3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
Freezing rain has completely iced up the roads... can't afford to lose more work hours right now, but can't afford a tow truck or front end work when my car goes off the road either. Stoopid weather.
seriously, though: dirty.
At 12/29/10 06:55 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: If science isn't wrong, but merely incomplete, then what exactly is wrong?
Are you asking that if incompleteness is not incorrectness then what makes something incorrect?
Or are you asking if anything is actually wrong with science if incompleteness is the accepted standard?
More fallout over the new law. It'll be interesting to see where all of this eventually lands.
At 12/10/10 06:02 PM, KemCab wrote: Just because one paper has been published on the matter does not mean that the issue has been resolved.
That's... kinda the entire point.
If all science is wrong, gravity doesn't exist, and I'm a hat.
Gravity isn't science. Science is a procedure for creating explanations of things like gravity. It is constrained by observational, logical, and informational limits, and as we can never have all information, we will always be short of the amount of information necessary to explain anything. Ergo, all science is incorrect... we simply work to make it less so.
Speaking of which, two new articles just dropped this past week which are brilliant examples of this.
First, in the New Yorker, an article about how the efficacy of rigorously tested drugs seems to be falling... and brings into stark relief the limits of science.
Then, in Scientific American, a rebuttal of sorts that, instead of questioning the value of the scientific method, instead praises the idea of scientific error... which is what I have been doing here, though my admittedly hyperbolic presentation has fooled many of you into thinking I am somehow denigrating science.
And, somewhat less topical, but still an interesting look into how our preconceptions of how research and development are often wrong, a new look at how the development of AI has radically changed since the days of attempting to mimic human thought.
At 12/28/10 05:57 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: 10. Objectivity is neither immutable nor absolute. Though, you seem to be strongly implying otherwise when you emphasize that divinely endowed moral code is objective, and therefore cannot be taken away.
See: mine and lapis' rather extended tangential conversation. I was a bit worried that we had gotten so far off the point as to not be relevant to the original discussion, but huzzah! Saved by the Bacch.
Also, WB, you should try to clear up the idea of rights that can be taken away not being rights... because we as a people take away rights, even ones explicitly given by the god in your religion, all the time. We take away a person's right to life when we execute them, when police action kills people, when we go to war. We take away rights to property and freedom. If these are rights granted by god, then how can we as a people take them away? And if we can take away god-given rights as a society, then how are those rights different than a right given only by society?
which, now that I think about it, may be a paraphrase of one of Bacchs other points... regardless, if it helps clear the air, so be it.
Merry Chrismahannukwanzakah! And a Happy new year if'n yer not Chinese :P
Been awhile since I've been on this board... haven't really been putting my creative impulses towards writing stuff lately (well, stuff appropriate for this board). I am working on my statement of purpose and applications for graduate school and a Ghost In The Shell-themed Spycraft campaign for my nerdy friends. Perhaps I'll get in on a writing contest to shake off the rust a bit.
So how was everyone's holiday? Get lotsa lewt?
At 12/25/10 09:33 AM, lapis wrote:That would make saying that axioms 'are not actually linked to any "object" ' a tautology as it is always true that something is not linked to any member in an empty set. Besides, I'm not asking you to define the set of objects by pointing what's in it (nothing), I'm asking to describe the characteristics that something would need to satisfy to be in the set of objects. All I want, after all, is to understand why axioms aren't in it.Actually, I define nothing as purely an object.But, then in this case "objective" is pure concept and not actually linked to any "object".What do you define to be an "object" - I'm asking because I don't see why an axiom can't be an object by itself.
Perhaps there was some bad wording on my part there. When I said I define nothing as purely an object, I meant not that nothing was an object, merely that nothing was only an object. In fact I would probably define everything as being at least partially objective. The problem with defining in this case is it necessarily ignores the relationships between any thing that you wish to define and the world around it. I realize this sounds like I'm trying to semantic my way around this, and I, in any other discussion, would be more than happy to simplify an infinite set by such definitions, but when we're talking about a theory of relational ontology, I cannot.
But I'm not interested in saying anything about bronze. Not yet. In the end, of course, I am, because usually I don't to math for nothing but the lulz; I want to say to explain some natural phenomemon using an abstraction of reality. But that's only when we at the two steps taken together and not the second one in isolation.
