Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:

User information for Ask Me

Real Name Ask Me   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Scheherazade
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage None given.
Signed On Feb 28, 2001, 23:01
Total Comments 418 (Amateur)
User ID 9185
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
7. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 11, 2019, 23:32 Scheherazade
 
Saboth wrote on Jun 11, 2019, 14:16:
"result clearly represents a strategic victory for Alex Jones." How does using someone else's copyright without permission then losing in court represent any kind of win? Then again, this is the alt-right, where up is down and black is white, real news is fake, so I guess yeah...in their minds it must be a major victory.

He's anti abortion, I suppose that makes him alt right. (/s)
He's also pro decriminalization of drugs, which is pretty left.

Dude just does conspiracy theory stuff. People imagine he's more than he is.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quake II RTX Released
33. Re: Quake II RTX Released Jun 7, 2019, 13:35 Scheherazade
 
VaranDragon wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 03:55:
Ok, anyone here with an RTX card trying to play this?

I could really use some help with eliminatng the input lag (VSYNC is OFF)

It's terrible, and makes the game almost unplayable. With that said, it really looks and runs nice.

2080ti.

FPS is "good". (I.e. 60+hz)

(personally, I don't play stuff under 120hz, so I would call it "bad" for me, but that's not a transferable assessment)

Input lag is immense. Not usable in multiplayer, and actually hard to aim in single player (unless you slowly roll onto each enemy, you can't really flick aim.)

The game is still Quake2. No amount of lighting and new textures will make it compete with today's AAA titles for looks.

But the lighting itself, is a step above AAA. The warmth and natural feel/behavior is on point.
Take it for what it is : A _really_good_ unified lighting/illumination demo.

2 card generations from now, this will be the standard lighting model for anything attempting realism.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quake II RTX Released
5. Re: Quake II RTX Released Jun 6, 2019, 12:50 Scheherazade
 
Framerates are about what a decent system would have in q2 when it was new.

Mouse input lag is massive, maybe 200ms. I suspect the input and renderer are now asynchronous.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Free QUAKE II RTX Next Week
10. Re: Free QUAKE II RTX Next Week May 27, 2019, 22:58 Scheherazade
 
pacbowl wrote on May 27, 2019, 22:01:
Hell yeah, hopefully Zoids, Expert or LMCTF will be compatible.

Man, I loved me some Loki's Minions.

That, and Gloom, were my favorites.

And AirQuake2... but then again I worked on it, so that would make me biased.

-scheherazade

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
6. Re: Morning Legal Briefs May 27, 2019, 13:46 Scheherazade
 
wtf_man wrote on May 24, 2019, 12:40:
What it aims to do is prohibit specifically “pay-to-play microtransactions” and “loot boxes.” It’s how these terms are defined, however, that will cause game developers and players the most headache. It would limit, for instance, the types of rewards that can be offered when players purchase “Collector’s Editions” of video games. Expansion packs that, aside from additional content, grant players competitive advantages over ones who don’t purchase them would be banned.

Doesn't sound crappy to me. Collectors editions and expansions that grant competitive advantages SHOULD be prohibited.

And here’s the kicker: This new law would also apply to any game that is “not a minor-oriented game” if the distributor or publisher has “constructive knowledge any of its users are under the age of 18.” That term, “constructive knowledge,” is legalese for information a company should be aware of, regardless of whether or not it actually is. (Try to imagine a game developer arguing in court it had no idea its product had ever been used by a minor.)

Again, Doesn't sound crappy to me. If the wording makes it so loot boxes and pay-to-win is banned across the board instead of "just for children"... I'm all for it.

This crap shouldn't be in games in the first place. If there isn't a complete "opt-out" setting in the game where you can't even see loot boxes (and the like)... then yes... ban them alltogether.

By that standard, everything is for children - because the probability of a child _ever_ interacting with it is not literally 0.000000000000000000000000...%.

Also, I have no problem with expansion packs that include power creep. That's often the point of expansion packs, and the very reason for why people want them.
The only shit situation is when the publisher makes the expansion pack a near-release release, and you can't get good use of the base version before the pack is out.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
4. Re: Evening Metaverse May 10, 2019, 02:40 Scheherazade
 
RedEye9 wrote on May 9, 2019, 23:19:
NicklePop wrote on May 9, 2019, 22:37:
The population is becoming a low IQ shadow of itself as preprogrammed sex robots and people are mad that a youtuber texts nudes?

