04-10 11:50:39] - Xpovos: Well, I won't be the one to call you on hypocrisy because your article kind of supports my point: If people really want to support the idea of ousting people from their jobs based on political beliefs, I think they should support it even when it's political beliefs they might support. -Paul
[2014-04-10 11:32:04] - I realize my link opens me up for charges of hypocrisy, and that's actually one of the reasons I posted it. I figured I could hash out my reasoning and make sure I'm not a hypocrite; or if I am, that I can at least come to terms with it better. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-09 22:26:02] - that being said, this couple did not really do themselves much favors with their public statements and I can see why people got upset. OTOH, the group probably went a little too far by also going after Zulkin as well for nothing more than trying to ask a honest question of the boycotters. - mig
[2014-04-09 21:16:03] - paul: yep, definitely should talk politics with the local deli owner to try and coax his viewpoints out of him at this point. Who knows what oppression my patronage may have been supporting? - mig
[2014-04-09 18:21:47] - moreover there's the timing. If Yagan was upfront about this donation and his regret for it when this whole thing began, I wouldn't have much of an issue. That he's only now expressing his regret makes me wonder if he's only sorry about the info being out there. - mig
[2014-04-09 18:17:53] - aaron: sure, Eich's donation was probably "more bad". But Cannon appears to be much more anti-gay than your average republican, so I think it's incorrect to say the 2 donations aren't comparable. - mig
[2014-04-09 16:26:32] - Apropos of a continuing debate, and one that's just going to get more complex: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/same-sex-marriage-is-new-test-for-catholic-institutions-used-to-dont-ask-dont-tell/2014/04/06/1e1c8702-bdb7-11e3-b195-dd0c11 -- Xpovos
[2014-04-09 14:49:52] - mig: and as a software developer, you should be able to appreciate that the bisexual thing with match.com had absolutely nothing to do with any sort of intolerance towards bisexuals... it's obviously just a software issue - aaron
[2014-04-09 14:49:04] - mig: it's really, really reaching to cricitize someone for contributing to an "anti gay politician" just because they contributed to a republican. do you actually think it's hypocritical for one person to donate to a republican, while simultaneously criticizing someone for donating to prop-8, or are you being facetious? - aaron
[2014-04-09 14:43:18] - and the whole nonsense with match.com and bisexuals is kind of a big deal too. - mig
[2014-04-09 14:34:13] - xpovos: yeah, I don't disagree his rationale was reasonable. But like I said earlier this is something OkCupid should have been upfront about much earlier instead of apologizing after someone dug up the info. That, to me, is a bigger issue than the donation itself. - mig
[2014-04-09 14:27:30] - http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/08/portland-organic-store-and-gay-marriage "There's something beautiful about a man unironically pointing to a community's open-mindedness by way of explaining its commitment to shun those with different viewpoints." -Paul
[2014-04-09 14:23:49] - That said, it makes his company's dickish move even dickier, and I imagine the nuance of that argument will be lost on the majority of those engaged in this farce of a debate. To that end: *popcorn*. Restating my previous, eaten, note, if we're going to have a witch hunt, I might as well enjoy the bonfires. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-09 14:22:30] - mig: I'm willing to take him at his face value that he was contributing to a senior politician on a business-interest related committee, and was unaware of the positions. That's standard paying for access--the kind of thing that's supposed to be eliminated with campaign finance reform, right? So it was a business move, not a political one. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-09 11:27:19] - my coworker had this up on his screen (independently) and i was like HEYYYY. the doorknob guy's eyebrow goes up. he's so happy! ~a
[2014-04-09 11:05:05] - http://imgur.com/gallery/4e9nj japanese game show in which players have to find which pieces of furniture are chocolate - aaron
[2014-04-09 10:35:25] - paul: it's actually not very old. old enough that i don't mind replacing it. something in it is failing weirdly/inconsistently/irregularly and i haven't really had the care to debug it. ~a
[2014-04-09 10:11:26] - I mean seriously you have the to accuse an entire company of being bigots despite the company not actually doing anything that would indicate so while a company that you arr a CEO has arguably engage in a discriminatory practice towards bisexuals. The hypocrisy is pretty amazing. - mig
[2014-04-09 09:47:26] - I should probably stop digging for more info on this debacle, it is geniunely making me really angry. - mig
[2014-04-09 09:44:22] - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dating-website-matchcom-asked-bisexual-users-to-pay-for-two-accounts-9245755.html match.com (of whom Yagan is also CEO of) was telling bisexuals that they would have to purchase 2 accounts to look for both men and women. - mig
[2014-04-09 09:29:31] - a: How old is your computer? I have my old machine which is probably still perfectly capable of hosting something like the message board but which is pretty much just sitting in the corner of my office rotting away... -Paul
[2014-04-09 09:12:35] - xpovos: to respond to your eaten post, I read Yagan's statement regretting the donation. But if you are going to be accusing users of Firefox and the entirety of Mozilla of indirectly supporting bigotry, this was something that needed to be disclosed well beforehand. - mig
[2014-04-08 22:02:25] - mig: yes, 2 posts i think. one at 1pm, and another 1:15pm. for those who care, i'm buying a computer on monday, so this complete craziness should end soon. ~a
[2014-04-08 21:04:23] - Did we just lose a whole bunch of posts from today? - mig
[2014-04-08 12:07:19] - http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/08/americans-ignorant-of-where-ukraine-is "Shockingly, some respondents seem to think that Ukraine is inside the U.S." I guess I can see why somebody might support military intervention in Ukraine if they thought it was in the US.