Except we can't take the second step in isolation. Without the axioms, the proofs can't exist, and as the axioms are necessarily both objective and subjective (as simplified explanations of the natural world), then neither can we say that the proofs are not. Well, we can, but it is artificial, and in the end we have to do some more work to relate the eventual answer back to the axioms and the real world.
But if the claim cannot be objectivily verified, as it is a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity, then its conclusion --- my own existence --- would still be in doubt. But wouldn't doubting my own existence mean I exist?
Exactly. Only through doubting your own existence can you difinitively say that you exist. Everything else could be some hallucinogenic fever dream cooked up by your mind. That said, such a position is unworkable in a practical sense, so we must for our own sanity, decide to agree that the world is at least partially real, including the others inside it.
BUT, because at the core, the only thing we can be sure of is our own being, all else must be, for lack of a better word, taken with a grain of salt. Weak evidence for this is everywhere: bad eye witnesses, memories changed through suggestion, heisenbergs uncertainty principle. We can simplify the world into a form that we can get everyone to agree on because it seems completely internally consistent (math), but there will always be some level of doubt that it is simply a fiction. And no matter how abstract we make it, no matter how removed from the real in order to remove variability and doubt, it will always be tied to perception which must remain in doubt. We agree on it because if we didn't, all thought would necessarily dissolve into chaos.
Again, this isn't to say that I believe that everything (sans my own doubt) is merely a hallucination by my mind. I know this because I learn, I know more now than I did yesterday (etc etc). Ergo, there must be something outside of my perception which exists, something objective that interacts with my subjectivity to create "reality", that increases my knowledge over time. And in order to gain as much understanding of that reality as we can, we use simplifications and tools that we can distill far enough that we can then agree on things with as little doubt as possible, but then once we are done asking the questions, we must unfurl it back into reality. So our purification into as objective a thing as we can, is artificial, temporary, and ultimately false, even if it is completely consistent, logical, and necessary to share a description of our world.
At 12/25/10 12:35 AM, Gario wrote: We'll go as far as to say 'Good job, America!', when it's all said and done, but it ultimately has very little affect on us so why would we fight for it?
I'm reminded of a rather famous quote by some nazi... something about "no one left to stand up for me" or some such...
At 12/24/10 04:31 PM, MattZone wrote: Abolishing the income tax and instituting a national sales tax would have several benefits:
It would also have several negative consequences. (my points are not meant as counters to the benefits, just as illustration that there are just as many negative consequences)
1. The only ways for the federal government to raise revenues would be to:
a.) increase the tax rate, which would be unpopular.
b.) enact policies that would increase the national GDP, which would be very popular.
Sales taxes shift the tax burden downward and fall most heavily on the lower middle class, creating a "bubble" of severe inconvenience between those whose "prefund" checks cover basically everything they spend (the poor, whose entire paycheck usually just goes toward surviving) and those for whom spending is a luxury. This makes for a disincentive to be a median-wage earner, effectively crippling the "middle" class.
2. Tax policy would no longer be a battleground for class warfare. Everyone would pay the same rate whether they were buying a gallon of milk or a yacht.
Sales tax avoidance runs currently at around 13% (I'll link if I can find my source), and while that is lower than the current income tax avoidance (evasion) rate, if the sales tax rate jumps to the 25-35% that most people think it will take to remain revenue-neutral, the avoidance rate will increase as well. Those for whom money is not an issue will find it very easy to avoid a lot of taxes (as they already do as per someone else's stat here that the top tax bracket pays only 15%, where their actual tax rate is in the 40s), whereas those who have less means available will find it more difficult, further shifting the tax burden downward.
3. The corruption of the political system by special interests and corporations would be greatly reduced. Politicians could no longer reward their supporters with tax breaks and punish their opponents with tax increases.
The adding of 30% to the cost of items would incentivise a large-scale grey market, significantly increasing the avoidance rates. Though, honestly, this could be seen as a good thing, as farmer's markets and cash-only small stores could do banging business if they sidestepped the sales tax. But adding into the whole thing stuff like smuggling and internet business (which has lost Michigan about $330 million in sales tax revenue this year alone) and this could become a big problem.