Ha

The only ha here is you did not even spend a nanosecond perusing the article before you started vomiting your clueless dreck.

In any case, the article isn't news. People sext. People cheat. People get divorced. And it's not even our business in the first place. It's barely above them writing about what sandwich he ate for lunch.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
9. Re: etc., etc. May 6, 2019, 03:50 Scheherazade
 
jdreyer wrote on May 5, 2019, 15:02:
Scheherazade wrote on May 5, 2019, 02:58:
VR resolution is really bad. People don't realize that the image is post processed, warped and scaled, and you get effectively 1/2 panel resolution (because image pixels aren't aligned 1:1 with display pixels).



Beyond resolution, VR just needs 'normal' games to put in proper support.
(The games people want to play, not 'VR games')

*FPS games with normal controls, and just add freelook.
No gimmicks.

*Flight-sim/racing games with normal controls, just add freelook.
No cutting features in VR mode(like disabling zoom).

I sold off my VR stuff because I just wanted to play 'normal' games with VR, but there was always something messed up in the VR version/mode - just bad integration choices by the authors. Like as if they just wanted to make a demo, and didn't count on anyone actually trying to play in VR.

-scheherazade
Doesn't the VorpX driver let you play normal games normally in VR?

Yes.

But without developer support, things like 2D UI overlays, etc, become unusable/broken/etc.
Vorpx makes ATI crossfire look bulletproof by comparison.
Not knocking it, though. There is only so much you can do with a driver hack, and it does a lot.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Metaverse
28. Re: Saturday Metaverse May 5, 2019, 14:02 Scheherazade
 
RedEye9 wrote on May 5, 2019, 12:46:
And now we're off into Conspiracy Mode.
What took that so long? Laugh2


Direct link to the fix, apparently :
storage.googleapis.com/moz-fx-normandy-prod-addons/extensions/hotfix-update-xpi-intermediate%40mozilla.com-1.0.2-signed.xpi

They could have just posted that, rather than having people use telemetry.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
6. Re: etc., etc. May 5, 2019, 02:58 Scheherazade
 
VR resolution is really bad. People don't realize that the image is post processed, warped and scaled, and you get effectively 1/2 panel resolution (because image pixels aren't aligned 1:1 with display pixels).



Beyond resolution, VR just needs 'normal' games to put in proper support.
(The games people want to play, not 'VR games')

*FPS games with normal controls, and just add freelook.
No gimmicks.

*Flight-sim/racing games with normal controls, just add freelook.
No cutting features in VR mode(like disabling zoom).

I sold off my VR stuff because I just wanted to play 'normal' games with VR, but there was always something messed up in the VR version/mode - just bad integration choices by the authors. Like as if they just wanted to make a demo, and didn't count on anyone actually trying to play in VR.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on May 5, 2019, 03:22.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
39. Re: Evening Metaverse Apr 21, 2019, 18:44 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Apr 19, 2019, 14:21:
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 19, 2019, 10:08:

You're projecting. I'm not angry.

You are angry, though. Furthermore, "you're projecting" is the slightly more adult way of saying "I know you are, but what am I?" It serves the exact same function, only you feel slightly smarter about it, so it's again, about your emotions.


I am ideologically an individualist voluntaryist. I can only fault any person for their individual trespasses onto other individuals, on a case by case basis.

Intellectual cowardice.

Your definition of institutional racism is created to satisfy a particular ideology which has no problem blaming the innocent. Precisely because when a person can't point fingers at any guilty party, they blanket blame society (i.e. everyone, guilty or innocent). It's the science of lashing out.

It is not lashing out. It's the opposite. But if there's a problem with society, all of society is at fault, because a solution requires all of society.

You don't seem to even acknowledge that things that are problems are going on, so this is pointless. "There is no problem, but if there was a problem, it's no one's fault" is, well, intellectual cowardice.

But it's funny how many people that refuse to assign any blame at all also refuse to see that there's a problem. It goes hand-in-hand.