-Paul[2014-04-08 11:55:43] - paul: http://iac.com/about/leadership/iac-senior-management/sam-yagan apparently he's CEO of both. Very odd. - mig
[2014-04-08 11:44:37] - mig: But, did I read that correctly? OKCupid's CEO is the same person as Match.com's CEO? -Paul
[2014-04-08 11:27:40] - mig: And that link is pretty awesome. Finding hypocrisy is easy in politics, but it doesn't often come as blatant and clear-cut as that.
-Paul[2014-04-08 11:26:11] - mig: Yeah, that's exactly the kind of slippery slope I was afraid Eich's resignation would start. Now do we have to demand OKCupid's CEO step down? -Paul
[2014-04-08 11:18:25] - paul: http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/08/white-house-wage-gender-gap-statistics you'll probably get a kick out of this one. - mig
[2014-04-08 10:12:04] - This, by itself, doesn't mean he can't criticize Eich for his donations per se, but the fact he never acknowledged his own questionable donation makes me find his actions of the past few days pretty repulsive. - mig
[2014-04-08 09:59:11] - http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox apparently OkCupid's CEO made a political donation to an anti-gay politician. - mig
[2014-04-07 14:41:03] - mig: Sadly, my situation is similar to Daniel's. I'm sure I could line up a game session if we worked at it though, but I still need to complete Act V for the first time. I've also not even used the Mystic once, so I didn't entirely follow your sentence, but that sounds annoying. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-07 13:25:31] - mig: Sure, I'm still working through the campaign and my playtime is VERY erratic. Sometimes I can play for an hour or two solid, sometimes its in 10 minute segments with 20 minutes in between when I'm helping out with Alex. So maybe? Also Beymar is on a lot and likes to play if that has appeal to you. -Daniel
[2014-04-07 13:13:55] - Also D3 related, any ideas or desire to do group rifts or adventure mode (I guess this might be for just daniel and xpovos, since you are the only 2 i know of here that are playing right now). - mig
[2014-04-07 13:08:15] - tangent: I have discovered just now that sockets are a primary stat, not secondary. So my numerous attempts to reroll a socket for items on the mystic were obviously a futile effort. - mig
[2014-04-07 12:44:16] - Decided to check. The last (and it looks like only) time I voted for any nationwide office where the candidate who I voted for won was John Warner for U.S. Senate in 2002. And even then I'm not sure I voted for him; I might have voted for Hornburger, but I have no recollection of doing so. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-07 12:36:19] - a: Plus, I can only vote against my politicians. I can rant and rave (and give money) across the country, but my vote only counts for one congressman, two senators and a president. And I've lost every single election for the past 6 years, maybe longer. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-07 11:22:56] - a: Of course they're writing cronyism-style regulation. And it's appalling and I keep voting them out. But I'm out-voted by low information voters. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-07 11:10:35] - a: Either that, or give up on democracy.
-Paul[2014-04-07 11:09:35] - a: To the point where even if you're trying to do things the "right" way (and not using crony capitalism), you still need a lobbyist in DC to protect you from other people trying to use the government against you. -Paul
[2014-04-07 11:08:35] - a: Stop having the government involved in so many aspects of our lives and make it so it has less power over us? I feel like the reason there is so much money in politics is because there's so much power to be wielded. -Paul
[2014-04-07 10:57:32] - paul: ok, if this is actually what you believe (and in the direction of what miguel and andrew believe), then how do you suggest we address this problem? ~a
[2014-04-07 10:56:12] - a: Not sure if this completely answers your question, but I think probably more than 50% of politicians are more "cronyist" types than pure principle types... -Paul
[2014-04-07 10:56:00] - that's my surprised face. not my "O" face.
~a[2014-04-07 10:55:44] - paul:
~a[2014-04-07 10:54:39] - a: So Obama actually gets more credit from me than a lot of Republicans.