4. The IRS could be greatly reduced in size, which would save several billion dollars.
Policing the country to counter avoidance, including the logistical nightmare that would be the "prefund" system would make up for any gains in the realm of IRS reduction.
5. Tax evasion would be far easier and more lucrative to detect, investigate, and prosecute as it is far easier to find a business that is not paying its sales taxes than it is to find a person who is hiding income or refusing to pay.
Person-to-person sales would be nearly impossible to police, further incentivising non-business purchasing.
6. There would be no tax shelters for the rich or for corporations. The only way for the rich to avoid paying taxes would be to go overseas and spend their money there, and not come back with anything they bought because the national sales tax would also be an import tax. Corporations would be unable to avoid the tax because anything they imported, exported, or sold in the United States would be taxed.
I think you overestimate the ability of the government to police what comes into our ports. The cost of a system that could accurately keep track of everything that came in from overseas would be astronomical, and probably be a waste of time, as until people are unwilling to break the law to save a couple million bucks, the ingenuity of corporations will always outpace the ability of the government to keep them in check.
At 12/24/10 08:48 AM, lapis wrote:At 12/23/10 06:59 PM, Ravariel wrote: But, then in this case "objective" is pure concept and not actually linked to any "object".What do you define to be an "object" - I'm asking because I don't see why an axiom can't be an object by itself.
Actually, I define nothing as purely an object. That is part of the greater point, that everything is both objective and subjective, and that separating... purifying... parts of it into one or the other exclusively is fallacy.
This is kind of liking that saying that since copper is not an alloy and tin is also not an alloy, then bronze can also not be an alloy because it is conceived of non-alloys.
I think a more accurate metaphor would be that where you see copper and tin as separate, pure, elements, I am telling you that all is, in fact, bronze, and that trying to separate the copper and tin after the fact leaves you with an incomplete, and fallacious view of what bronze is
After I've formulated my axioms, I've created a new reality where only those axioms hold, free from everything else in this original "real" world --- where the concepts came from --- that may influence the outcome of my proof. Unlikely our reality, in this reality I may be able to study objects by themselves, hence I consider what happens in this step objective.
Objective to you, the subject, yet completely imaginary and completely foreign to the "actual" (physical) or to other persons in the world.
Well, that is not necessary. It might as well be that an elementary particle really has an objective location. Can I determine that location without altering it? Maybe not, but does that really matter?
Yes, it does, because whatever this imaginary "objective truth" may be, it is something that we never experience, we never see, and is never effective in the world. It is a philosophical argument.
What's important is that although concepts may be constantly subject to change (skewing) by human observations, I can formally define a snap shot which is then no longer subject to those alterations, even if my interpretation of it is. Although you'll probably disagree with that.
I will, but not for the reasons you suspect. I am not touting a purely perspectivalist stance here. I am not backing reletavism. I am not saying that math isn't real or useful, or consistent. I am merely saying that it requires a blending of the natural and the cultural, just like everything else. To remove a part of it, even if that part is irrelevant to the conclusions it creates, fosters a false concept of the ontology of the world.
And if you wanted to question the existence of negation, it would be very unpleasant from a practical point of view because then I would not be able to tell the difference between whether you said it existed or not existed.
Well, cogito ergo sum and all that :P
please don't tell me I have to explain why thats a joke?
But Rav, can I even say that a rock hits the ground when I drop it? Is that not just as valid as saying that it does not hit the ground when I drop it? If we unable to even say anything about the validity of those two statements, then what's the point of science? And if we can, then we have a logic.
Of course you can say it hits the ground. As I said, I am not backing pure relativism here. I am simply saying that you seeing that rock hit the ground, and the knowledge it creates about the weight, shape, texture, and sound thereof requires a blending, a hybridization of what we consider nature and culture into an amalgam of experience and existence. Without you dropping the rock it wouldn't be where it is, without the rock being where it was you never would have picked it up, without your desire to know how heavy it was, etc etc etc. There are an infinite number of factors to which everything can be tied, and none of those factors can be said to be purely natural or purely cultural.