Cowardly. True defense of status quo. This is how nothing ever improves, and why some people go "but this is how it's always been done."



You're straw manning.

Any given person in the ~350 million person U.S. population is too far away and too unaware of any other person to ever cause them harm.
For anything that happens to anyone, 99+% of people are not at fault.
Blaming them all for any given person's circumstance is the very definition of lashing out.

People are not boats flowing down a river.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
37. Re: Evening Metaverse Apr 19, 2019, 10:10 Scheherazade
 
Sepharo wrote on Apr 18, 2019, 12:59:
Scheherazade wrote:
1968 ... 1943

You're missing the point again.
But like I said earlier it's pretty pointless for me to keep trying.

Please do. I prefer you address the point.

Thanks
-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
36. Re: Evening Metaverse Apr 19, 2019, 10:08 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Apr 18, 2019, 09:19:
Listen, you're misunderstanding a concept, angry at the concept due to your own misunderstanding, and angry at us for explaining.

Here, from Wikipedia:
Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other factors.

The term "institutional racism" was coined and first used in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[1] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".[2] They gave examples.

"When white terrorists bomb a black church and kill five black children, that is an act of individual racism, widely deplored by most segments of the society. But when in that same city – Birmingham, Alabama – five hundred black babies die each year because of the lack of power, food, shelter and medical facilities, and thousands more are destroyed and maimed physically, emotionally and intellectually because of conditions of poverty and discrimination in the black community, that is a function of institutional racism. When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which most people will condemn. But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it."[3][4]


That's institutional racism. Your own definition differs, and this is a you problem, not a problem with the term or concept. You're like the people angry at "toxic masculinity" while constantly whining about being victim to it, all due to their fundamental refusal to accept the meaning of the term.

It's not worth discussing this with you if you refuse to accept even the basic definition of the term. It's like arguing with someone about whether the sky is blue, because they've decided to define blue as "yellow."

You're projecting. I'm not angry.

I am ideologically an individualist voluntaryist. I can only fault any person for their individual trespasses onto other individuals, on a case by case basis.

Your definition of institutional racism is created to satisfy a particular ideology which has no problem blaming the innocent. Precisely because when a person can't point fingers at any guilty party, they blanket blame society (i.e. everyone, guilty or innocent). It's the science of lashing out.

It's the belief that all suffering is imposed by others, and that those suffering are entirely helpless to take part in their own fate, the idea that they are doomed to be what you define as an inherent status of their race, that is the racist and religious aspect.

I work with black professionals, and they are not some poverty stricken downtrodden mass. If you listened to their opinions, you wouldn't be so devoted to your worldview.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Apr 19, 2019, 10:34.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
33. Re: Evening Metaverse Apr 18, 2019, 01:14 Scheherazade
 
Sepharo wrote on Apr 18, 2019, 00:27:
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:35:
(I also made reference to a 'gangster aesthetic' - the visual appearance of a thug/gangster as established by popular media over the last few decades, re. music videos, movies, etc.)

I linked an image of Denzel Washington in the movie American Gangster. A product of popular media that has substantial influence on what someone would consider a "gangster" look.
He's dressed in a nice suit, and he's black.
Is that what you're going for? If you have a different description or example let's hear it.

I then linked an image of latino youths in LA during the Zoot Suit Riots. Those kids turned themselves over to police custody to avoid being beaten by rioting servicemen stationed in LA. The media indiscriminately characterized latino youths wearing these zoot suits as thugs and often praised the riots as a "cleansing". When Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out the obvious racial aspect to the attacks she was called a communist by the LA Times.

There is a saying : If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

I say you look like a "gangster" therefore you are one.


American Gangster is period piece. The characters in it are depicted as they would be in 1968. That has nothing to do with today. You might as well link Al Capone.

The zoot suit riots were from 1943. When actually everyone wore a suit/uniform/dress as normal day to day attire (finding a man _not_ in a suit/uniform would be the challenge). (The cut of those suits was actually quite non conformist for its day.)