-Paul[2014-04-07 10:54:07] - a: (And I'm not trying to target a prominent Democrat. I was going to mention Boehner in the same breath but I actually do think Boehner leans more towards lobbyists vs principle). -Paul
[2014-04-07 10:53:21] - a: Yeah, you could be right, but I think it's really hard to tell. I like to think I follow politics pretty closely and I still have no idea if somebody like Obama really believes in most of the stuff he stands for or if it's just "corruption" from lobbyists. -Paul
[2014-04-07 10:52:45] - xpovos/mig/paul: in these made-up scenarios, do you ever think that some of these corrupted officials might be asked to add cronyism-style regulation by the ones donating unlimited money? ~a
[2014-04-07 10:50:29] - a: Likewise, is it "corrupting" when it's pretty blatant quid-pro-quo but it's for something like gay marriage? What if somebody flat out admitted that they only donated money to a candidate because they wanted to be able to marry in the future? -Paul
[2014-04-07 10:49:49] - yes, i agree there are shades of gray (or grey if you really want). and in your scenario, no, it's not "wrong" (imo). i believe, though, that lots of politicians are not operating in one of those shades of gray. they're full on corrupted by lobbyists. ~a
[2014-04-07 10:41:36] - a: I feel like there's also shades of grey. If some small business owner would benefit from some deregulation, but also believes in the free market in principle... is it wrong or "corrupting" if he donates money to a candidate who gets into office and then deregulates the area that business owner is in? -Paul
[2014-04-07 10:09:31] - xpovos: "How do make sure you're targeting corrupting efforts" you can't be sure, but i think you can make things better than doing nothing "if engaging in corrupt quid-pro-quo politicking is already illegal" my guess is it's pretty easy to make some subtle-quid-pro-quo hard to catch. ~a
[2014-04-07 10:08:39] - mig: Not quite where I was going with that, but I can't argue against your point. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a problem though. As long as the elected individuals are smart enough to handle some level of compromise on comrpomise-able issues, then the voters can be as intractable as they desire. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-07 10:04:13] - xpovos: well let's be honest, no one trusts the voters because a lot of voters have convinced themsleves that there preferred party is so damn right that only morons disagree with them. - mig
[2014-04-07 09:26:46] - The ultimate problem here is that you have to trust the voters to be well-informed enough to see past disinformation. And no one trusts our voters to be even marginally informed. How can we have a democracy when we can't trust the voters? -- Xpovos
[2014-04-07 09:25:42] - It's like the arguments that reporting and structuring laws are there to help identify illegal financial activities; but now they're crimes unto themselves with sometimes awful repercussions. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-07 09:24:54] - Alternatively, if engaging in corrupt quid-pro-quo politicking is already illegal, why do we need specific campaign finance laws in addition? -- Xpovos
[2014-04-07 09:24:14] - a: How do make sure you're targeting corrupting efforts, rather than just penalizing rich people for being rich? -- Xpovos
[2014-04-07 00:25:23] - how do i know you're not an individual out to seek any political favors? i'll admit that 2600 is pretty low. but, if the limit was like 10k or something and it was a local contest, i could maybe see some corrupting forces at work. ~a
[2014-04-07 00:22:05] - a: fine, let me rephrase it. How is any donation by me, an individual who isn't out to seek any political favors, potentially corrupting. At some point of money transferring the laws very clearly think it is. - mig
[2014-04-07 00:08:16] - xpovos: hah, maybe. ~a
[2014-04-07 00:07:38] - mig: why is an 18 year old qualified to vote, but a 17.997 year old is not qualified to vote? arbitrary limits are arbitrary. ~a
[2014-04-07 00:00:05] - a: currently it is illegal for me to donate more than $2,600 dollars to any politician's campaign. How is a donation from me of $2,601, to say a libertarian candidate, in of itself so dangerously corrupting? - mig
[2014-04-06 23:57:16] - a: I can't be sure, and of course he probably didn't even pay attention, given his position, but if he had, he'd probably have thought it proper. Note the article date is 2 years after Prop 8. You're right. Things have moved fast. Maybe the Holy Spirit moved faster? -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:53:41] - "I rather think he'd be very unhappy with the Eich situation" probably. i'm not so sure how happy he was with prop 8 passing. ~a
[2014-04-06 23:47:51] - And... we're now in my field of expertise. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:47:07] - http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-Stat "Was homosexuality the cause?" "Eh..." -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:46:48] - http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-U Number of cases of priestly sexual abuse, including priestly gender breakdowns. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:45:30] - Huh, I seem to have broken both links. Wonderful. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:45:02] - Sources: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-U http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-Stat
[2014-04-06 23:44:06] - Because while something on the order of 15-25% of all child sexual abuse is same-gendered (calling it homosexual is problematic because of a variety of issues that I can't get into in a short response), among priests, more than 60% was committed against boys. Whether that's a homosexual issue, an access issue, both or something else isn't clear. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:42:51] - The gay lobby is also accused of going to great lengths to hide the alleged connection between homosexuality and the priestly child sexual abuse scandal. That's a particularly insidious charge not well backed up by the statistics at large, or our best science... but... in the priesthood, as a subset, it has a sticking power. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:41:34] - The gay lobby is alleged to be priests who are pushing for normalization of homosexuality within the Church, specifically within the priesthood. Benedict made it clear that men with same-sex attraction did not have a vocation to the priesthood. They want that reversed. At the most extreme some of them probably are pro-homosexual marriage, even within the Church.
[2014-04-06 23:39:42] - The lobbies (and there are many, not just a 'gay' lobby, which may or may not exist) push for their own agendas. Some for more charity. Others for less noble things. Plenty of them line their own pockets. Francis really dislikes them. Some, including some I'm fond of, for a different kind of understanding of sacraments. That gets complicated. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:37:52] - a: How much Church politics do you want? I could probably go on for pages. The shortest version I can get to, I think, is that the Church's primary agenda is the salvation of all souls. To that end, it has primary missions, evangelization, catechesis, sacraments and secondary missions, charity, involvement with secular governments for the creation of just law, etc.