...I'm always afraid that the kind arguments that you posit here devolve into nihilism. Being the aspiring übermensch that I am, I tend to want to reject it :p
Indeed, and I want to make it clear that that is not where I am aiming. I am not saying that things don't exist, or that gravity only works when we're looking, merely that everything in our experience, by the very nature (ha!) of our cultural existence, is at least partially cultural via the interaction (nothing escapes interaction unscathed).
The funny thing is that if this had gone the other way, where someone had claimed that math was purely cultural (or something else such as language were thus) I would be arguing much from the same position as you. In fact, that would be, in relation to the Latour I cited earlier, a more honest position to take, as it is his position that culture is what doesn't really exist, and that it is the culture part of the equation that we put too much stock in. This is specifically because of the problems in the age of colonialism in which the modernist movement began, and the separation of peoples into different cultures, into the pure categories of Us and Them, of nationalities and nationalism. The argument about mathematics actually takes us to the most esoteric and conceptual bounds of actor-network theory, when it is really about more down-to-earth things, and an attempt to break the hold of modernism and postmodernism on current cultural thought.
Mind you, I get it. The struggle with the idea. It kind of blows in the face of "common sense" in the same way that relativity and Quantum mechanics and Planck lengths and imaginary time do. This sort of fluid relational dynamic ontology (commonly called actor-network theory) is a key point in my collegiate studies, and took me one hell of a tough semester to get my head around (with the help of the two books I listed earlier, plus several others).
"It's a very hard thing to think." ~Latour
At 12/23/10 05:52 PM, lapis wrote: Of course. Those approximations are what we call axioms. Then, after formulating those axioms, we can start proving things. Only then do things become objective.
But, then in this case "objective" is pure concept and not actually linked to any "object". And as pure concept requires a subject to conceive, but no object, you end up with something purely subjective. Note that this is not a refutation of your point.
But then then there's the second step, the objective step, the proving step.
I see no difference in the amount of culture necessary for either step. In fact, I would argue that because the "proving" step steps outside the real, into the conceptual, that it is, in fact, more cultural than axioms based in the "real".
Okay, but due to circumstance and laziness, I include all subjectivity under the nomer of "culture". As in, everything that has somehow entered the human mind and uses its position therein to skew its perception of reality and that what is.
Your use of "skew" here is telling. "Skew" is all there is. There is no "center" from which the mind skews reality, there is only an interaction between reality and perception, and it is a two-way street, co-mingled and inextricable from one another. Observation creates reality creates observation. You cannot have one without the other. They are not separate things.
I define that a implies b. I define that b implies c. Then, logically, a implies c. What culturally inspired disposition could lead me to believe otherwise? Please answer this, as I can see that culture or whatever can distort the meaning of a, b and c by themselves --- I agree with you on that one. However, the meaning of a, b and c has nothing to do with the logical validity of the above reasoning. Ontological "meaning" = first step, logic = second step.
"define", "imply" and "logic" are all concepts that require culture to exist. You cannot imply without understanding what it is to imply, you cannot define without the interaction between perception, reality, and symbolism, and language to relate the concept to others.
A rock does not multiply it's mass by g to know how heavy it is, it just is by virtue of it's interaction with the ground. A person picking up that rock does not do that either, he merely judges the weight by the feel of it when he lifts it and the force with which it hits the ground when he drops it. To someone in a lab, the weight of that rock is the numbers produced on a scale. In math, the "real" disappears into symbolism altogether. All of these "weights" are correct, as the "weight" is merely an exercise in interaction, or better enaction in different contexts, and experienced (if we can say a rock can experience) differently. No one is more real or correct or objective or subjective than another and all are ontological reality in their context. Even if the function of multiplication of m and g is universal, the reality is that the very idea of multiplication is a cultural construct that simplifies a complex world into an approximation that a limited mind can understand.
At 12/23/10 04:19 PM, lapis wrote: I'm not sure if I completely understand what you're saying, or whether we even disagree. What do you mean by the "probabilistic nature" of math? Are you referring to probability theory? Because I don't flip a coin to say whether a proof is correct. The same goes for probability theory as for any other field of math.
Actually that goes back to my previous question that started this whole thing: Show me a triangle. Or an Integer.
