I have several pants where my pocket knife has worn holes in them.
Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
As did I. It ultimately led to me not carrying a knife any more just due to that fact.
--Patrick
That is a really expensive pistol to not be kept in a holster.
fade
Staff member
I think Slate probably belongs a touch more to the left, but higher up. It's definitely left-biased, but it's also very evidence-based and analytical. Phil Plait belongs all the way to the left, but on average, Slate balances out somewhat.
Have you checked the ratio of opinion and editorial articles to analytic and evidence based articles?
It is intellectual, or maintains that pretense, but make sure you aren't conflating intellectual with analytical.
Sorry, no offense intended. I don't find Slate to be very analytical, and thus I would skew it down and to the left, but only a little further than it is now.
Same, as in "I will fight for you, I charge $15 per hour" and that seems like a good deal, but it's important to check references before hiring a fighter.
I actually thought it was her going rate, like, "I will fight you for entertainment, my rate is $15/hr," you know, like "I will wrestle an imaginary bear."
--Patrick
That's a lot cheaper than having a wife
This man is my new hero.
The tentative schedule for Trump's inauguration.
GasBandit
Staff member
I chuckled, but it's got one glaring error - the "Mississippi white supremacist choir" would NEVER sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, as that was the anthem of the "North" in the civil war. They'd be more likely to sing "Dixie"
I chuckled, but it's got one glaring error - the "Mississippi white supremacist choir" would NEVER sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, as that was the anthem of the "North" in the civil war. They'd be more likely to sing "Dixie"
Say what you will about the Confederate States, they sure knew how to pick a catchy tune.I chuckled, but it's got one glaring error - the "Mississippi white supremacist choir" would NEVER sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, as that was the anthem of the "North" in the civil war. They'd be more likely to sing "Dixie"
And they ain't just whistlin' Dixie
Which one? The thug espousing white power or the thug yelling in his face?
You really have to ask?
Well, I tend to think the answer is 'neither one'. One is more reprehensible, but the other is more dangerous.
One is putting the other in his place.
No violence was inflicted or threatened. I fully support free speech, but it cuts both ways, so if one guy wants to exercise his free speech by spreading racism, then he has to abide someone else exercising their speech as well.
Yes. Exactly my point. That the one guy thinks he has the moral right to prevent the other from speaking is horrific. To be clear, this isn't because of any specific thing the speaker might be saying, it's because of what this represents -- the idea that people who disagree with you should have less civil rights.
He has just as much freedom to get in the guy's face as the "preacher" had to spout off his racist nonsense. As Ravenpoe said, he's not inflicting or threatening physical harm. He's just using HIS freedom of speech to shut up the bigot.
And you explain exactly why this is wrong. He is performing an action to shut someone up. It is disingenuous to say that just because that action is vocal, it is free speech. It isn't expressing an opinion. It isn't providing a counter argument, explaining why the preacher is wrong. It isn't contributing to the marketplace of ideas. It is the human powered equivalent of blowing an air horn in the man's face. It is literally the heckler's veto.
I'm out. You guys can continue this with him if you want.
But what if he used a disagree button?
Pretty much nails why I consider shouting down others the least effective way of swaying others to your opinion and incredibly childish to boot. It also doesn't take too much to jump from shouting down someone to make them shut up, to forcing them to shut up through physical means. This type of "debate style" should be opposed by anyone who values differences in opinion and idea.
Besides, didn't Obama condemn this type of "discourse"?
Sure he did. Just as his opponents continued to use it against him, to great effect, because he failed to meet it at the level that it needed to be met at.