[2014-04-06 23:35:39] - But the broader point he's making then, is that it's not being homosexual (having the tendency) that is the issue, it's the actions. I.e. we are all tempted. We are all called to resist. However, he takes particular issue with "lobbies" which is people attempting to push an agenda. I rather think he'd be very unhappy with the Eich situation. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:35:13] - "to the harm and exclusion of the Church's agenda" what does this mean? ~a
[2014-04-06 23:33:48] - a: In context, it's the members of the Curia who are alleged to be homosexual and, importantly here for context, pushing a pro-homosexual agenda to the harm and exclusion of the Church's agenda. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:33:00] - [...] "The tendency is not the problem ... they're our brothers." -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:32:58] - what's the gay lobby? ~a
[2014-04-06 23:30:23] - Here's a fuller context on the quote, btw, since it seems relevant. ""There's a lot of talk about the gay lobby, but I've never seen it on the Vatican ID card! When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them?" [...] -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:22:50] - a: Francis is pretty awesome too. I'm not sure if he's as awesome as Pius XII, but it's only been a year+. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:16:56] - i fucking love pope francis. (imo) he's taken the church in a whole new direction. ~a
[2014-04-06 23:12:59] - a: Unless you think somehow Pope Francis' "Who am I to judge" means that he's more open to it than he is. Which could be a separate issue. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 23:12:15] - a: The only next step is to have some sort of moral debate, which I don't think would be fruitful. I'm more than willing, but it'd be long and possibly annoying to others. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 22:29:59] - xpovos: i agree that secular marriage is crazy and i don't believe your religion is bigoted. past that, i'm not sure which thing to respond to. ~a
[2014-04-06 22:20:44] - mig: no. politicians are super corrupt already. until somebody provides a way to assure me that removing limits on the money in politics won't make things worse, i'll probably keep reminding myself that money and speech are two different concepts (even if they are sometimes related). ~a
[2014-04-06 21:59:08] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII_and_China (basically, Pius XII was an awesome dude); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionaries_of_Charity (in particular, noting the care ex-prositutes, victims of AIDS, lepers and the 'Untouchable' caste). I could go on with almost any charitable or mission work done. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 21:52:51] - http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2585; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Coyle; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm (14-fucking-35); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII_and_the_Holocaust and remember the Holocaust was not just an ethnic cleansing aganst Jews, but also blacks, homosexuals and others; ... -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 21:44:54] - So, following are a significant number of links that should be valuable in determining whether my religion is bigoted. Or if, instead, it's opposed to homosexual marriage for a subtler and more transcendent reason than "we don't like gay people." -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 21:43:54] - The issue, then, is--is my religion bigoted? Because if I'm espousing my views based on my religion, and my religion isn't bigoted, then neither am I. Follows? However, if my religion is bigoted, then clearly so am I, and it's probably not a good religion. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 21:42:40] - My fundamental point is that my objection to the issue is primarily religious. Secular marriage is crazy. I think there is a valid state based interest in preserving a traditional definition, but ultimately, that battle is over, and I don't honestly care. Two dudes can get married and live next to me, and I'll be quite content; unless they crank their gay music up.
[2014-04-06 21:41:23] - a: I don't think I can put together a complete argument that is coherent using the character limits here. I'll do my best, but I'll use links instead. It's going to be a fair amount of reading, though. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-06 19:54:12] - as an aside, can we now end the debate over whether spending money in politics for a cause is speech now? It seems after this Eich thing that the answer is a resounding yes. - mig
[2014-04-06 17:41:01] - paul: agreed.... you have a good point. i'm thrilled that things have move so quickly for gay rights, but we can't be too hard on so many fucking people that were for prop eight six years ago. . . . it was a different time? even though it was six years ago i honestly think things have changed a lot nationally in six years. ~a
[2014-04-05 21:23:37] - a: Agreed.... so half of Californians should be ineligible to be CEOs? Also, didn't you excuse away Clinton's "homophobia" (intentionally being a little snarky there) by saying it that a lot has changed in the past decade or so? -Paul
[2014-04-05 16:32:58] - a: I know. but it's a fundamentally different set of situations. I realize you disagree, and I've been trying to think of ways to explain. Still working. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-05 08:32:14] - xpovos: the people who were against interracial marriage thought they had morality on their side too. ~a
[2014-04-05 08:31:18] - paul: agreed. ~a
[2014-04-04 12:10:01] - a: I think the recency of the change (and the the still slim margins of the majority) are worth noting, though. I'm thrilled that things have moved so quickly for gay rights, but the same reasoning that's being used to disallow Eich to hold a higher office can be used on over half of Californians. -Paul