"Perfect" triangles, those to which we may apply they Pythagorean theorem do not exist except as mental exercises. The integers we use to describe math are pure concept. Doubly so as they are only symbolism of concept, something that doesn't actually exist as we might normaly define existence. The best we can get in the "real" world are close approximations. Probability theory is a part of it, as is the nature of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, as well as Schrodingers work (interesting side not if I haven't made it yet, his famous cat thought experiment was actually meant as an illustration of why the theory was incomplete, but I digress) show us that in the real world nothing is 100% predictable or measurable. Even if we can come so close as to be insignificantly incorrect, we are still incorrect, and our very act of observation and measurement changes that which we observe in unpredictable ways.
Math is exercise, not reality. It is a tool used to describe our experiences in the world, and to make sense of what we observe. It is how culture understands nature. It is not, itself, nature.
You can't have an opinion on whether a proof is correct or not, you can only make a factual claim, correct or incorrect.
Culture is not the same as opinion, and the replicability of proofs (and their component axioms) do not separate them from culture.
But the 'proof domain' of mathematics should be free from those conceptualisations unless they're specifically needed as axioms, that's what I'm saying.
Nothing is free from conceptualization, even things that are logically indisputable prima facie. Even absent context, numbers mean things, equations mean something... and meaning cannot exist without culture.
I would suggest some books by Burno Latour, namely We Have Never Been Modern, which breaks down the model of purification that the Modernist movement used to separate the natural from the cultural. Another good book that highlights the necessity of interaction and intention and observation on the ontology of reality is called The Body Multiple by Annemarie Mol. Once you step back from the work necessary to divide things into their component parts, you'll see that nothing exists without interaction, that things only be in relation to other things, are defined, and realized by that interaction, and that all of the things that be in our sphere of experience necessarily interact with, and are defined by their interaction with, culture.
At 12/23/10 02:46 PM, lapis wrote: A mathematical proof means that you start with a set of axioms and combine them to arrive at some other statement. The choice of axioms may be inspired by culture and circumstance, but given the axioms, the proven statement should be indisputable.
But as a method of absolutism, or a measure of an objective reality, the probabilistic nature of math and the universe has shown that most, if not all, mathematics are purified conceptual exercises that have little actual basis in "reality" whatever you want to call it.
The veracity of the conclusions of mathematics are not in dispute here, nor do they contradict the premise that mathematics, as a conceptual object, is a cultural phenomenon.
Maybe it helps to split "mathematics" into those two parts, instead of arguing whether the totally of it is objective or subjective in a cultural sense.
Actually my point is that there is no "totality" of anything residing in the realm of "subjective" or "objective", or in the "natural" or "cultural". All things are quasi-objects that combine the natural and the cultural, and math is no different. My claim is only that it is "one of the most cultural things out there" because it is purely conceptual, relying completely on that which defines culture. Without culture, mathematics would not exist in any form whatsoever.
It's like saying that all of our language is based on writing a instead of alpha.
Eh, that's a fair point. However, how we do math, especially how we conceptualize the numbers we use to do the math, even if it may not change the results, certainly changes our conception of it. We certainly wouldn't have such catchy tunes about it :P
At 12/23/10 04:03 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: The fact maths might be part of culture does not mean its results, given the process of mathematics has been correctly followed, does not mean you cna argue its results.
Mathematicians argue results all the time. Once you get above Calculus, what is considered "results" tend to get a whole lot fuzzier.
It can be argues yes, but it does not mean it deserves to be argued. It does not affect reality either.
Define "reality". And how good are you at abstract algebra, vector fields and probability mathematics?
The fact there are cultural elements attached to mathematics does not make mathematics a cultural thing.
Define "cultural".
The process of mathematics cannot be argued. It is as stone cold as you get in terms of scientific process, there is no place for imagination. The numbers say what they say, that is all.
A) Math is not a part of the scientific method. It is a tool that scientists use, but it is not defined by the "Hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, publication".
B) Welcome to the new century where probabilistic math is the new thing. Welcome to Quantum mechanics where reality is determined through observation, and changed by observation. The numbers can be made to say whatever they need to say. That's how we have 6 different sets of string theory, each with different math, each equally "correct" as far as the math is concerned, and yet incompatible and the math is "wrong" within the different contexts.