I am referring to today's aesthetic. E.g. things like this : "gangster"

I can honestly say that, if I looked like "red shirt guy" (from the pic above) when getting pulled over for doing a burnout, I would not expect to get off as easily as if I looked like this : "not gangster"





Well, if you said that, and I dressed like what pop culture depicts a gangster as looking, I would understand how you got that impression. And if I were concerned with not drawing negative attention I would change my appearance. Or I would keep the look and not take it personally if someone scrutinizes me for it.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Apr 18, 2019, 01:26.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
31. Re: Evening Metaverse Apr 17, 2019, 23:35 Scheherazade
 
Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:12:
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:03:
Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 22:30:
https://i.imgur.com/0VcyjnU.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/C8Zs5yi.jpg

All sorts of people have done crimes and been in jail.

Clown

Suit

Judges/Police will still be harder on you if you come across as a "thug".

-scheherazade

You missed the point but explaining it to you would be pointless judging by your earlier nonsense.
Think about who defines the meaning of "thug" and "gangster", what it means in the context that it's being used.

Which "earlier nonsense"? Post #?

No one has addressed post #15 beyond the first line

Post #23 is links to institutional minority policies (reference), and a personal opinion on how charges should be reformed (which nobody replied to)

Post #26 just describes human bias you can expect from cops/courts, and how it's gonna hurt your chances if you give people the impression that you're a thug/gangster.

Post #29 points out how pics of 'assholes in uniform' and 'suits in jail' says nothing. Cops/court are still going to be affected by appearances.



A thug/gangster is a career criminal. Illegal narcotic dealer, larcenist, assailant, etc.

(I also made reference to a 'gangster aesthetic' - the visual appearance of a thug/gangster as established by popular media over the last few decades, re. music videos, movies, etc.)

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
29. Re: Evening Metaverse Apr 17, 2019, 23:03 Scheherazade
 
Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 22:30:
https://i.imgur.com/0VcyjnU.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/C8Zs5yi.jpg

All sorts of people have done crimes and been in jail.

Clown

Suit


Judges/Police will still be harder on you if you come across as a "thug" to them.

This isn't even a controversial concept. There is a reason why a lawyer has you 'clean up' for a court appearance.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
26. Re: Evening Metaverse Apr 17, 2019, 21:35 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 09:41:
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 02:22:
Bodolza wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:02:
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 13:05:
- Black US persons since the ~80's haven't had institutional racism directed against them.

"Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders...violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed"

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing

That has nothing to do with institutional policy.
Nowhere will you find institutional regulations mandating 20.4% longer sentences for black people.

That's personal bias of persons responsible for sentencing.

I agree that they should get equal sentences for equal crimes.
Same goes for women, since women of all races apparently get let off easy, according to your link.

Frankly, sentencing should be reformed to only allow 1 charge per 1 action (no more stacking charges. One discrete action, one charge max.), and the sentence should be a fixed amount of time for a given offense. Also, sentences should be calculated a monetary value, and the time served should be capped at the value of the damages done in the initial offense (so the punishment does not exceed the crime). This would naturally mean that all crimes that are victimless (nobody for which to assess monetary damage) have zero length sentences.





Side note, Links to actual institutional policy : (quick google)
https://tenderspage.com/government-contracting-minority-owned/
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-195R
https://www.upcounsel.com/woman-owned-business-tax-benefits
School wise, I assume everyone is aware of cases like Fisher v UT, and the Affirmative Action Harvard suit ("Asians" vs Harvard), where colleges assert that they aren't discriminating by using lower SAT thresholds [as a matter of policy] to admit Latino and Black students.
It's ironic for a minority to complain about institutional racism, given what the actual institutional policies are.
It seems like institutional racism has achieved a religion status. I don't know if there even is enough any institution can do to make people believe otherwise.

-scheherazade



p.s.
Care to address the rest of my earlier post? I'm genuinely curious what you think.

I don't think you understand the term "institutional racism." It doesn't refer solely to written policy. There's a social aspect to it. If you want evidence, just look at how black criminals are treated socially. You can't go one article on the internet without seeing the term "thug." You do not see that for white people, who, famously, are more likely to be referred to as "mentally disturbed."

This is institutional racism.


Actually, I think it's some other folks in this thread that are confused about what is and isn't an institution.

A formal institution is defined by its written goals and procedures.