[2014-04-04 12:05:07] - aaron: i laughed so hard at "none pizza with left beef" that i had to show everybody in the office the picture. they were asking why i was laughing so hard. ~a
[2014-04-04 11:45:38] - a: my favorite pizza instruction was the none pizza with left beef. i like it because it doesn't really mess with the delivery crew, it's just a very unusual order - aaron
[2014-04-04 11:44:07] - Though, I have to say, I'm against gay marriage more because I'm against all civil marriage than that I'm bigoted against homosexuals. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-04 11:38:28] - So, one vote for d, one vote for b. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-04 11:33:41] - a: I acknowledge that history has moved on. I'll even accept being called a bigot. But there is a substantial difference between the issues of race and sexuality. 50 years from now the legal things will all be settled, and I've already given up on that. But the moral issue will be the same. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-04 11:30:43] - it's not because his view is majority or minority that people are freaking out. his (your) view is behind the curve. the view is historical. the view is (or very soon will be) the past. being in the majority or the minority didn't matter regarding the 3/5ths issue. it's the past. 50 years from now. ~a
[2014-04-04 11:23:37] - Xpovos: Could be related to what you just said... What Paul Deen was accused of is definitely "unpopular" and couldn't be sugar coated as anything but. Eich, like you said, was on the majority side of an issue where he, at worst, appears to still be in a large minority. -Paul
[2014-04-04 11:18:44] - During my drive home I thought about this some more. I'm irrationally angry about this situation, and I'm trying to figure out why. The Paula Deen situation is similar, but I didn't bat an eye. I thought it was stupid, but I wasn't angry. Is this: a) because I'm not racist (enough). b) am 'homophobic' c) tech centered, not a foodie d) other? -- Xpovos
[2014-04-04 11:12:05] - And hence majority opinion, which, repeating myself, he holds/held. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-04 11:11:44] - If the argument is that people can't hold 'wrong' opinions and then have a major office (including CEO), that holds more sway, but it's so dangerous because what is 'wrong' can change so quickly, which this case demonstrates very well. Unless we all can agree to an objective standard, it always devolves down to subjectives and opinion... -- Xpovos
[2014-04-04 11:10:00] - aaron: I can almost go along with that, except there's the very real issue that this wasn't an unpopular opinion. It's still not 'unpopular', it's at worst a minority opinion. And at the time of his effort, it was on behalf of a ballot initiative that won and became law, by necessity: a majority opinion. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-04 10:59:20] - paul: women aren't libertarians. ~a
[2014-04-04 10:51:48] - a: I think you should ask the pizza company to draw a penis on your box and then sue them.
-Paul[2014-04-04 10:51:22] - a: Boycott your cousin's facebook page until she recants her views? Why did you bold "her"? -Paul
[2014-04-04 10:43:10] - mig, i'm not sure how my father will hear the news. it might kill him. ~a
[2014-04-04 10:42:04] - a: how much of a big deal is it, really? - mig
[2014-04-04 10:40:06] - order from dominos and ask for the pentagram cut. - mig
[2014-04-04 10:39:51] - my cousin's kid has "political views: libertarian party" on her facebook page. how do i break this news to my family? ~a
[2014-04-04 10:33:34] - pizza specialty instructions i want to try this. any suggestions on which one would be best? ~a
[2014-04-04 10:30:04] - Does anybody know where I can search for political contributions for people? It's supposed to be public knowledge but I can't seem to find a good site for it. -Paul
[2014-04-04 10:28:51] - and i do still think this highlights a problem with mandatory disclosure laws. - mig
[2014-04-04 10:28:49] - Aaron: Haha, I like the 3/5 compromise call out. I think we're somewhat in agreement that this one example (Eich) is notably different than the stuff I'm worried about. I just look at it as a bit of a slippery slope that I hope we don't go down. -Paul
[2014-04-04 10:21:10] - a: It does somewhat. I guess I have less a problem with the forced resignation itself but still have issues with thr circus that surrounded it. - mig
[2014-04-04 10:15:15] - paul: if you replace your "ron paul" bumper sticker with something like, "bring back the 3/5 compromise" bumper sticker, and replace your promotion with, "promition to vice president" then yeah, i think that's completely reasonable and i wouldn't have a problem with that - aaron
[2014-04-04 10:14:10] - unpopular opinions shouldn't all be treated the same. if your unpopular opinion is: same sex marriage is an abomination, that's not the same as if your unpopular opinion is: income taxes are lame. if you're a CEO, you can believe the latter and nobody will freak. the latter belief doesn't damage equality. ~a
[2014-04-04 10:13:57] - paul: yeah, i think we do want to mix politics and work when it comes to people acting as the public face for a company. if the Mozilla lead systems engineer had spent 5 years in prison for drug trafficking, nobody would care. it's only a problem because he's a CEO, and because he donated to a charity which specifically tried to deny rights to people - aaron
[2014-04-04 10:07:30] - a: Honestly, I thought it was mostly internal pressure. I know the OKCupid thing got some headlines, but most the stuff I read was about developers signing petitions and whatnot. -Paul
[2014-04-04 10:06:10] - Aaron: I know it's differences in degrees, but I would hate it if my boss told me I was being passed up for promotion because I had a Ron Paul bumper sticker or something like that. Do we really want to be mixing politics and work like that? -Paul