At 12/23/10 11:25 AM, Proteas wrote:At 12/22/10 11:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: "You know you're gay, so just accept your lower status. If you try to achieve like us normal people it's only YOUR fault for attempting to be better than you are."How about this;
Potayto, potahto.
13,000? Out of a standing workforce of 549,015? By way of comparison, that would be like firing 3 people out of a workforce of 100 people in a factory setting, the company isn't going to hurt that much over losing them. And that number goes way down if you count in all the Reservists.
So as long as the percentage is low, injustice is cool with you. Got it.
Would you want to spend the rest of your life like that? I wouldn't. Hell, I wonder how many of those 13,000 gay soldiers are on the street homeless, have serious substance abuse problems, or have committed suicide by now.
...wow. Just wow.
And the good you do will forever be overshadowed and diminished if you are dishonorably discharged.
Apparently not.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's been beat into my head so many times before on this forum that the United States Military is nothing but an extension of the bullies in my government who view themselves as the police force of the world, and as such, I can't reasonably take anybody seriously when they talk up how "honorable" it would be to flout the law and try to serve in the military despite being gay.
Oh you pussy, how about you think for yourself, instead of pawning your idiotic views onto other idiotic forum posters as a way to sidestep the fact that your noble posturing isn't quite so noble as you would like to believe.
I'm not addressing the issue of the jews and slaves being sheltered because the situation does not apply here, as was previously pointed out.
So choosing to violate what you view as an unjust law, that works for the greater good, and puts your own livelyhood and even life at risk is not the same as choosing to viola... eh, screw it, you get the picture. But hey, keep dodging the question if it means you can keep denying that you're in the wrong.
At 12/22/10 05:45 PM, Proteas wrote:At 12/22/10 05:12 PM, Proteas wrote: even though the contract is specifically designed to hurt YOU and NOT me.Oh, and "it's the right thing to do."
That you even think that this is a valid metaphor just shows how little you really get the subject, or the ideas of morality and justice and equality... nevermind law itself.
How dare they have (or not have, depending on your perspective) dark-skinned hobbits!?
There comes a point when controversy surrounding casting in FICTIONAL movies based on FICTIONAL fantasy worlds makes you wonder if our attention isn't focused on the wrong spot.
Racism is real, and important. Does it actually help the case for equality when superficial decisions like this get blown up?
At 12/22/10 12:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So, you're telling me, that doing what on ebelieves to be right is subverted by violating a rule in all cases? That there is never a situation where the greater good requires that a side rule be broken? That they should have known their place never joined the military? Even if most everyone would agree it is an honorable decision that benefits us all?
Welcome to the idiocy that is "lawful neutral". Status quo uber alles, and don't you dare struggle against the system, cuz if you get hurt it's all on you, you stupid son-of-a-bitch.
At 12/21/10 10:46 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Which makes ZERO sense whatsoever.
And talk about setting boys up for some serious disappointment when they grow up!
On a related note to the OP, it seems like the censorship shenanigans are not just relegated to Japan and Australia (another odd censorship move by those upside-down wackos). But apparently England is banning online porn altogether!
again, not really, but close
Requiring people to opt-in to be able to access adult content seems an awful lot like big-brothering to me, and opens the doors on all kinds of privacy issues, including who has access to the records of who has and has not opted in.
At 12/22/10 02:36 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: The fact that we have Arabic and Roman numerals - the fact that the concept of zero has a history - renders it pretty damn evident that mathematics is cultural.
Including the fact that all of our math is based on the Base 10 system we use. The mechanics of everything we use mathematically would be different if we used the binary, or "sum of powers of two" systems like the ancient Chinese or Egyptians. The debate over the equality of 0.9999... and 1, and the mathematical proof thereof, the idea of irrational numbers, i, or the square root of negative 1, and other imaginary numbers, number lines at right angles to each other.
All of math is concept. All of concept is necessarily cultural.
note, for those who may not get my sense of irony, any "racist" language is purely intended for satirical purposes.