Informal institutions are too vague to be argued - eg. 'doing laundry' is an informal laundry institution. You can slap the 'institution' suffix on anything, defining a conceptual thing rather than a real thing.





-------- Here's a strictly practical view of the 'thug' ('gangster') issue, as it pertains to conviction. --------

First : *I completely agree that appearance should play zero part in evaluating a person.*

There is a saying : If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

There's a reason why the successful civil rights leaders of decades ago all wore suits all the time and were clean shaven. Looking respectable gets you respect. It's silly, I know. But it's how humans behave.

The opposite is equally true. This is where popular culture comes back to bite (i.e. gangster/thug culture being popular among black boys only makes legal problems harder).

Why are black judges on average harsher on black defendants?
Why are black officers on average harsher on black suspects?
Is it because black racism transcends race itself? Or is it more likely that there's something else in play?

I can't wear jeans, a cowboy hat, and a button down shirt, without people thinking I drive a truck, own a shotgun and a MAGA hat.
I can't put an 'equals' sticker on my bumper without people thinking I'm gay.
I can't dress like a cop without people thinking I am a cop.
I can't dress like a 'gangster' without people thinking I am a gangster.

When you're detained, or in court, and you :
- Act like a gangster (i.e. you're caught of a crime. now you need to convince them you're not a problem)
- Dress like a gangster (doesn't help)
- Speak like a gangster (doesn't help either)
You're giving the officer/judge every reason to believe that you _are_ a gangster - precisely that type of person _not_ suited for leniency, and precisely the type of person they are inclined to remove from the community.

Let's also keep in mind that police, prosecutors and judges of _all_ races are ~universally 'straight laced' personalities.
They will not consider you personable if you come across as a less than respectable personality.
Think : "Know your audience"

-scheherazade

p.s.
Neither a white nor black person will be called "mentally disturbed" if they are arrested for selling drugs.
Both a white and black person will be called "mentally disturbed" if they push a 5 year old off a 3rd story floor.
Not sure what you're getting at with "thug" vs "mentally disturbed", when the offenses associated with either term are *usually* different.

This comment was edited on Apr 17, 2019, 22:48.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
23. Re: Evening Metaverse Apr 17, 2019, 02:22 Scheherazade
 
Bodolza wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:02:
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 13:05:
- Black US persons since the ~80's haven't had institutional racism directed against them.

"Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders...violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed"

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing

That has nothing to do with institutional policy.
Nowhere will you find institutional regulations mandating 20.4% longer sentences for black people.

That's personal bias of persons responsible for sentencing.

I agree that they should get equal sentences for equal crimes.
Same goes for women, since women of all races apparently get let off easy, according to your link.

Frankly, sentencing should be reformed to only allow 1 charge per 1 action (no more stacking charges. One discrete action, one charge max.), and the sentence should be a fixed amount of time for a given offense. Also, sentences should be calculated a monetary value, and the time served should be capped at the value of the damages done in the initial offense (so the punishment does not exceed the crime). This would naturally mean that all crimes that are victimless (nobody for which to assess monetary damage) have zero length sentences.





Side note, Links to actual institutional policy : (quick google)
https://tenderspage.com/government-contracting-minority-owned/
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-195R
https://www.upcounsel.com/woman-owned-business-tax-benefits
School wise, I assume everyone is aware of cases like Fisher v UT, and the Affirmative Action Harvard suit ("Asians" vs Harvard), where colleges assert that they aren't discriminating by using lower SAT thresholds [as a matter of policy] to admit Latino and Black students.
It's ironic for a minority to complain about institutional racism, given what the actual institutional policies are.
It seems like institutional racism has achieved a religion status. I don't know if there even is enough any institution can do to make people believe otherwise.

-scheherazade



p.s.
Care to address the rest of my earlier post? I'm genuinely curious what you think.

This comment was edited on Apr 17, 2019, 03:21.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
15. Re: Evening Metaverse Apr 16, 2019, 13:05 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 08:56:
Slick wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 07:59:
Beamer wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 07:27:
[url=][/url]
Slick wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 04:17:
Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Something completely innocuous to get outraged at! This makes my week!

Dude, fuck identity politics. It's the cultural poison of our time. This person wasn't making a political or racial statement at all, they were dressing up as a fictional character.