[2014-04-04 10:05:07] - Aaron: "if you have unpopular opinions [...] you shouldn't be the CEO of a major company" That's really the only part that makes me a bit uncomfortable. I'm not sure I like this idea of trying to punish people for their opinions like this. -Paul
[2014-04-04 10:01:59] - aaron: That's almost a picture perfect example of how "the market works" to counter discrimination that libertarians and the like are always talking about. -Paul
[2014-04-04 10:00:49] - aaron: Ok, so then you don't think there is any "problem" here to solve, right? I'm actually partially in agreement. The system kind of works how I would want it to. The CEO did something lots of people had a problem with. There were protests and threats of boycotts and whatnot and eventually the CEO stepped down. -Paul
[2014-04-04 09:57:55] - ok, did you guys know that it wasn't just external pressure? i learned this morning that board members resigned and developers resigned when eich was promoted. does that change any of your thoughts? ~a
[2014-04-04 09:46:14] - paul: honestly i think people just need to stand up for their opinions and actions. if you have unpopular opinions, or have done unpopular actions in the past, you shouldn't be the CEO of a major company - aaron
[2014-04-04 09:43:40] - paul: i don't agree, i don't think that would solve anything. the problem isn't specific to political contributions, and if you allow anonymous political contributions, the problem could just happen again because they turn up a 5-year old photograph with someone at a pro-Snowden ralley, or because someone donates to the Free The Press foundation or something - aaron
[2014-04-04 09:39:54] - mig: To have standing you have to show cause for harm. That's much easier to do when you've actually been harmed; harder to do when you are showing hypotheticals. It's one of the weaknesses in a number of the lawsuits against the ACA (e.g. Hobby Lobby). Their first try was thrown out because it was too early. Even now, it's not as strong as some other cases. -- X
[2014-04-04 09:20:59] - mig: So maybe your right, that the ideal solution to this is to allow anonymous political contributions. It's obviously only a hypothetical (since he was never a candidate or proposition), but what if somebody donated some money to support Snowden and consequently got frozen out of any government jobs they applied to? -Paul
[2014-04-04 09:19:05] - mig: There was a tweet that I thought was interesting about this: "I support gay marriage, but Eich is a good argument for allowing anonymity in political contributions. Your cause could be next." -Paul
[2014-04-04 09:08:26] - And I do find it strange that we vigorously protect the privacy of people's voting ballots, but with donations its the opposite. - mig
[2014-04-04 09:05:42] - xpovos: and I think the resigned/fired thing might be irrelevant. The more salient point is that your political activity can make you a target for retaliation. - mig
[2014-04-04 08:57:59] - I wasn't suggesting that Eich do this himself. In theory anyone who makes a donation that legally requires disclosure could have standing, though I could be very wrong about that. - mig
[2014-04-04 08:47:26] - mig: Eich has got some decent standing if he wants to pursue that angle, but not as good as if he'd been fired. Forced to resign is never quite as clear-cut. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 23:18:06] - the only caveat is i'm not too keen on the current court precedents on the topic that may make a challenge difficult. - mig
[2014-04-03 23:17:21] - Could this, however, potentially lead to a scotus case striking down disclosure laws? We have now established that your political campaign contributions can lead to personal consequences through retaliation by people who disagree with you. It is probably a compelling argument to the court as it's currentl constituted. - mig
[2014-04-03 20:56:09] - eich has resigned. The market has spoken, which is more or less how it should be, but I'm very torn about this for the reasons I elaborated on earlier. Guess I'll have to look into the political leanings of that deli owner won't I? - mig
[2014-04-03 18:43:55] - paul: my guess, female cops are a minority. ~a
[2014-04-03 17:45:32] - There was also a line about another cop at the previous Ft. Hood shooting that really jumped out to me in the same way, "The 5-foot-2, 125-pound mother of two and her partner exchanged gunfire with Hasan". Seems like such a line might've been different if it were a male (and not just changing mother to father). -Paul
[2014-04-03 17:43:25] - http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/03/justice/fort-hood-shooting-hero-mp-cop/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Thought this article was a little interesting in relation to our discussion about benevolent sexism. Like a commenter said," So--- now we're keeping track of when females do their "job"? Will we also report when a male cop does his job, too?" -Paul
[2014-04-03 17:13:07] - https://www.okcupid.com/ is back to normal for firefox. ~a
[2014-04-03 16:31:57] - Jesus, this country is fucked. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 16:29:28] - a: I understand. But while past performance is no guarantee of future performance, it's often the best metric we have. Racist restaurant has been making money since 1939. There's no reason it'll stop now. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 16:28:36] - http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/brendan-eich-resigns-as-mozilla-corporation-ceo/#p3 Apparently he resigned today. -Paul
[2014-04-03 16:08:51] - (regarding sustainability, i was referring to the racist CEO, not climate changes) ~a
[2014-04-03 16:07:08] - your goal is money in the long term, or money in the short term? as an investor, you should care more about money in the long term. a business plan that is unsustainable in the long term should be a red flag for an investor. ~a