So, as you may or may not be aware, some kerfluffle has arisen over the casting of Heimdall in the new Thor movie as a black man. Some groups are threatening to boycott the movie because of this. Any by "some groups" I mean racists.
That said, they have a point. The Norse Gods, as depicted in their mythology... were... well... white. Now, the groups raising the kerfluffle aren't doing so because of this cultural fact, they're doing it because they don't like black folk.
Now, this brings up a series of issues that I would like to discuss in relation to racism, conversation, civil rights, and compromise that I'm kind of still tumbling through my brain now, so I'm going to bullet-point the issues without going too deep, because I fear if I do try to go into depth and cover everything I'll end up with a big wall -o- text that noone reads.
1) After the "whitewashing" controversy of the Last Airbender and Prince of Persia movies, this issue cannot be simply shinted into the "racists are butthurt about black folks gettin' the jobs" category. Faithfulness to cultural material is an important discussion to have.
2) Racists suck, and the fact that they made a good point is a terrible thing to agree with, ESPECIALLY because they didn't make the point as a source of discussion or cultural integrity, but because they don't like the darkies.
3) Agreeing with a racists good point is terrible because you don't want to give them any sense of legitimacy. It's like when a person you hate likes a band that you like... you're in a terrible position.
4) This is a conversation it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to have civilly.
5) This ties in with a bunch of first-amendment arguments that end up painting the ACLU and like organizations as terrible people for defending the KKK and NAMBLA. When you fight for civil rights, you generally end up defending people whose views you despise.
6) Penny Arcade skewered the topic pretty well in it's comic from Monday, and discusses the issue in more depth in this episode of The 4th Panel. Please do watch that vid as it covers a lot of important points, plus is amusing, so some chuckles can come of a disturbing topic.
plz no sue me Gabe-n-Tycho
At 12/20/10 10:26 PM, Malachy wrote: a couple of years ago I made the mistake of stopping off at the walmart to do some grocery shopping...on black friday
Shit, just today I went to the Post office hoping to send something priority real quick... not realizing till I got there that today is the last day to guarantee delivery by Christmas for priority mail... line out the damn door. -_- /tard
Anyway, I posted a link earlier to a song done by one of my favorite artists, Origa. I just found a new live vid from back in 1997. Unfortunately it's not the whole concert just 3 partial songs, but the quality is awesome and the performance is WHOA. No mic effects or computer pitch adjustment, just her and a guitar. A. Mazing.
Also, holy shit, she's cute... Not something I had noticed before.
At 12/21/10 03:59 PM, poxpower wrote: I hope he realizes his importance in the current media climate.
I think he does. I just think he might be the only commentator (i.e. not journalist) that realizes he shouldn't be, and downplays such things in order to further that agenda.
At 12/18/10 04:13 PM, The-General-Public wrote:At 12/9/10 11:23 PM, Ravariel wrote: Math is descriptive, not proscriptive, and description requires cognition which requires social interaction between a mind and the physical world.Math is actually one of the most cultural things in the universe.You're misusing the word cultural.
Is that so?
Culture, as defined by anthropologists, is the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively. Tell me how that does not describe mathematics.
At 12/19/10 04:49 PM, Memorize wrote:At 12/19/10 04:45 PM, Ravariel wrote: Waitwaitwait.Shouldn't it be New York that pays them?
Are there people, in this very thread, DEFENDING the Senate's (Repubs) action to block this bill? Are people actually arguing that it should not pass?
I just want to make sure, because aside from gum and Ericho, that's what it sounds like.
Sure, because the first-responders were only from New York, only live in New York, the only ones effected were New Yorkers, and it was totally New York's fault that they had to go there in the first place.
...oh wait.
At 12/19/10 12:21 PM, Proteas wrote: ... I will be sitting here LAUGHING MY BALLS OFF at the whole mess.
And I will still be here believing that, despite what damage may come, it was the RIGHT thing to do. Anyone who says otherwise can piss off for all I care. Or, y'know, get the balls they just laughed off diddled by Elton John in a banana hammock.
Waitwaitwait.
Are there people, in this very thread, DEFENDING the Senate's (Repubs) action to block this bill? Are people actually arguing that it should not pass?
I just want to make sure, because aside from gum and Ericho, that's what it sounds like.