I've seen racism, and I've been a victim of racism. Freaking out of this shit is disrespectful and downright cruel to people who experience real racism everyday. It trivializes a real issue in our world, and tries to equate it with benign nothingness.

Fucking outrage mobs are cancer, and they're taking us all down with them.

You're white, right? What racism were you a victim of. S
Did someone call you a cracker?

Having something happen once doesn't really qualify you to understand daily, systematic racism.

Here comes the anger at that, though...

So when someone comes forth and openly shares that he's been a victim of racism, you:

1) Call bullshit, then publicly mock their claim

2) Assume the race/ethnicity/gender, to further question the claim, implying that only certain groups can be the victim of racism.

And this behaviour is okay for the SJWs? But someone cosplaying a fictional character is over the line.

I bet you also harass women who said they've been harassed by men, because A) They're probably male, and B) because they don't REALLY understand what it's like to experience discrimination on a daily basis, so they should basically just shut their mouth.

NICE.

I love it when total strangers on the internet know more about my life than I do.

And for the record I'm not white, not that that matters.

You're a white American. You were not a victim of racism comparable to what black Americans have gone through. Factually.

That you can't elaborate, and are instead playing up being a victim to me, now, is pretty much evidence of this.

If you want to be pedantic about things:
- Black US persons around today weren't slaves
- Black US persons since the ~80's haven't had institutional racism directed against them. On the contrary, most institutions (schools, government, corporations, etc) have pro-minority admittance and hiring practices. Government contractors are given priority contract selection if they are minority owned. Essentially, institutions are pro-minority, as a matter of written policy.

I don't go on about how terrible Germans were because they bombed my grandparents. Germans didn't do anything to me personally. I can't claim the suffering of my ancestors as my own ... my ancestors aren't me. And frankly, the Germans of today didn't do any of it, so what's the point in blaming them for anything? So what if my family would have been wealthier if they hadn't been laid waste 80 years ago? My grandparents prior property is not my property, and frankly, my grandparents don't owe my parents anything, and my parents don't owe me anything. I have no claims.

Also, the U.S. perspective on slavery is very myopic.
If you're gonna blame entire races, then take entire races into account.
Black and white races exist in more of the world than just the U.S., so why limit one's racial perspective to just U.S. history, rather than the world as a whole?

Every black purchased in west Africa was already a slave to other blacks. West Africa was the remains of the Mali empire, which was a massive slave society - richer than most of Europe, and with a mining economy ~entirely worked by slaves. They mined more gold than the entire rest of the world combined, all by black on black slave labor. During the time period when ~2 million black slaves were sold by black African slavers to white US slavers, up to ~18 million were sold in total (most going to other places in Africa, and the middle east). Actually, slavery still exists in places in Africa today. Mali has around 200'000 direct slaves (people with a specific 'master'). If all white people are at fault because some white ancestors owned black slaves, why are not all black people at fault for even more of their ancestors owning black slaves?

Likewise, if you want to go back far enough, in total, more white people owned white slaves than owned black slaves. White on white slavery used to be the day to day norm in Europe. Eg. Sparta was almost completely populated by white slaves. Rome made slaves of every European nation it interacted with.

It all seems very selective to me. Particularly when I have zero ancestors that owned slaves (actually, my great grandparents would have been serfs, bound to land that they can't leave, with a lord that can do as he pleases with them), zero contact with any upbringing that would vilify black people for anything, yet I'm "at fault" for being white? Even if I haven't done anything? Yeah, I don't buy it.

People are just caught up today with virtue signalling. It's like elementary school social ladder climbing, everyone trying to point out something bad about someone else to score social points and climb higher on the backs of those they put down. We all know the chick in question was not mocking black people, so acting as if she was is disingenuous. Especially when she's not subject to the same capricious social standards that U.S. society is.

Plus there is this real belief in 'the grass is greener'. Some people actually think that progress/success just falls into the lap of anyone white.
99% CEOs are white men! - yeah, but 99% of white men are not CEOs. White men look at white CEOs with the same "I wish that were me" as any other people do.
Nobody is clamoring to close the trailer trash gap.