[2014-04-03 16:03:31] - a: Apple has said they don't want my money as an investory because I'm a climate change denier. If I felt Apple stock was going to increase, I'd still buy it. My goal is money, not politics. If I see a white supremacist restaurant in SC making lots of money, I'd be inclined to invest there too. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 16:03:09] - you're also implying that a racist business model can create increased profits. i think that's probably difficult to do in the long term. ~a
[2014-04-03 16:00:17] - "the investors aren't going to care" the non-racist investors will care. ~a
[2014-04-03 15:59:16] - if he's 100% able to hide his racism, i concede. but i don't think that's a possible bar. he'll eventually be 99% able to hide his racism, and the 1% will be his undoing. ~a
[2014-04-03 15:57:15] - But if the number who stop supporting the business is negligible compared to the increased profits of the racist business model... the investors aren't going to care. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 15:56:46] - a: So that's in the clear... unless they have a racist business model. If the CEO believes that he can earn better profits by being racist, he will; esp. if he is himself racist. And then he's bound to say a few racist things. That would be cause for people to stop supporting the business, sure. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 15:54:16] - a: Skipping through to your second post (foul play on my part, sorry), I'll disagree. A person can be racist and not be a PR nightmare. They just have to never talk about it... which is pretty easy for a CEO to do. Mostly they just talk about their business model. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 15:52:14] - the pragmatist (you and paul) will at least admit the racist CEO will eventually become a PR nightmare. ~a
[2014-04-03 15:52:03] - xpovos: "otherwise well-qualified" otherwise is the key word there. he's unqualified because he's racist. all other things being equal, i would refuse to purchase from a company where the CEO was racist and would refuse to work for a company where the CEO was racist. i'm not the only one. ~a
[2014-04-03 15:41:00] - a: Why. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 15:32:48] - yes? ~a
[2014-04-03 13:58:02] - Xpovos: "Does this make him unfit to be a CEO?" I would wager to say that most people who are outraged about this would answer "yes" to that question. And my devil's advocate will counter with a question for you: Is an otherwise well-qualified, but racist person unfit to be CEO? -Paul
[2014-04-03 13:33:20] - But I can't find any evidence of an inclusiveness statement BEFORE the flap, and certainly it's not something the average user is aware of. The question for me is: does Firefox work? And the answer is: not well enough, but the fact that the CEO may or may not be a bigot has nothing to do with that. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 13:32:00] - Paul: Posit: he is anti-"marriage equality". Does this make him unfit to be a CEO? Clearly not. Does it make him unfit to be a CEO of a public traded company. Less clearly, but still no. The issue, I understand, is with Mozilla's own statements of inclusiveness. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 13:26:35] - And yes, for some reason I needed to capitalize "Devil's Advocate". -Paul
[2014-04-03 13:24:57] - Xpovos: I can play Devil's Advocate here and say it's probably not just the donation, but the mindset behind it (specifically since he hasn't issued any recanting that I know if). -Paul
[2014-04-03 12:38:22] - How can this be a disqualifying action from anything? If he can be denied a job because he gave money to a popular cause that is now unpopular (and even that's not clear, it hasn't been re-voted in California) I have serious issues with our discourse has gone. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 12:36:50] - The thing that bugs me about this, still, is that this was a poltical contribution that is ostensibly disqualifying him from holding a position. A non-political position. Additionally, it was a contribution for a political measure which won; i.e. had majority support, before it was overturned. Obviously being in the majority doesn't make it right. But... -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 12:31:25] - http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/#ftag=CAD590a51e An interview the Mozilla CEO did with CNET. I don't necessarily agree with a lot he said, but I thought his points about inclusiveness (and how it relates to the people in Indonesia) were interesting. -Paul
[2014-04-03 11:03:48] - a: I tried posting this before, but I don't use firefox anymore. I switched to Chrome a few years ago. I still use IE often at work, though. -Paul
[2014-04-03 10:15:28] - mig: Chrome has FlashControl which does enough for me. I'm not fussed about ads, I just object to the ones that use absurd technology to overlay the entire site, or play video or music without my permission. Obviously, adblocking is a choice, but Chrome's got me covered. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-03 09:59:46] - i'd use chrome more if their adblock functioned better. - mig
[2014-04-03 09:51:02] - http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/divided-court-strikes-down-campaign-contribution-caps-in-plain-english/ scotus says no to aggregate campaign contribution limits. - mig
[2014-04-01 19:22:34] - firefox refuses to support webp (bug 856375), firefox refuses to support svg fonts (bug 119490), application shortcut keys fail to operate when plug-in has focus (bug 78414) still open after 13 years, javascript link to open in new window or new tab (bug 55696) still open after 14 years. these are the reasons i really want to dump firefox. or are they? ~a
[2014-04-01 19:16:33] - do you use firefox? ~a
[2014-04-01 16:06:02] - a: Again, I want to be clear, all the more power to people who want to peacefully protest a la OKCupid and the like, I just worry about the slippery slope it could take us down. I don't want to have to include past political donations on my resume in the future so people can discriminate against me because of my donations to Ron Paul.
-Paul[2014-04-01 16:04:01] - a: Okay, maybe I should've said "direct action"? Donating money to a political cause (no matter how repulsive somebody might find it) seems to still be significantly different to me than a more direct action like throwing around homophobic slurs in the workplace or only promoting straight people or something. -Paul
[2014-04-01 15:18:03] - mig: i see what you mean now. i actually agree with you here. i don't think okcupid should have put this on their website. bill gates has also donated to some shitty things (a portion of his foundation's holdings are not great?). so, shouldn't okcupid also put up that banner for users who are running windows? and ... using a lenovo ... while drinking coke? ~a
[2014-04-01 15:05:19] - paul: donating money is an action. ~a
[2014-04-01 14:31:58] - a: I was honestly confused. I thought so too, but an article I read had female pronouns. So... I have no idea. -- Xpoovs
[2014-04-01 13:56:11] - mig: Right, and I think something else is how much we should equate the CEO with the company. Maybe the CEO of Barilla/Mozilla/whatever is anti-gay, but what if all the employees/shareholders/etc are all pro-gay marriage and everything? A boycott is going to hit those people too and not just the CEO. -Paul
[2014-04-01 13:53:48] - Like if I found out the owner of the deli I frequent voted for Richar Nixon, do I have to stop going there lest people think my parronage of the place implies support for Nixon? - mig
[2014-04-01 13:49:12] - a: I was referring to my own mundane actions, like my choice of browser, what soda I drink, or where I go to for lunch. Are politics really a consideration I ned to apply for any of these things? - mig
[2014-04-01 13:44:55] - a: I wonder if the same people so outraged about this would be as understanding if the employees of some company were trying to oust their CEO because they found out he/she donated to planned parenthood or was a card carrying member of the ACLU... -Paul
[2014-04-01 13:43:41] - a: I think these people are well within their rights protesting this and wanting him to step down, I just think it's a bad precedent that's being set where somebody is being punished, not really for their actions (as far as I know he has no history of directly discriminating against gays), but for their political beliefs. -Paul
[2014-04-01 13:36:15] - xpovos: "abominable position for her to hold and she deserves criticism" isn't eich a dude? ~a
[2014-04-01 13:33:56] - mig: making a public donation to a divisive cause isn't mundane. ~a
[2014-04-01 13:26:02] - wow, a really well thought out april fools day joke: Apache Subversion project migrating over to git. ~a
[2014-04-01 12:57:23] - a: i'm fine with calling people out. But like I said earlier I'm a bit troubled by this trending idea that we have to make every little mundane thing we do into some political exercise. - mig
[2014-04-01 12:53:34] - That has a chilling effect on speech, eliminates diversity of opinion, and causes really serious problems long term; even if in this particular time and case it's an abominable position for her to hold and she deserves criticism, etc. Which of course is not the case. -- Xpovos
[2014-04-01 12:52:35] - That whole Mozilla thing is a good reason to eliminate campaign disclosure laws. If campaign money is speech and anonymous speech is protected, we run into some interesting territory here. If people want to give their money to campaigns that support potentially controversial and/or unpopular causes, but can be shamed out of a job and livelihood because they do?
[2014-04-01 12:42:24] - a: I agree it's like the Barilla situation, and I think the outrage/boycott is similarly over-the-top. -Paul
[2014-04-01 12:41:43] - a: I don't think they want him to "clarify" his position. I think they want him to recant it. Would they be satisfied if he came out and was like, "Let me be clear, marriage should be between a man and a woman". -Paul
[2014-04-01 12:16:59] - a: this was from a few days ago. It seems like most are not placated by the statement. That includes okcupid who didn't start their firefox-shaming until yesterday I think. - mig
[2014-04-01 11:08:52] - actually, a response has already been made. i'm satisfied. but i'm not okcupid's ceo or whatever. ~a
[2014-04-01 11:07:15] - paul/mig: or . . . have the CEO publicly clarify his position? it seems pretty obvious to me that's what they want. this isn't all that different from the barilla situation. somebody did something (imo) dumb, and other people are calling them out on their dumb actions. ~a
[2014-04-01 10:06:16] - mig: My guess is that they want the CEO to step down and to be branded with a scarlet letter so everybody knows never to hire him again.
-Paul[2014-04-01 10:01:22] - bah dumb enter key ... Fired? Or are they past that and just want to drive Mozilla out of business? Its not really clear to me. - mig
[2014-04-01 09:59:26] - so i was on okcupid today and they apparently have a splash page to pester people using firefox and try and badger them to stop using it. I'm stumped though, whats the endgame with this boycott? For the CEO to be demoted? Fored
[2014-04-01 09:53:48] - http://www.businessinsider.com/r-washington-mayor-signs-marijuana-decriminalization-bill-2014-31 happy april fools day! washington DC decriminalized marijuana - aaron
[2014-03-31 13:38:40] - paul: Regarding the woman's willfull ignoring of context of Colbert's schtick, there's a bit of amusing irony. - mig
[2014-03-31 12:22:08] - aaron: Yeah, it seems like the people offended by it must have never seen the show before or not understand satire. The person behind the #cancelcobert campaign seems to understand it's satire, but she also appears to be trying to make a living out of being a victim.
-Paul[2014-03-31 11:52:13] - that's not what she said. she said that a white person wouldn't understand. i guess it might be correct to say she implied a white person's opinion will be ill-informed. yeah, i guess her statement is bullshit. ~a
[2014-03-31 11:35:16] - aaron: according to her, because you are white you're not allowed to have an opinion and must defer to her umbrage taking. - mig
[2014-03-31 09:57:14] - http://www.mediaite.com/online/its-just-a-stupid-opinion-huffpost-live-interview-gets-heated-over-cancelcolbert/ an interview with the person behind #cancelcolbert. Make of it what you will. - mig
[2014-03-31 09:06:15] - captain "park ma plen tu-sun" and "ha yu lan dis tang"... i mean it's a large part of his persona, drawing on offensive stereotypes in a self-deprecating way - aaron
[2014-03-31 09:02:49] - that colbert one didn't even make me bat an eye. i wonder if the people who found it offensive found it offensive within the context of the show, or because they hadn't seen the show before. like, he joked about another network's flub on pilot names on a crashed korean airline, coming up with his own racist pilot names, - aaron
prev <-> next