I had an interesting discussion with a very progressive person a couple years back.
She said : All white people are advantaged over all black people.
So I said : Is a white trash jobless hillbilly advantaged over a million dollar salary CEO black man?
Her answer : Yes. Because if the trailer trash man were black he would be even poorer, and if the director was white he would be even richer.

This is the problem with identitarianism. People stop mattering as individuals. You become a representative of a group, and nothing you do or don't do can ever distinguish yourself. You have zero personal merit.
If you're white, you're an advantaged elite (even if you're dirt poor)
If you're black, you're downtrodden and subjugated (even if you're a millionaire boss)
It's so ironic to me, that the most progressive view is now one which reflects the color of a person's skin, and not the content of their mind.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 2019, 13:31.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
2. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Mar 31, 2019, 22:49 Scheherazade
 
Her device worked, just less well than regular testing.

And they had more demand than they could handle, so they used regular testing machines to expand capacity.

People *thought* all tests were from Theranos were on Theranos machines, and panicked when they found out otherwise.


In the end, some large pharma company will buy out the patents, refine the tech to get the results up 20% or so, market it again, and make all the moneys.

I hope Elizabeth owns the patents herself, and public domains them. Imagine all the crying.

-scheherazade

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Legal Briefs
19. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Mar 24, 2019, 14:31 Scheherazade
 
Henry Dorsett wrote on Mar 21, 2019, 14:41:
Scheherazade wrote on Mar 21, 2019, 12:42:

(Snip)

I am predicting an invasion of everywhere, eventually. Be it tomorrow, or in 500 years.

It's funny to even have to say this. Since the dawn of time till 50 years ago it was a given that every man woman and child just knew. We had a quiet spell thanks to MAD and everyone picking sides with 1st or 2nd world alliances, and people act like war is over for good.

What good were SKS against the US military in vietnam?

Video games and movies give people the wrong impression. Tanks/Planes/etc are few and far between. They can't be everywhere at once, they break down for repair every few days, and need a steady supply of fuel and parts which is a soft target. Individual infantry is what actually holds land.

Either way, I would rather be armed than unarmed.

-scheherazade
What's the point of having a standing army if not to defend the homeland? If I'm expected, as quite a few lunatics in the US have insisted, to be armed as a civilian for purposes of defending my country in the event of an entirely unforeseen invasion which just so happens to land on my doorstep (Red Dawn is a terrible movie but a strangely effective bit of propaganda), then I'm of the opinion that I ought to be paid and trained in the interim at the expense of those expecting such a thing from me; basically, those people are demanding that we all be conscripted into the nebulous concept-group of "A Well-Regulated Militia". Otherwise, I'll be keen to go about life now and to take up the fight if and when this absurd scenario happens to occur.

If you want to be armed to defend the country in times of attack (assuming you are in the US), then join the National Guard or Army Reserve. You can have your guns and your preparedness and I can have some measure of relief that you're not just some idiot with more guns than brain cells or minutes of training. We both win.


The point of an army is to prevent occupation.

The point of civil arms is to expel occupation.



Consider Russia and Georgia (and South Ossetia) (events 11 years ago)

When Georgia and South Ossetia split from Russia, Russia occupied those lands to bring them into compliance.
Years of guerilla disruption (using small arms) eventually made the occupation more expensive than it was worth, and Russia left them alone.

Then when South Ossetia split from Georgia (and ironically, Georgia was not gonna let South Ossetia have its freedom), Georgia went into South Ossetia and indiscriminately massacred 2000 people per day as punishment (South Ossetia had no military).

Russian military, just near the border, was not gonna put up with that kind of hypocrisy, and a contingent came across the border into South Ossetia, chased the Georgian military out, utterly crushed it, and went into the Georgian capital and told the Georgians to shit down, shut up, and behave themselves... and then left.
It took the Russian military a ~day to crush the Georgian military and take over the Georgian capital.

So, then answer this :
If a small group of Russian military can annihilate the Georgian military so effortlessly, how did Georgia manage to expel Russian forces years earlier?
It's because you can't successfully occupy armed and uncooperative civilians.




The national guard and reserve are not civil forces anymore. They are just another military.



-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Mar 24, 2019, 14:51.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
418 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo