Home ยป Forum ยป Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Cancel culture

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

I posted a chapter on SOL today and scanned it as usual to make sure the Wizard converted my docx file properly. I noticed the following sentence (Steele had just landed a helicopter.)

Steele turned the power off and the whirling blades slowed down from a whine to a wop, wop, wop.

Sure hope I don't get into trouble with my Italian readers in today's cancel culture world.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Oh dear, that's an unfortunate typo in the heading.

You could use whap whap whap, even though it means playfully punching the helicopter's arm/shoulder ;-)

AJ

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Oh dear, that's an unfortunate typo in the heading.

Oops.

And there's no way to edit the heading. :(

Replies:   Vincent Berg
Vincent Berg ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Oh dear, that's an unfortunate typo in the heading.

Oops.

You cancel cultures by flushing them down the drain, or when you apply boric acid to them, stifling their prolific progenerations!

But technically, Switch, it should only be offensive when capitalized as a proper noun (i.e. "Wop! Wop! Dirty Stinking Wop bastard!"). Hope that helps, if not, it gives my degenerative side a chance in the sun for a change!

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Vincent Berg

But technically, Switch, it should only be offensive when capitalized as a proper noun

I wasn't serious. I was reflecting on the absurdity of cancel culture.

Vincent Berg ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

I was reflecting on the absurdity of cancel culture.

That already shows more intellect than those supporting cancel culture, as the term means absolutely nothing at all.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Vincent Berg

No one supports cancel culture. It's used pejoratively by whiners who don't like it when they are criticized on social media.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

No one supports cancel culture.

Haven't you heard of 'no platforming'? What are the no platformers doing if not cancelling the culture of people who they disagree with?

AJ

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

How are people on social media that are complaining about a show that gives an individual a spotlight to spout hate and bigotry unchallenged canceling anything? Their opinions should not be silenced.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Mushroom
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

How are people on social media complaining about a show that gives an individual a spotlight to spout hate and bigotry unchallenged canceling anything?

Because they don't stop at complaining on social media. The social media complaining is about riling up a big mob.

After they spread the word, then they complain to the network, and if that doesn't get the show canceled, then they start an email campaign threatening all the show's sponsors and advertisers with boycotts.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Actually, that rarely happens. Networks do take action in response to public complaints all the time. Complain about the spinelessness of the executives making these decisions as opposed to people concerned about hate being propagated.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

How are people on social media complaining about a show that gives an individual a spotlight to spout hate and bigotry unchallenged canceling anything? Their opinions should not be silenced.

Oh, it goes much more than that.

Just a few years ago when J. K. Rowling spoke up that the push to allow transgender athletes into women's sports endangered actual women in sports, many called for her publisher to cancel her contract and not publish anything else by her. There was even a petition to have her royalties stripped and sent to transgendered organizations.

Adam Rubenstein was an editor and opinion writer for the NY Times, and he spoke up in support when some called for National Guard to be used to restore order in some cities. He was let go over an opinion piece when people started to scream he was a "Fascist".

Gina Carano came under intense fire last year when she said in her Twitter she was a Republican, and compared being so in Hollywood was similar to being a Jew in Nazi Germany. Immediately calls started to cancel the show she was in, "The Mandalorian". Disney in order to stop the attacks fired her.

Matthew Yglesias co-founded liberal web site Vox, but came under fire when he criticized "Groupspeak", and attacks increased accusing him of being "Extreme Right Wing" (he was always a moderate liberal).

But there are a great many others. They are doing far more than just "spotlighting hate and bigotry", they themselves are hate and bigotry. All they are really doing is calling for the silencing of anybody that does not openly support their views.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

And how were any of these people canceled? Rowling - no consequences. Rubinstein - resigned 6 months later. Bennett resigned much sooner over the same issue, but that is still a capitalist decision. Twenty years ago Carano would likely have been fired for such remarks if they had become public. And with respect to Yglesias, by "come under fire", I assume you are referring to the criticism to which I referred.

These people are just upset because that instead of receiving letters, they are being publicly chastised.

Replies:   Radagast
Radagast ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

You are a prime example of a cancel culture cultist. You want people harmed for expressing ideas against the current ruling class narrative of the day.
Those narratives are always intended to disrupt society and cause citizens to turn against each other instead of the ruling class.
You should think long and hard about the history of useful idiots always being silenced when they are no longer useful.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Radagast

You are a prime example of a cancel culture cultist.

I don't think it's an example of cancel culture. It's offering an opinion and explaining why he thinks the other opinion is wrong. All debates do that.

Cancel culture is when he would try to have everyone gang up on the other person for their views if those views differ from his.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

I was reflecting on the absurdity of cancel culture.

There was a worrying story in the media last week.

The BBC published an educational guide to climate change (aka Global Warming). The guide listed nine reasons why climate change might be beneficial. They were forced to delete them. Apparently, although diverse opinions are encouraged, they mustn't diverge from the school curriculum and they definitely mustn't provide any ammunition for climate change deniers. (No, I didn't get that last part.)

AJ

Replies:   Switch Blayde  Mushroom
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

nine reasons why climate change might be beneficial. They were forced to delete them.

Great.

People say, "Listen to the science." I guess they mean only when the science agrees with their opinion.

Replies:   JoeBobMack
JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

It's "confirmation bias." Every one has deep beliefs. E.g, "human activity is destroying the earth." With that belief, their unconscious mind sorts all information into what fits, what can be made to fit, and what should be ignored, then feeds it to the conscious mind.

That's not science. Science is, "I hypothesize that human activity is destroying the earth." (Okay, that's not a good example of a scientific hypothesis, but I think it works for the broad point.) Then you look for ways to test that hypothesis in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis. If you can't falsify it, you move on to making other hypotheses based on it while staying open that you (or someone else) might still falsify your hypothesis. This is REALLY hard and even good, conscientious scientists screw it up - thus the replication crisis in medicine, psychology, and other fields.

Therefore, when someone says, "Listen to the science," I generally assume they (a) don't know the science and (b) likely don't have the habits of mind and study that would let them "know" a complex and often contradictory field of science.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

Therefore, when someone says, "Listen to the science," I generally assume they (a) don't know the science and (b) likely don't have the habits of mind and study that would let them "know" a complex and often contradictory field of science.

The moment I hear anybody say something like that, or "All scientists agree" or "Science has proven", I know they are blowing smoke up my ass.

Decades ago, Michael Chrichton said it quite simply and perfectly.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

And when I hear for the "Cancel Culture" to shout out any scientists that do not agree with that belief, that tells me it is less about "science", and more about "belief". More like a religion in fact. "Do not question, accept anything we tell you. Heretics and apostates must be destroyed!"

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Chricton was wrong there. Science means always following the evidence, and always being open to contradictory evidence. However, when thee evidence is as mountainous as it is with respect to for example, quantum mechanics or evolution, where there is no substantial evidence for an alternative theory (macroscopically speaking; obviously, there can and will be competing sub-theories on some of the finer details), then it's fair to say that it's effectively settled. Something could always come along and unsettle it. However, the current models have only been strengthened by challenges.

Global warming is not quite in the league of those two, but the models are still pretty strong and logical.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

Chricton was wrong there. Science means always following the evidence, and always being open to contradictory evidence.

And I am not going into this with you any longer.

Of course, you know the man was a scientist, right? As in, he was at the top of his class when he got is BA in Anthropology at Harvard, and went on to become a Medical Doctor after holding a lecture series at Cambridge.

His post-doctoral fellowship was at the Salk Institute. He later became involved as a staff writer at MIT, and most of his books were deeply involved with science.

So forgive me, but I am going to take him at his word over yours. And come on now, "Quantum Mechanics"? This alone gives me an idea of your age, because I remember being taught the old "Atomic Model", and many in the scientific community scoffed at the idea that "Quarks" or anything smaller could ever exist.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Doctors are not scientists. They can be, but any asshole can get an MD. I would rather listen to those with PhD's in the relevant fields. I like Chricton, but he is not a great writer or a great scientist.

When you get into quarks you are talking about field theories. I only have BS in physics, but I took a number of field theory classes back in the day because I liked them. The predictions of QM have not been successfully challenged. It is extremely solid. Now QFTs on the other hand are not well settled. However, I would include that in my finer details caveat.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

Doctors are not scientists.

*shakes head at that statement and simply walks away*

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

*shakes head at that statement and simply walks away*

Doctors do not receive a PhD, and can have an undergrad degree in literally anything. In the US, so long as they pass the MCAT, a degree in philosophy is just fine. Granted, it will be tough to pass the MCAT without chemistry and biochemistry, but you could.

The first two years of US medical school involve learning anatomy, body systems, physiology, diagnostic skills, and generally how to be a doctor. The second two years are clinical rotations (i.e. practical, hands-on work). (Note: the US program is 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school; many countries use a six-year system, eliminating two years of classroom work).

Physicians are trained in a pattern that is more similar to the skilled trades than how the usual doctoral candidate is trained. A physician ('medicus') has what amounts to a vocational certificate for medicine, and is called, at least in the US, by a title appropriated by the medical community from PhDs. They are, technically, physicians, not Doctors the way, say a PhD astrophysicist or PhD biochemist is.

(In England, for example, surgeons are called 'Mr.' or 'Miss', NOT 'Doctor'. Ditto for dentists.)

Medicine even has the trappings of a vocational trade - apprentice, journeyman, master; they're just called medical students, Resident Physicians, and Attending Physicians.

Yes, there are some physicians who DO receive PhDs in addition to their MD, but those are rare. But most doctors are not 'scientists' as the term is usually applied (to individuals doing research via the scientific method).

This is not to disparage physicians in any way (though I yank the chains of my physician friends this way quite often), simply to draw a distinction between a research scientist and a 'medicus'.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

Doctors do not receive a PhD, and can have an undergrad degree in literally anything. In the US, so long as they pass the MCAT, a degree in philosophy is just fine. Granted, it will be tough to pass the MCAT without chemistry and biochemistry, but you could.

Well, he did his post-doctoral research fellowship at the Salk Institute. Do those who do not have a Doctorate normally do a post-doctoral fellowship at such a prestigious organization? Or become writer at MIT?

Of course, silly me. I simply happened to always like that quote. But here is the funny thing, I never looked into his actual beliefs in this subject. And wow, it was quite interesting that he was also critical of the "Man Made Global Warming" hype.

So I think this is pretty much done. I see people screaming that Bill Nye must be listened to in this, because he of course is the "Science Guy". Therefore, a Scientist who must be taken seriously.

With his BS in Mechanical Engineering. Yep, that's it. He worked at Boeing for a few years, then won a Steve Martin look-alike contest, and went into doing stand-up comedy. Then did short clips for Mickey Mouse Club and Back to the Future cartoon before getting his own show.

Dolph Lundgren is more of a "Science Guy" than he is. After studying at Washington State and Cornell, he returned to Sweden where he got his degree in Chemical Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology. Then getting his Masters in Chemical Engineering at the University of Sydney. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to attend MIT for his PhD, but he started to date Grace Jones and the acting bug bit him.

However, if this discussion and others are saying that "Only PhD holders are 'scientists', then about 90% of the "scientists' who make all those claims need to be scrubbed from their list of those who support man made global warming.

This is exactly the "moving goal posts" that I see all the time, and it freaking drives me nuts. Some like me pose some serious questions, and the result is deflection, evasion, and often attacks. But OK, fine. I will take your silly game and flip it. From now on, any "scientists" can therefore be ignored if they every try to give an opinion on this, unless they have PhD.

Happy now? Just having a BS or MS is not enough, be a full "Doctor", or shut up. But if an MD with a Masters is not a "Scientist" (according to some), but a TV entertainer with a BS in Mechanical Engineering is, then we really do have a strong case here for selectively picking and choosing what one is.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

This is exactly the "moving goal posts" that I see all the time, and it freaking drives me nuts. Some like me pose some serious questions, and the result is deflection, evasion, and often attacks. But OK, fine. I will take your silly game and flip it. From now on, any "scientists" can therefore be ignored if they every try to give an opinion on this, unless they have PhD.

They definitely move the goal post on a frequent basis. There is no need for a PhD to ask questions. I'm still trying to figure out how the hell the world got to a place where only PhD's are considered qualified to answer some questions. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Even within the list of PhD holders, often they give answers that are totally outside of the scope of their PhD.

Take Einstein for instance. His thesis "A New Determination of the Molecular Dimensions" was totally outside of his relativity theory.

Just having a PhD doesn't mean anything in my opinion. Tesla never had a PhD, yet many modern technologies are based on his work. If Tesla was subjected to this modern way of thought, much of his work and their subsequent tech, would never have come into reality.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

They definitely move the goal post on a frequent basis. There is no need for a PhD to ask questions. I'm still trying to figure out how the hell the world got to a place where only PhD's are considered qualified to answer some questions. That couldn't be further from the truth.

You both missed the entire point of my post, which was about how doctors are trained.

You read a lot into what I wrote that isn't there, and wasn't intended.

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Well, he did his post-doctoral research fellowship at the Salk Institute. Do those who do not have a Doctorate normally do a post-doctoral fellowship at such a prestigious organization? Or become writer at MIT?

Did you miss where I wrote:

Yes, there are some physicians who DO receive PhDs in addition to their MD, but those are rare. But most doctors are not 'scientists' as the term is usually applied (to individuals doing research via the scientific method).

I didn't say 'all', nor did I move any goalposts. I simply pointed out that most physicians are NOT scientists because they aren't trained that way.

Replies:   Mushroom  xavier721
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

But most doctors are not 'scientists' as the term is usually applied (to individuals doing research via the scientific method).

They all have college degrees, normally at a Masters level in physiology and other specializations. And what is the difference between doing a medical diagnosis and following the "Scientific Method"? I do not care if somebody is trying to figure out why planets revolve around a star in a certain way, figuring out why an individual is suffering certain symptoms, or a mechanic trying to figure out what is wrong with a car or a computer technician why a computer does not work. The basic steps to figure out what is wrong and how to correct it are all the same.

If somebody has a Bachelors Degree or Masters on the human body and its inner workings, I find it almost insulting that somebody would consider them to NOT be a "scientist".

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

They all have college degrees, normally at a Masters level in physiology and other specializations.

In the US, they have a Bachelor's degree, usually in science, but it doesn't have to be. I know a surgeon who received an undergraduate degree in psychology with a minor in biochemistry. They also have an MD, which is not a Master's degree, or really equivalent. Two full years of medical school is practical, hands-on training, with a focus on diagnostic skills, not research or analysis.

I see a scientist as someone who does research and analysis, not someone who treats patients according to their training.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

I see a scientist as someone who does research and analysis, not someone who treats patients according to their training.

And exactly how many Medical Doctors have a BA and not a BS?

Here is the thing, it does not matter what you think. I see claims that "ten thousand scientists" sign some petition on Climate change. Does not matter what they actually do, generally the only requirement is that they all have a BS or higher. Yet, is any says they question things, they are then torn apart mercilessly.

This is the very "Cancel Culture" that started this thread. The selective dismissal and attacking, only because the individual does not agree with one of the sides.

Notice, I have NOT been the one dismissing people here. Yet some are really trying hard to dismiss others, for some really silly reasons. Claiming they are not "scientists".

Like the guy who spent 2 years on his post-Doctoral fellowship at the Salk Institute. If that is not "doing science", then I would love to hear an explanation why. It is only one of the most highly respected Research Institutes in the world, and in addition to the founder has racked up an amazing 11 other additional Nobel Prizes in the last 56 years.

Yet, somehow somebody that spent 2 years there in Biological Science Studies is not a "Scientist". As I have said, being very selective in dismissing people, based more on their own views than anything else.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

And exactly how many Medical Doctors have a BA and not a BS?

A third, or more.

This is the very "Cancel Culture" that started this thread. The selective dismissal and attacking, only because the individual does not agree with one of the sides.

Except I didn't do this. I simply pointed out how medical education works. It is far different from a PhD program in the hard sciences. YOU assumed I was disparaging doctors. I simply pointed out that most doctors are not researchers. My family physician is very good at helping me maintain my health and dealing with minor complaints. She's not a research scientist by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

I objected to the blanket statement that MDs are scientists. With evidence.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

A third, or more.

Well, I will call BS *laugh* on that, and call for a reference. Because I actually did look before I posted that quetion.

You first need to do a Bachelor's (undergraduate) degree in a related Science subject (popular choices are Biology and Chemistry) before you apply to a medical school.

https://www.mastersportal.com/articles/1801/what-are-the-entry-requirements-for-medical-schools-in-europe-and-the-us.html

In fact, in every country listed (and they list many), all seem to require a BS in some science, normally Biology or Chemistry. And most seem to have at graduation the MD having an MS degree as well.

SO let's just say I am from Missouri, and need to be shown that 1/3 of medical doctors have only a BA when they enter medical school. Because all the references I saw said the exact opposite.

Replies:   Michael Loucks  hst666
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

I referred to a study by the Association of American Medical Colleges that showed 1/3 of admissions were for non-science majors.

Here's a link to the latest data I can find:

https://www.aamc.org/download/321496/data/factstablea17.pdf

Slightly over half of all admissions were from biological sciences. 15% were from humanities, and 30% were 'other' which does not include biological or hard sciences (both listed). That means 45% did not have science degrees.

The numbers I cited above for 2011 were 34%. So fewer have science degrees now than the original study I cited.

These are numbers for actual admissions, any 'requirements' on your list notwithstanding. The admissions data supports my point.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  madnige
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

I referred to a study by the Association of American Medical Colleges that showed 1/3 of admissions were for non-science majors.

In the UK, a science degree preferably covering biology is virtually obligatory. Confusingly that can be a BA in Natural Sciences from Oxbridge.

AJ

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

In the UK, a science degree preferably covering biology is virtually obligatory. Confusingly that can be a BA in Natural Sciences from Oxbridge.

Which was one of the reasons I pointed out that the US system is different. Much of that is covered in my series 'Good Medicine' which is thoroughly researched.

madnige ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

That means 45% did not have science degrees.

Well, I make it just over 3% Humanities and just over 16% 'other', for a bit less than 20% - but, that's the 'main major', so they could have had a science based minor, which would not be reflected in the figures. The evidence hints at that being the case, as both other and humanities have a 'GPA Science' score as well as a 'GPA Non-Science' Did you perhaps divide the applicants figures by the Total Matriculants? - that would give figures closer to what you gave.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@madnige

Did you perhaps divide the applicants figures by the Total Matriculants? - that would give figures closer to what you gave.

My math was off. 29% don't have science degrees. That still supports my point that you don't need a science degree to get into medical school in the US.

Total matriculants: 22,239

12,845 - Biological Sciences
2,240 - Physical Sciences
784 - Specialized Health Science

Total sciences - 15869 (71%)

832 - Humanities
1991 - Social Sciences

Total Humanities - 2823 (13%)

156 - Math and Statistics
3,391 - Other

Total Other+Math/Stats - 3547 (16%)

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

That is not accurate. There are prerequisite classes you have to take, all of which you can knock out by your second year, and you have to do well on the MCAT.

xavier721 ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

Phd = post hole digger.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@xavier721

Phd = post hole digger.

B.S., followed by M.S. (more of the same), followed by PhD (piled higher and deeper.)

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

So I think this is pretty much done. I see people screaming that Bill Nye must be listened to in this, because he of course is the "Science Guy". Therefore, a Scientist who must be taken seriously.

With his BS in Mechanical Engineering. Yep, that's it. He worked at Boeing for a few years, then won a Steve Martin look-alike contest, and went into doing stand-up comedy. Then did short clips for Mickey Mouse Club and Back to the Future cartoon before getting his own show.

Non-sequiter. I never claimed Bill Nye was a scientist (I knew he was an engineer).

However, if this discussion and others are saying that "Only PhD holders are 'scientists', then about 90% of the "scientists' who make all those claims need to be scrubbed from their list of those who support man made global warming.

I also never said only PhDs where scientists. I said MDs did not hold PhDs (doctoral degrees) despite being doctors.

And again, doctors are not trained as scientists. They are trained for their vocation (and licensed for it like all vocational trades).

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Happy now? Just having a BS or MS is not enough, be a full "Doctor", or shut up.

A PhD is not enough.

A PhD in English is not a scientist.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

A PhD is not enough.

A PhD in English is not a scientist.

And I am NOT the one making this claim at all. My wife for example holds dual degrees. A Bachelors in Nursing, and a Masters in foreign languages. I have even known at least one Doctor (with a PhD), who also went to Law School and also has a Masters in jurisprudence and is a lawyer.

It must also be remembered that a lot who have degrees also hold multiple ones. Especially if they are in some fields which require almost constant educational hours. That is how my wife got her secondary one, as a nurse she had to take so many hours of secondary education a year. Some in her field, others could be of her choice.

But I find it disturbing that some apparently dismiss somebody with an MD and a Masters degree is not a "scientist", yet somebody with a degree in Computer Science is.

Or are you also arguing that somebody with a BS should also count as somebody with a Liberal Arts degree? I do understand the difference between the two, and I would agree that in most cases, somebody that is in Liberal Arts is not a "scientist". But the very BS degree itself stands for "Bachelor of Science". And that is the degree all Medical Doctors have.

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

But the very BS degree itself stands for "Bachelor of Science". And that is the degree all Medical Doctors have.

Not true. You can get into medical school with a BA degree.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) surveyed every medical school First Year's primary undergraduate major in 2011. The study found that only about 51 percent of students who enrolled in medical school that year majored in a biological sciences discipline. In addition, approximately 13 percent majored in physical sciences, mathematics, or statistics. However, the most surprising fact is that roughly 34 percent of these students majored in a field unrelated to any science discipline such as the humanities and social sciences.

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Or are you also arguing that somebody with a BS should also count as somebody with a Liberal Arts degree? I do understand the difference between the two, and I would agree that in most cases, somebody that is in Liberal Arts is not a "scientist". But the very BS degree itself stands for "Bachelor of Science".

I'll give you a very personal example of a BS degree NOT being a 'science' degree. I have a BS in history with a minor in theology.

Yes, that's correct - a BS in liberal arts.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

You were relying ion Chricton as an authority. I was asserting that he is not an authority. I have read his books as well as his arguments against man-made climate change. I like some of his books, but they are not literature and I find his arguments lacking.

Replies:   Mushroom  StarFleet Carl
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

You were relying ion Chricton as an authority. I was asserting that he is not an authority. I have read his books as well as his arguments against man-made climate change. I like some of his books, but they are not literature and I find his arguments lacking.

Actually, I was just repeating a quote. And I was not even aware of his stance at the time. He could have been for it, and I still quoted have made that quote because it is relevant.

But your obsessions is his stance, and trying all you can do in order to dismiss him because of it. Classic "Cancel Culture". You just can not resist doing it just because of something you do not agree with him on.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

they are not literature

I think 200 million copies sold of his novels and twelve motion pictures made of his works would tend to indicate that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, and climate change has been going on for a LONG time. All we really need is a couple of good volcanic eruptions to screw things up. It's amusing to read through the sites that tell us the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the last mini ice-age, but that it was the result of multiple volcanic eruptions. Then have those same sites tell us that volcanoes don't affect our climate, it's all man's doing.

I think Inigo Montoya was right - You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Replies:   Mushroom  Mushroom  hst666  hst666  Remus2
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

I think 200 million copies sold of his novels and twelve motion pictures made of his works would tend to indicate that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

I think Inigo Montoya was right - You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Not to mention one of the most successful TV shows in history. Which ran for 15 years, and won 23 Emmy awards. Most people tend to forget that ER was created by him as well, as it is a much more serious show.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  hst666
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Which ran for 15 years, and won 23 Emmy awards. Most people tend to forget that ER was created by him as well, as it is a much more serious show.

Now, now - you're not supposed to use facts. After all, those don't matter.

I was just thinking of something. Remember when Talking Barbie came out and said, 'Math is hard.' The outrage over that? Now, they want to cancel math because they're claiming math is racist.

Replies:   Remus2  hst666
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl

because they're claiming math is racist.

I've seen that. One of the most bizarre statements the left has made. I've never had a quadratic equation call me a stinking Indian or half breed.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

Says the man with no pertinent facts.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Strong authority there.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

It's amusing to read through the sites that tell us the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the last mini ice-age, but that it was the result of multiple volcanic eruptions.

Hell, I wonder how many even track such things. Like the fact that the Yellowstone Caldera had over 400 earthquakes in June. If that baby goes, welcome back Ice Age!

Honestly, I have largely been ignoring "climate predictors", because they have been chasing the data for years. They were doing it in the 1970's when colder than average temperatures had them screaming "New Man Made Ice Age!", and they are doing the exact same thing now.

And laughingly enough, many are the exact same ones that were predicting the Ice Age by the 1980's.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Well that's your lack of familiarity with the scientific method or the models involved.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Like the fact that the Yellowstone Caldera had over 400 earthquakes in June. If that baby goes, welcome back Ice Age!

I got a kick out of the Harry Turtledove novel, Supervolcano. He's really good with alternative histories, but when you actually get something scientific in there, not so much. Yellowstone caldera goes, and everything from the Mississippi river to the Rocky Mountains is covered in ash. That's ... not going to end well. Granted, it's really not that likely to happen, it's more likely that Yellowstone will simply have some nice lava flows.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

I got a kick out of the Harry Turtledove novel, Supervolcano. He's really good with alternative histories, but when you actually get something scientific in there, not so much. Yellowstone caldera goes, and everything from the Mississippi river to the Rocky Mountains is covered in ash. That's ... not going to end well. Granted, it's really not that likely to happen, it's more likely that Yellowstone will simply have some nice lava flows.

Oh, it will go way beyond that. And it will release some massive ashfalls, but most believe that will be the "end event", and it will not open with that.

It must be remembered, that no "supervolcano" has erupted in recorded history. And the evidence is clear in the fossil record, but geologists are still arguing the order that events will happen in.

Will it start with a huge eruption of ash that will cover 2/3 of North America? Or will that be the "After Game Celebration"? And after it finishes the eruption it is the collapse of the lava dome into the caldera that creates that?

To be honest, both sides have a good case. But the Ashfall Fossil Beds are in North East Nebraska, and this is not even from an eruption from Yellowstone.

That was actually from 12 mya, from the Bruneau-Jarbidge caldera. That was actually the location of the current Yellowstone Caldera over 5 major eruptions ago, when it was at the Oregon-Nevada-Idaho border. Over 400 miles West of where the hotspot and caldera is today.

And even more frightening, is that the hot spot may just skip another eruption at Yellowstone altogether. It is still moving East (point of view, it is stationary and the NA Plate is moving West over it), so it may well pop up 100 miles or more farther away with little notice.

This is actually something I have watched closely all my life. I made frequent trips to this caldera, and the nearby fossil beds. WHich by the wat are unrelated to the Bruneau-Jarbidge event, those are 2-4 mya and were lush tropical plants. In fact, some of my best selling fossils from those beds were palm trees (in addition to the fish of course, and fragments of turtle shells).

But I have to admit, I love being told over and over that I know nothing about science. At the time I was doing that, the very concept that Yellowstone was a giant caldera was only barely being accepted. And a few "wild eyed radicals" had already speculated that it had been moving for millions of years, that would not be accepted for another decade or more.

And many now wonder if there are even older calderas, but lost to geologic forces farther West of Bruneau-Jarbidge. But this was literally in my "backyard" growing up, and my science teacher (one of the radicals that believed the "moving caldera" theory) frequently took us on tours of that ancient caldera, and the fossil beds in the region.

One thing about growing up in Idaho, it is a geologists paradise. And that was an interest of mine for as long as I can remember (stating after going through a major earthquake in 1971), most of my trips involved studying geology.

And knowing from when I was an early teen that the very area I lived in 2-3 million years before was lush and tropical in setting with palm trees already told me that the climate was vastly different than it is today.

Yet, those that scream I am a "science denier" I find hilarious. In fact, I actually say the opposite, that the planet at normal is much hotter than it is now, and has bounced to and from such long before humans even evolved, and were still little primates jumping from tree to tree.

At the time of the fossil beds I normally excavated were formed, Idaho was a lush paradise, and Australopithecus had only recently started to make a life on the ground for the first time. I even laugh when I see documentaries about Lucy and other Australopithecus, and they look through the area and imagine what it was like for them at the time. Yet, always with current plants, and not what it was likely like at that time 2 mya.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Idaho was a lush paradise,

Idaho is not a pair of dice. There are at least three of them in Idaho, probably a lot more.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Hell, I wonder how many even track such things. Like the fact that the Yellowstone Caldera had over 400 earthquakes in June. If that baby goes, welcome back Ice Age!

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/earthquakes.htm

Approximately 700 to 3,000 earthquakes occur each year in the Yellowstone area; most are not felt.

...

Yellowstone commonly experiences "earthquake swarms"โ€”a series of earthquakes over a short period of time in a localized area. The largest swarm occurred in 1985, with more than 3,000 earthquakes recorded during three months on the northwest side of the park. Hundreds of quakes were recorded during swarms in 2009 near Lake Village and 2010 between Old Faithful area and West Yellowstone.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

Anyone who has stated that volcanic eruptions do not affect the climate, and I have never heard anyone state that, would be wrong. No one who asserts that the mini-ice age was due to volcanic eruptions has also asserted they have no effect on global warming.

And popularity is always the best sign of quality.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

Actually, NASA does not think it's nothing

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/#:~:text=While%20scientists%20continue%20to%20research,began%20before%20the%20Maunder%20Minimum).

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

It's amusing to read through the sites that tell us the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the last mini ice-age, but that it was the result of multiple volcanic eruptions. Then have those same sites tell us that volcanoes don't affect our climate, it's all man's doing.

I've noticed that nearly everyone who quotes the "Maunder Minimum" only has a vague understanding of what it is and how it's determined.

The minimum spoken of is low solar activity as determined by cores of earth and ice measuring quantities of radionuclides known to only be produced by cosmic spallation. This confirmed via tree rings from cores cut in several hundred year old trees.
There is an inverse relationship between quantity of those radionuclides and solar activity. Low solar activity has been proven in the modern age to allow more interstellar wind into the innermost planets of the system. Solar winds are not sufficient during such times to keep the former out of the system. With reduced energy from the sun, comes less heat from the same.
Volcanic activity is not the only way to increase particles in the atmosphere. Increased production of nuclides such as Be10 from cosmic spallation has the same effect, no volcanic eruptions necessary.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

I've noticed that nearly everyone who quotes the "Maunder Minimum" only has a vague understanding of what it is and how it's determined.

There are also rather accurate records of sunspot activities dating back to then as well. That being the point - low to no sunspot activity means less solar energy being put out means cooling on the third rock from the sun.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

The human observation records from the Maunder Minimum are not that accurate. Cosmogenic isotopes are present for all "minimums" and are independent of vagaries that usually haunt sunspot observations. The Spรถrer and Dalton Minimums bear that out along with current era direct observations during standard solar solar cycle minimums. There are 16 known deep minimums in the last 8,000 years. The AGW crowd would rather the plebeians not know or question such things.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

then about 90% of the "scientists' who make all those claims need to be scrubbed from their list of those who support man made global warming.

No. When people refer to the scientists, well most people probably do not know who they are referring to. However, when they say 97% of scientists agree they are referring to people with doctorates.

This is exactly the "moving goal posts" that I see all the time, and it freaking drives me nuts.

Having not done this for over 20 years, I hope that worked for quoting.

Exactly what goalposts did I move?

Also, Crichton specifically has a BA and an MD.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

Obviously, I fucked that up, but you get my point.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

The BBC published an educational guide to climate change (aka Global Warming). The guide listed nine reasons why climate change might be beneficial.

The climate has been changing for tens of thousands of years, has always changed, and will always change.

And a lot can be seen if one simply looks at the past history of the planet. Unlike what most people tend to think, as the planet gets warmer, it will also grow more humid. And this is the opposite of what most people tend to think of at the time.

In reality, instead of growing deserts will start to shrink. More heat and CO2 is actually what plants need to thrive and grow, and unless prevented they will greatly increase their land coverage. Many areas we know of now as "deserts" will start to evolve into grasslands. The increased plants will absorb even more water, and their respiration will increase humidity levels.

Areas like the Amazon will explode, as the "temperate belt" moved farther north. Tundra will transition to grasslands, grasslands to a more equatorial area. Mostly because of higher CO2 levels and more warmth.

And to give an idea, during most interglacials there was no Arctic Ice Cap at all, and as far north as Central Alaska had palm trees. Just think about that, Palm Trees growing wild in central Alaska.

If people think it is warm now, they have no idea. And scientists have known for decades that this time the Milankovitch may cause an extra-ordinarily long interglacial. As in over 50,000 years.

Mostly, nothing that has been reported in this has gone outside of what many have expected for decades. I knew over 35 years ago (from my Geology Teacher) that as more ice melted, warming would increase. Simply because of the "albedo effect". Ice and snow reflects heat and light, so helps keep the climate cool. But as more ice melts, less is reflected and the ground and water will absorb it, adding to the increase.

Once again, this is basic science, so it to me was always a "no duh" response when people told me "warming is accelerating". Of course it is, and if we suddenly dropped temperatures and it started to build up again we could enter a cycle where we return to ice age.

joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Just think about that, Palm Trees growing wild in central Alaska.

For the adventurous investor, now is the time to purchase those prime Alaskan beachfront properties...

:)

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

In reality, instead of growing deserts will start to shrink.

My understanding is that they're currently expanding. At what point will a tipping point be reached after which they will start to contract?

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son  Mushroom
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

My understanding is that they're currently expanding. At what point will a tipping point be reached after which they will start to contract?

The growth/retreat of deserts is more complex than just global average temperature.

And not all deserts are currently growing.

But if you go by the long term pelo-climate record, in general, a warmer world tends to be wetter, not dryer.

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

But if you go by the long term pelo-climate record, in general, a warmer world tends to be wetter, not dryer.

Where I live (Arizona desert) it's getting hotter and dryer. I think we had 3 days of measurable rain last summer (and measurable doesn't mean a lot). My youngest great grandson was 8 months old before he ever saw rain. And last year we shattered the records of the number of days over 115, over 100, and lows over 90. And it seems this year is hotter and dryer.

Which is causing record wild fires. Speaking of which, President Biden called a meeting with some Western governors to discuss the wild fires. At the time, 71% of them were in Arizona, but the AZ governor wasn't invited. So much for crossing party lines for the good of the country (we have a Republican governor).

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Where I live (Arizona desert) it's getting hotter and dryer.

That's regional, not global. And again the dryer part is more complex than just temperature.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

But if you go by the long term pelo-climate record, in general, a warmer world tends to be wetter, not dryer.

To shrink a hot, sandy desert requires a mechanism to dump enough water on it to bind the sand so plants can grow. I imagine places like the Sahara will be more resistant than temperate or arctic(?) deserts.

AJ

Replies:   Switch Blayde  Mushroom
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

to bind the sand so plants can grow. I imagine places like the Sahara

That's one kind of desert. The Arizona deserts are baked dry, not sandy. And vegetation grows in them.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

The Arizona deserts are baked dry, not sandy. And vegetation grows in them.

I just wish Oklahoma would quit trying to get Arizona to hold its' beer. It sucks when your yard is nothing but giant, cracked dirt, like in the westerns.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

To shrink a hot, sandy desert requires a mechanism to dump enough water on it to bind the sand so plants can grow. I imagine places like the Sahara will be more resistant than temperate or arctic(?) deserts.

Not true at all.

The reason Arizona is a desert is less to do with the soil, than it is that it is in a "Rain Shadow". Before the rains can get there, they have to pass either over Texas (and 2 mountain ranges), or California (and 2 mountain ranges). It sits in the middle of an area that prevents all but the biggest storms from reaching there with any measurable amount of rain.

This is the same in Oregon. Go to the coast and Williamite Valley, and you get a lot of rain, almost any time of the year. But go farther West or South, and it rapidly grows more dry and arid.

That is not a problem in many areas of the Sahara, and both during the height of ice ages and interglacials, the north tends to be quite wet and lush. It is in the stages between the two that it is the most unstable, as weather patterns change and the constant changes (every several thousand years) makes it hard to stabilize.

And there are still many changes that will likely happen between now and the next 10,000 years or so. Some of the largest speculation is how the reduced salinity and increased heat will affect ocean currents. That is really what drives the global climate. And it does not take a major change there to have huge impacts globally.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Scientists have been trying for decades to shrink the Sahara by planting dry-tolerant plants round the edges, even creating some of their own by genetic modification. The problem is that there's so much dry sand blowing around that the vegetation quickly gets overcome.

A lush desert isn't a desert ;-)

AJ

Replies:   helmut_meukel  Mushroom
helmut_meukel ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

The problem is that there's so much dry sand blowing around that the vegetation quickly gets overcome.

You ignored the other major problem: the people living there and their animals, e.g. goats and cows.
They happily accept the new vegetation as additional fodder for their herds and as source for fire wood. To conserve the new vegetation the scientists would've to police their plantings for at least 20 years.

BTW, the Sahara is mainly rocky hamada (stone plateaus); ergs (sand seas โ€“ large areas covered with sand dunes) form only a minor part.

HM.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

I've been out of touch for a while, but the last I heard they were genetically engineering a type of dune grass to make it even more resilient. If the grass can stabilise the sand, then they can think about more substantial plants like food crops and even trees, even though those will require irrigation.

AJ

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Scientists have been trying for decades to shrink the Sahara by planting dry-tolerant plants round the edges, even creating some of their own by genetic modification. The problem is that there's so much dry sand blowing around that the vegetation quickly gets overcome.

It is also in an area with little rainfall. At this time the rinds in that region predominantly go from the south to the north through Africa. So by the time they get there, all the moisture is gone.

Until that changes, it will always remain as it is now, although some at the edges can be reclaimed.

I actually laugh at most claims of "reclaiming the desert". It has been tried over and over again, and always fails. Nature is far more powerful than most people realize.

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

I actually laugh at most claims of "reclaiming the desert". It has been tried over and over again, and always fails.

I don't know much about Israel, but I believe they did it through irrigation.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

I don't know much about Israel, but I believe they did it through irrigation.

That land had not been desert for all that long. Remember, less than 2,000 years ago Israel was still a nation that exported grain, as was much of the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Heck, the Sahara is not even that old, it has only really been a desert for the last 5,500 years or so.

That literally is less than an eyeblink, in the history of the planet. Most people really do have no idea how radically our climate has changed in the past. In this to me, they are like a group of luddite reactionaries, and scream because things are changing and are obsessed that humans are causing it.

To me, it is like they want the entire planet frozen in amber, and to remain like it is today forever. I see that as stupid. 2,000 years ago, Death Valley was a large inland lake. 6,000 years ago North Africa was a lush tropical wetland. 9,000 years ago you could walk from France to England. 12,000 years ago, San Francisco was in an inland valley.

Our planet changes, but some are acting like such things have never happened before. I wonder if to them, we should blame the fires by Neanderthal for ending the last ice age.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

If the Saharan Rain Forest still had a tree canopy, the situation would be different.

Our descendants might one day say the same about the Amazon Desert.

AJ

Replies:   mauidreamer
mauidreamer ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

If the Saharan Rain Forest still had a tree canopy, the situation would be different.

And that can be blamed on the Romans and their jealousy of the Carthaginean strength of agriculture ... generations after defeating Hannibal ...

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

But if you go by the long term pelo-climate record, in general, a warmer world tends to be wetter, not dryer.

And Ice Ages are the driest. This is not even "rocket science" to me, there is a reason why Antarctica is the continent with the least amount of precipitation on the planet, and is called by some the "Desert Continent".

In fact, I admit I laugh when people scream about CO2. That is literally "plant food", and all interglacials have had increased CO2 levels. To be honest, I am much more nervous about the vast and rapid deforestation in places like the Amazon than I am about "Greenhouse Gasses".

Our planet has a balance, and gasses is one of them. Too much of a gas into the atmosphere, and the planet reacts. Hydrogen Sulfide, and you get "acid rain" and increased erosion (which traps the extra acid in the minerals). Not enough CO2, then plants die off and the decomposition releases more and the less sparse terrain is more favorable to animals, which increases CO2 output. Increase CO2, and then plants start to grow like crazy and expand. But the cutting of rainforests disturbs me, as that is one of the main systems for absorbing such gasses.

However, I also do not believe it is about CO2, it is about politics and money. You can tax businesses and government, but you can not tax poor slash and burn farmers in Brazil.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

But we have to have the trees to process that CO2. What we are going to have is masses of algae covering the oceans.

The extra CO2 we produce is warming the planet. That issue is not seriously debated by any scientist not employed by an oil company. If you remove all the people who are paid by those who profit from doing nothing, there is almost no one who has looked at the data who disagrees.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

The extra CO2 we produce is warming the planet. That issue is not seriously debated by any scientist not employed by an oil company. If you remove all the people who are paid by those who profit from doing nothing, there is almost no one who has looked at the data who disagrees.

What you meant to say is, there is almost no one who is willing to lose their research grants and or jobs for not being in lockstep with their fellow acolytes.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

The extra CO2 we produce is warming the planet. That issue is not seriously debated by any scientist not employed by an oil company.

Lot of scientists disagree with it. They're just not willing go up against the 'religion' that has developed and get canceled.

Oh, and keep in mind that without oil - even if you completely disregard gasoline - we're done as a civilization. That's why I have these two paragraphs in Chapter 7 of Book Three:

Certain countries will need even more fertilizer and other petroleum products, such as plastics, simply to satisfy their own continued growing consumer base. At the same time, all the money in the world can't necessarily buy you what you need, but can give you the ability to trade for things without actually dealing directly in currencies, so long as certain values are agreed upon as equivalent," I said.

"Thus, our agreement and business with you, my young friend," Nayef interjected. "It has already proven fruitful, as Tamotsu-san has passed on to me, and to Henry. One of the things he needs is more easily acquired from his western neighbor, who happens to need something we can provide from here, in exchange. And, of course, with your own discoveries poised to power the entire world, every liter of oil saved by your turbines is another liter that can be used for other purposes."

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

Lot of scientists disagree with it. They're just not willing go up against the 'religion' that has developed and get canceled.

As you can see by his reaction to a quote I made by Michael Crichton. I honestly had absolutely no idea of his stance on the subject. He could have been all for it, or opposed. Neither stance would have made his quote any less relevant.

And only after I looked did I understand the anger, because he is very anti. Therefore, he must be quashed and never brought up ever again. CC in action.

What is next, burning any books that oppose it?

Replies:   hst666  hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

You can disagree with people without hating them, It is possible if you try it.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Also, if by "consensus" you mean 100% agreement among all the relevant scientists, of course that will never happen. But there can be one theory that is supported by much more evidence and produces many more satisfactorily tested predictions than the others.

Also by "consensus" on something like "man-made global warming" does not mean that there are not different models and theories.

And it's also not to say that unforeseen effects of warming may not occur.

However, there is no serious question that "human-caused global warming" is happening.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

However, there is no serious question that "human-caused global warming" is happening.

Said as an assumed fact. Tell us, have you or anyone you know, personally evaluated the so called studies, or are you simply parroting from the 'media' of your choice?

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

No, I actually look at the data and arguments.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

if by "consensus" you mean 100% agreement among all the relevant scientists,

That is the usual caveat in that argument. Which is bullshit. Climatologist are the only scientist the AGW acolytes accept as "relevant." That's an extremely small sample pool. All of which are under the threat of losing their funding/jobs if they don't tow the party line.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

However, there is no serious question that "human-caused global warming" is happening.

There is plenty of question. You and others like you however want to "cancel" any that do not want to believe what you do.

To me, this is nothing other than accepting things on faith, and wanting all heretics excommunicated. Any who bow down to the messiah of "Climate Change" must be expunged and silenced.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

However, there is no serious question that "human-caused global warming" is happening.

I disagree, but on the balance of current evidence it's probably happening. I'm concerned about how little evidence we really have - it's a bit like claiming a coin is biased because both coin tosses came up heads.

AJ

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

I'm concerned about how little evidence we really have

You're going to AGW hell for that. Brother Gore will issue a a fatwa for that.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

How frequently can we take climate measurements which are truly independent of short-term effects from the previous measurement.

I'd estimate about once a decade.

How much reliable historic information do we have?

Much of the globe was uncovered until very late last century, so it may be as few as three decades.

So we have warm-cool-warm, with this decade looking to be a warm one.

Worrisome, but a sensible gambler wouldn't be betting the bank on it.

AJ

Replies:   Remus2  redthumb
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

From what I can find, there isn't much historical data available that can be considered reliable. The best available is inferred from geological data and ice cores. Both of which are subject to interpretation vagaries.

redthumb ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

How many of the "long term" weather stations (that has been in the same place for 30 years and more have the same micro-clime now than they did when they were put in place? If a station was placed in a field that has become part of an urban community the local climate has changed. How has this been taken into account?

As far as historical data is concerned, Fort Ross, California has has had climate measurements since the 1820 or 1830s. I will admit, and agree, that the instruments were not as precise as they are now.

Replies:   irvmull
irvmull ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@redthumb

A large number of the weather stations that actually had accurate equipment and kept records long term were, and still are, at airports - for fairly obvious reasons.

But there's a lot of difference between the temps at a grassy 1920's airfield and the same airport in 2021, with acres of paved runways, taxiways, and dozens of jets spewing exhaust.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  Mushroom
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@irvmull

But there's a lot of difference between the temps at a grassy 1920's airfield and the same airport in 2021, with acres of paved runways, taxiways, and dozens of jets spewing exhaust.

Heathrow Airport, near London, often has the highest daily temperature in England.

AJ

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@irvmull

A large number of the weather stations that actually had accurate equipment and kept records long term were, and still are, at airports - for fairly obvious reasons.

But there's a lot of difference between the temps at a grassy 1920's airfield and the same airport in 2021, with acres of paved runways, taxiways, and dozens of jets spewing exhaust.

Which is a point that many have been making for over a decade. I know that the temperature at the local airport (less than 5 miles away) is normally 3-5 degrees warmer than it is at my house. All that asphalt and cement is surely causing this, along with the exhaust. And it stays warmer a lot longer than it does here at night when it starts to cool off. Last night it was near 80, and my phone (airport weather report) said it was still 86.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

Most of the time, the counter argument is your thermometer/temp gage isn't calibrated. I still have a QA program for my current businesses. NIST traceable thermometers/temp gages are part of that. I've taken them to nearby woodland areas then to the local airport/noaa station. The minimum difference between them hasn't dropped below a 5 degree F difference. Scientific weather stations also use NIST traceable equipment (reportedly). That has left the question in my mind, "why the difference?"

Methods and placement are the only possible solution to that difference.

Replies:   Mushroom  Dominions Son
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Most of the time, the counter argument is your thermometer/temp gage isn't calibrated. I still have a QA program for my current businesses. NIST traceable thermometers/temp gages are part of that. I've taken them to nearby woodland areas then to the local airport/noaa station. The minimum difference between them hasn't dropped below a 5 degree F difference. Scientific weather stations also use NIST traceable equipment (reportedly). That has left the question in my mind, "why the difference?"

Methods and placement are the only possible solution to that difference.

Well, what we use is a digital system I got last year, and the results are interesting. Things like barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, humidity, and the like are almost always dead on, less than a 2% difference. but temperature is very different. And I find it hard to believe that all of the other gauges are almost dead on, but the temperature is so far off, and always lower than the airport reports. Other than earlier this year when we had some snow, and then it was actually correct to within 2 degrees F.

And having spent an entire year in a country that was very much like an airport (flat, hard ground with white limestone covering it, no plants to speak of anywhere), I am not surprised. Qatar was the hottest place I had ever lived, and the sunlight reflecting off of that limestone just baked your brain, even without the 130+ temperature. Flat, and square mile after square mile of white limestone reflecting all of that heat right back as concrete would.

And even seeing temperatures of over 110 at midnight, as the ground was still bleeding off all that heat it had absorbed during the day. That is pretty much what any airport is like, and that is where 90% of weather stations are located. So it is no wonder that they are giving higher readings than they did half a century ago.

Not saying temperatures are not rising, that is still a face. But skewing the results to an even greater degree than is natural. I wonder what would happen if all of those stations were shut down now that we have more advanced systems, and they were located into the center of parks instead.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

as the ground was still bleeding off all that heat it had absorbed during the day

Anyone who lives in the southern United States knows that already. Which may be one reason we tend to take these pronouncements with a grain or two (dozen) of salt.

Go be a car salesman in the middle of August in in Oklahoma City, in the afternoon. I've seen salesmen literally get burns on their feet THROUGH their shoes in the afternoon. Sun goes down, you're still there at midnight because it's Saturday and there were six deals backed up waiting to go to finance, it's nice and cool outside (finally), you lean up against the building and pull away quickly. It's still hot, four hours later. It's worse in Dallas.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

That has left the question in my mind, "why the difference?"

Methods and placement are the only possible solution to that difference.

Micro-climate effects caused by the airport.

Airports need their own weather stations because they need to know the exact temperature on the runways as it effects take-off and landing procedures and wrong temperature information could cause safety issues.

However airport weather stations are terrible for measuring global climate.

Even in rural area away from airports, many weather stations are poorly sited. This is because they are placed near buildings, often close to HVAC exhaust or in paved parking areas.

As they moved away from manual read weather stations to electronically monitored stations, the stations got closer and closer to buildings because the buried cable for power and data is an expense which they try to minimize by keeping the runs as short as possible.

Even many of the remaining manually read stations are too close to buildings and/or other artificial heat sources for convenience.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Most of the climate data reported is Supposedly from satellites as verified by ground stations these days.
However it's not the upper extremes the climate alarmist cry about. It's the polar increases resulting in melting ice. I've lived and worked in some of those locations, Barrow AK, McMurdo Station Antarctica, Norilisk Siberia, and others. Norilisk is by far the nastiest of the lot. How anyone grows up there alive is beyond me.

Those places tell a different story on the ground. As in recent record lows.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Most of the climate data reported is Supposedly from satellites as verified by ground stations these days.
However it's not the upper extremes the climate alarmist cry about.

Actually, what the satellites are measuring is not temperature. my understanding is that the ground station data is used to calibrate the algorithms that converts the direct measurements to temperature.

If the ground station data is corrupt...

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

It's the polar increases resulting in melting ice. I've lived and worked in some of those locations

Even the satellites don't have good data for the polar regions. I've seen satellite temperature maps, mostly they are limited to 80N to 80S

Oh, and while Antarctic temperatures may have increased, the increase is at least an order of magnitude short of what would be needed to start melting ice.

Replies:   Mushroom  Remus2
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Oh, and while Antarctic temperatures may have increased, the increase is at least an order of magnitude short of what would be needed to start melting ice.

I often tell people to watch documentaries on that station. I knew more than a few sailors that had the coveted "Wintered Over" device on their ribbon for service there.

The entire station is mobile, and every year or so they have to jack it up or it will get buried in ice. Their biggest challenges is to keep it well insulated so it will not melt the ice under it, and to keep jacking it up so it does not get buried. And the glaciers are still expanding, not receding. If anything, the massive ice shelves breaking off shows that they are still expanding and growing, and not shrinking.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Well, there is some evidence of melt on the Antarctic Peninsula, which extends north far enough that some of it is actually outside the Antarctic Circle.

However even there, there is evidence that the Peninsula is volcanically active and that geothermal heat from below is driving most of the observed melting there.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

mostly they are limited to 80N to 80S

Orbital mechanics play hell with getting a stable repeatable data stream.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Orbital mechanics play hell with getting a stable repeatable data stream.

Why doesn't matter, the point is the Satellites don't cover the Arctic or Antarctic so claims of temperature increases there are largely speculative and overblown.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

However it's not the upper extremes the climate alarmist cry about. It's the polar increases resulting in melting ice.

Yes, melting of the ice caps. Which started over 11,000 years ago. Which I learned over 40 years ago is a major factor in albedo.

Yes, in an era of the fears of "New ice age", I had a geology teacher explain to us that was nonsense, it was the typical cycle and things would continue to get warmer. He explained things like albedo, and how more ice melting would accelerate more warming and melting.

I love how some will scream at me I am "Anti-Science!", while I am discussing things like albedo, solar cycles and orbital drift and tilt recession. Then go into currents in the oceans and wind, but I am the anti-science one because I should just shut up and accept what I am told without question.

And hell, want proof the planet has been warming for a long time, look no more than Portage Glacier. When first discovered, it reached the ocean in the Turnagain Arm. When I saw it, it was about a mile from the visitor center. I am told now it is not even visible from there. But that recession was going on when we were still in the "little ice age". And I see no reason to believe it is stopping any time soon.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

I love how some will scream at me I am "Anti-Science!", while I am discussing things like albedo, solar cycles and orbital drift and tilt recession.

They usually scream denier with the same fervor as ISIS would scream infidel.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

They usually scream denier with the same fervor as ISIS would scream infidel.

Exactly. Which in and of itself is not even correct in most instances you hear that being said. Which is actually a fair comparison.

Under Islam, Jews and Christians are not "Infidels". Even Mohammed wrote that they are also "People of the Book", and therefore "Ahl al-Kitฤb". Not infidels at all, simply believers in the same God that worship Him in a different way. Infidel was reserved for the pagans and idolaters and not others who followed the God of Abraham.

But as the fanatics of Islam pervert their own beliefs, those that scream that others who reach different conclusions are "anti-Science" is offensive, and shows to me that they do not actually know what that means. Bigoted, narrow minded, and so obsessed with their orthodoxy that they reject automatically any conclusions that do not match their own.

I actually do believe that this is more religion than anything else now. And like any religion, any who do not agree with what the Prophets are saying must be destroyed.

JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

However, there is no serious question that "human-caused global warming" is happening.

And... so what? Even if we grant that human activity is contributing to "global warming" (to use the old phrase), what does that mean? Just saying that does NOT settle anything. The models of decades ago were terrible at projecting the future in which we are now living. Projections for the future we have yet to live vary widely, and only the most extreme, and extremely unlikely, suggest consequences that raise serious concerns. There are also questions about beneficial consequences and man-made countermeasures that might be possible if truly disastrous results seem to be coming true. I'm not going to go look it up, but some of the projections have boiled down to VERY small drops in GDP in 50-100 years. So, overall, the campaign by the "give the government gobs of power, lock the developing world into poverty, and submit, submit, submit" crowd seems to be a clear mantra of the "never let a crisis go to waste" group.

"Human activity is changing the climate" is not a sufficient predicate, even if true, for the even greater power in the hands of government or the uber-powerful investors that are driving corporate buy-in for actions with such a shaky basis.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

But we have to have the trees to process that CO2. What we are going to have is masses of algae covering the oceans.

And the higher the CO2 level goes, the less water the plants need to process the CO2. While I'm dubious on the claim about the deserts shrinking. One thing is very evident, and NASA will back this up: The planet has been greening very significantly since they started making orbital observations.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

My understanding is that they're currently expanding. At what point will a tipping point be reached after which they will start to contract?

Oh, that is believed to be several thousand years after we finally enter the interglacial.

Technically speaking, we are still in an "Ice Age", as until we largely see the Arctic Ice Cap vanish we are still in one.

But as more water enters the ecosystem after being sequestered in ice, humidity levels will start to rise. larger surface area of the oceans will allow for increased evaporation, and slowly increase global humidity.

But that is a long and slow process.

AmigaClone ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Those who are old enough and had not had their brains destroyed might remember that in the 1970s there was a bunch of talk about 'the coming ice age'.

Replies:   Remus2  Mushroom
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@AmigaClone

Those who are old enough and had not had their brains destroyed might remember that in the 1970s there was a bunch of talk about 'the coming ice age'.

I recall that. It was the climate "concensus" of the time. It's had a resurgence among some groups.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

I recall that. It was the climate "concensus" of the time. It's had a resurgence among some groups.

From what I've read, in the current ice age of alternating glacial and inter-glacial periods, we are already overdue for the next glaciation.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

From what I've read, in the current ice age of alternating glacial and inter-glacial periods, we are already overdue for the next glaciation.

Not even close.

Technically, we are still in an "ice age", but the tail end of it. The current really only started to really come to an end about 12kya, and we have had several resurgences since then (including the "Little Ice Age" as the most recent). Until the permafrost line moves to at least central Alaska-Canada and the Arctic ice pack is largely gone, we are still in one.

On average, an interglacial lasts around 6-10kya, and we are not even to that stage yet. And some are looking at the Milankovitch Cycle (the intensity of the sun combined with tilt and orbit of the Earth), and saying this interglacial may last as long as 50 ky. Not the longest one by far, but longer than normal.

And for real proof, ice cores are not really accurate. But we have plenty of fossil records going back through multiple ice age cycles. And knowing what plants and animals were living in an area is a good indicator as to climate conditions.

In most interglacials, palm trees thrived and grew in central Alaska. I myself have pulled fossilized palms from Idaho fossil beds. At this time, those can only grow about as far as Northern California unaided by humans.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

In most interglacials, palm trees thrived and grew in central Alaska. I myself have pulled fossilized palms from Idaho fossil beds. At this time, those can only grow about as far as Northern California unaided by humans.

The Idaho palm tree fossils are tens of millions of years old, and you're forgetting about continental drift in all of this. North America used to be much further south than it is today.

Also in the mix is changes in ocean currents, especially relevant when it comes to the Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere, where is now believed the unification of North America with South America shut down one of the heat conveyors from the Pacific in the Atlantic and resulted in significant cooling in the North Atlantic and our current Ice Age cycle.

Of course, then there is the Ice Age in the Southern Hemisphere that will continue until Antarctica is no longer ice-bound.

The more "entertaining" thing they're encountering with all of these glacial retreats, often in areas not known to have been seismically active for millennia, are some of the stone age settlements they're finding. Or failing that, 10,000 to 15,000 year old tree remnants being found in those areas of Glacial Retreat.

"It hasn't been this warm in this area in the past 100,000 years. Please ignore the trunk over of that 400 year old tree over there that carbon dates to 11,000 years ago, and ignore that we're well above the current tree line for that species of tree."

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

The Idaho palm tree fossils are tens of millions of years old, and you're forgetting about continental drift in all of this. North America used to be much further south than it is today.

Barely. North and South America had already collided over 10 million years prior to that, and the disruption of the current that used to pass through that actually made the northern hemisphere colder.

And the drift is nowhere near as much as you are thinking.

https://www.oldearth.org/curriculum/history/MioceneGlobal.jpg

This is the continents at around 12 MYA. And as is obvious, 30 degrees North latitude is still right along the north coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Where it is still sitting today, maybe 100 miles or so difference from then and now.

If handed a globe of the planet then and the planet now, most would likely have a hard time spotting the differences. Which is why many long-term researchers look to the Middle Miocene to see what the planet might have been like completely outside of an ice age.

That was millions of years before the current Quaternary Ice Age Cycle started (around 2.4 mya). The Arctic Ice Cap had yet to form, and only part of Antarctica had an ice cap.

Among geologists, this is largely seen as the "baseline" for what the planet would be like if there was no ice age at all. And why as I have said those that look at the long term climate on the planet generally consider the presence or absence of such an ice cap as an indication if an ice age is ongoing or not.

Yes, you are talking about a score of thousands of years to 100,000. But the planet was like this for roughly 18 million years with no ice age at all. Almost indistinguishable in continent placement than it is today. This would be like some were talking about conditions over the past 10,000 years, and some obsess over 100 years.

Oh, and they are not "tens of millions of years old". I am talking about the Bruneau Woodpile, that is a Late Pliocene Era deposit. From roughly 2.6 to 5.2 mya. That was a huge inland lake that is now known as "Lake Idaho", and filled most of the current Treasure Valley.

http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/PlioceneBruneauIdaho.html

This is actually a very famous fossil bed, as it is almost entirely on public land. And access from a paved road is literally about 50 meters from the dozens of miles of meter high cliff.

Here is a map of ancient Lake Idaho. Locate Bruneau, then head due West until you are at a location south of Grandview. That is roughly where the Bruneau Woodpile is.

A period roughly at or tight before the current Ice Age cycle began. And to give an idea, here is a current planting map of Idaho. It included minimum temperature extremes, to give an idea what plants will thrive there.

https://www.florida-palm-trees.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/idaho-hardiness-zone-map.jpg

Now for palm trees to have thrived, the climate would have to have been much more like that of California today. Where they really do not thrive and spread wildly north of the Sacramento area.

https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/wp-content/uploads/2004/08/california_map_lg.gif

This alone shows how much different the climate is when we are not in an ice age. Because that was conditions before the ice age cycles we are in even began.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Oh, and they are not "tens of millions of years old". I am talking about the Bruneau Woodpile, that is a Late Pliocene Era deposit. From roughly 2.6 to 5.2 mya. That was a huge inland lake that is now known as "Lake Idaho", and filled most of the current Treasure Valley.

http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/PlioceneBruneauIdaho.html

Interesting cite that.

The fossil trees/logs are supposed to be millions of years old, but the one depicted in the second photo appears to have a saw cut end.

Did the researchers / fossil hunters do that, or did they find it that way?

It would present a real puzzle if they found it that way.

Replies:   joyR  Remus2  Mushroom
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

It would present a real puzzle if they found it that way.

Evidence of the existence of Velociripsaw?

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Did the researchers / fossil hunters do that, or did they find it that way?

I seriously doubt they found it that way.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

The fossil trees/logs are supposed to be millions of years old, but the one depicted in the second photo appears to have a saw cut end.

That is actually common, look at almost any fossilized tree.

They mineralized in the ground, then over time as the strata shifted they break like spaghetti. And because by that time they are fossils, they normally break cleanly like that.

Look up almost any photos of fossilized tree trunks.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

They mineralized in the ground, then over time as the strata shifted they break like spaghetti. And because by that time they are fossils, they normally break cleanly like that.

Look up almost any photos of fossilized tree trunks.

Care to share a source that supports that conjecture?

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Care to share a source that supports that conjecture?

Really?

https://www.arizonahighways.com/blog/how-did-those-petrified-logs-get-cut

This is something I was able to figure out way back in Junior High. And have seen in fossil tree beds in many states, including California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming.

"Conjecture"? This is no conjecture, this is a fact. As I said, look up almost any tree fossils, and this is seen.

https://www.nps.gov/pefo/learn/nature/petrified-wood.htm

https://www.rockhoundtimes.com/calistoga-petrified-forest.html

https://geology.com/stories/13/petrified-wood/

Replies:   Dominions Son  Remus2
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

https://www.arizonahighways.com/blog/how-did-those-petrified-logs-get-cut

An interesting explanation.

I find it fascinating that the logs in the picture they used for that article do not have flat smooth ends that look saw cut. They have rough broken looking ends that are more what most people would expect if they broke naturally.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Dominions Son

I find it fascinating that the logs in the picture they used for that article do not have flat smooth ends that look saw cut. They have rough broken looking ends that are more what most people would expect if they broke naturally.

And there are a great many sources I gave, with several giving the exact same explanation. And much of that is also determined in how long they took to fossilize, the conditions they went after before and after that process. As well as things like what minerals fossilized them in addition to size, and if they weathered on the surface or were still entombed in the strata before being extracted.

The beds I went through were normally full of smaller ones, with the largest intact normally being branches no more than 5 cm across. But also large chunks, that were almost randomly scattered.

And even though it is largely geologically stable today, during that era it was rather unstable. The Yellowstone Caldera had already moved North and East, but it was still an area plagued with earthquakes and volcanos from its passing. That is why it is called the "Gem State", as those millions of years of vulcanism have left a great many gems all over the state. From sapphires to diamonds.

Remember, fossilized trees are very brittle. Most times they actually fossilize into the same minerals that make gems. Some of the most prized are "opalized", and yes they are actually made out of opal. Those are prized by those who make jewelry.

So imagine they are like glass. Some may shatter when under stress, while others may fracture like bending a glass rod with some shards but largely intact ends.

And sometimes, even not fossilize completely. It is not uncommon to see some that appear "hollow" in the center. This is not a hollow tree, the center part simply did not fossilize before it decayed, rotting away to leave nothing in the center. Then collapsing later during strata movement.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

I wasn't criticizing the explanation.

I just think it on that on an article that explains why some fossil tree logs look saw cut they used a picture of fossil logs that don't look saw cut. It was an odd decision on the part of the authors.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

The forces required would be tremendous. So yes, really.
Shear modulus is 4500 ksi, compression strength is 160,000 psi, and the modulus of elasticity is 10200 - 11300 ksi. At those numbers, the material base should be powdered before it could be sheared. Nothing in your links explains that anomaly.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Nothing in your links explains that anomaly.

OK, fine. They were really cut by lumberjacks millions of years ago.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

You can be a smart ass if you want, but something is definitely wrong with the information provided. It could be they posted something they thought would get people to stop questioning it. At a minimum, they are leaving out some critical information. At worse, they are playing people for stupid, particularly regarding the differences in fracture types. Fyi:

https://www.engineeringenotes.com/engineering/materials-engineering/fracture-in-materials-types-and-prevention-material-science/34132

You should further research "Griffiths theory 1" given the subject material.

Bottom line to me is, the presented information is in large parts bullshit meant to push off any serious questions. Meanwhile, there are many people tooling along secure in their 'facts' when in fact they are still ignorant. Scientist and engineers are notorious for doing that as they know the average person loses concentration when something more than 30 seconds is required to explain something correctly.

1. As in fracture mechanics not the modern social justice crap

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

You can be a smart ass if you want, but something is definitely wrong with the information provided. It could be they posted something they thought would get people to stop questioning it.

And tell me, how is this affected when the object is under pressure, entombed under a hundred meters or more of earth?

I did look through your reference, and strange but that is never even mentioned. Although they talk extensively of such fractures in a gaseous fluid environment (air). Which is nothing like being under the pressures of an item underground. And there are other huge differences, but that is just a start.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

The physics of fracture mechanics does not change because it's a petrified tree crystalline structure. You went entirely the wrong direction with that. Had you followed through on Griffith Theory maybe you would understand. That is assuming you want to understand rather than simply argue.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

@Mushroom
@Remus2

Of course, if the researchers wanted to, there would be a way to definitively prove their explanation for the apparent saw cut ends.

Take a few fossil logs with the smooth flat ends, put them in a press and ramp the pressure up until they break.

If they get smooth flat ends, then they are probably right. If the logs shatter or get broken ends, they have to go back to the drawing board.

Experimental data beats theory every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Take a few fossil logs with the smooth flat ends, put them in a press and ramp the pressure up until they break.

Which is exactly the point, because that would not replicate the conditions.

And since the only possible cause other than fracturing under pressure under the surface of the Earth, the only solution so far suggested must be lumberjacks with saws millions of years ago. Because you have either myself stating what geologists have believed for over a century. Then you have saws.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

And since the only possible cause other than fracturing under pressure under the surface of the Earth, the only solution so far suggested must be lumberjacks with saws millions of years ago.

Just because you can't think of another explanation other than those two, that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Just because you can't think of another explanation other than those two, that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

OK, it is magic then.

Look, this is why I laugh so much at many people. They automatically want to get combative, and in reality I have a very open mind. But when people just go "No, you are wrong" and have no alternative at all, then I simply shake my head and recognize it for what it is.

That is the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory thinking, and I do not go that way. And notice, other than early on with the comments on saws, there have been no other proposed causes listed. Just automatic rejection based on conditions that do not replicate the conditions. Repeated ad nauseum.

But hey, if an actual causation is proposed that is logical, I am all for it. But rejection without explanation without replication of conditions, that is not worth discussing anymore.

All cats have 4 legs, therefore all animals that have 4 lets are cats. The earth is warming, humans are on the earth, therefore humans cause warming. Money is made out of paper, therefore all paper is money.

It is simply that that kind of thinking bores me to death, and I have absolutely no interest in people screaming something is wrong, with no alternative solution other than returning to saws millions of years ago.

It would be like my saying that oxygen is toxic and can kill you. A true statement, under the right and easy to replicate conditions.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

. But when people just go "No, you are wrong" and have no alternative at all, then I simply shake my head and recognize it for what it is.

There's nothing wrong with just saying "we have no idea".

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Look, this is why I laugh so much at many people. They automatically want to get combative, and in reality I have a very open mind. But when people just go "No, you are wrong" and have no alternative at all, then I simply shake my head and recognize it for what it is.

A much simpler explanation of that would be they are responding in kind to your being an ass about it. Just as in this thread.
For the record, I've personally tested this under laboratory conditions. Your refusal to accept any other explanation does not change anything. You don't even need a petrified tree to test it. The material is too close to a physical duplicate of quartz to waist a true geological sample.
Quartz is readily and cheaply available for testing. Replication of stresses can be done via presses as DS suggested.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

For the record, I've personally tested this under laboratory conditions.

Underground?

See, this is the thing I have repeated many times, you talk about tests at atmospheric density. Which is not the same conditions. I repeat this over and over, yet you continue to neglect that. And talk of my rejecting other solutions, while none have been asserted.

Being surrounded by high pressure on all sides causes things to go very strange. Even causes gasses we need to live to become toxic, and causes materials to behave in unique ways they do not normally.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

you talk about tests at atmospheric density.

That is your assumption, go back and show me where I stated at atmospheric density?

Being surrounded by high pressure on all sides causes things to go very strange. Even causes gasses we need to live to become toxic, and causes materials to behave in unique ways they do not normally.

From what basis did you make that claim? Or better yet, never mind. You've shown you have no interest in any other explanation other than your own. I'll not offer anything more on the subject as a result.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Remus2

From what basis did you make that claim?

Really?

Ever seen a diamond? Did you know that you can make ice at room temperature, just by adding pressure? Do you know what Colonel Sanders used to cook his chicken so quickly?

https://www.britannica.com/science/high-pressure-phenomena/Applications

But on what basis? Just ask any SCUBA diver, we learn this from almost day 1 of our training. Oxygen is toxic, which is why when diving our tanks are not filled with oxygen, but with air. And why the laughable devices that claim to let you breathe underwater like in the James Bond movie by removing oxygen from water we know are not real because they would be fatal.

Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at increased partial pressures. Severe cases can result in cell damage and death, with effects most often seen in the central nervous system, lungs, and eyes. Historically, the central nervous system condition was called the Paul Bert effect, and the pulmonary condition the Lorrain Smith effect, after the researchers who pioneered the discoveries and descriptions in the late 19th century. Oxygen toxicity is a concern for underwater divers, those on high concentrations of supplemental oxygen (particularly premature babies), and those undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Under pressure, items can become more or less brittle, gain or lose conductivity, and often loose volume. Check out some of the shrunken styrene items if you ever visit the Naval Museum in Vallejo, California. 12 ounce coffee cups, now the size of a thimble because they were exposed to the pressures of water in a deep diving submarine.

Or the almost universal results of bringing life from deep sea vents, like the "Dandelion" to the surface. They literally explode before they reach the surface, not enough pressure.

Oh, and another unique way gasses operate, under pressure we no longer bleed off nitrogen. Our body absorbs it, which is why we can only be under water for so long at each depth. Otherwise, you get "the bends". Dive for an hour at 2 atmospheres (60 feet), better remain on the surface to bleed off the nitrogen for about an hour.

You ask what basis? Hell, ask anybody PADI, NAUI, YMCA, or Navy SCUBA certified. The affects of pressure are the single largest concern in that training.

As far as why I made the statement about atmospheric density, because all of the articles do not discuss it at all. Therefore, it was never a consideration. Zero consideration to how pressure would affect the results, because they were all done at roughly 1 atmosphere of pressure (roughly 1.01 bar). Not at pressures of 1,000 bar or more. Which is the same as around 300 meters underground, or 30,000 feet underwater.

Want me do discuss next why nobody was alive on the Titanic when it reached the bottom? I can do that also. And why both halves suffered vastly different damage before they got there. You simply do not really consider pressure (which is why you do not notice the absence of it being discussed), but it has been something I have considered for decades.

Oh, and FYI, some geologists also propose the reverse theory. That the logs fracture when they come closer to the surface, and the tension they had been under for millions of years is released which causes them to fracture. But that is largely a chicken-egg thought exercise, as the actual answer will likely never be known unless we can create a large fossilized tree in a lab under pressure, then release that pressure.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

I'm well aware of fluid mechanics and the effects of pressure on materials. The petrified trees were not at the bottom of an ocean nor in space, so your guess is misleading if not direct misdirection.

The geologist who proposed the basis for the last part of your post are at least making more sense, as it is in line with known fracture mechanic physics despite the susposed chicken-egg conundrum. Was it so hard to admit there was another possibility?

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

Another way to view this.

The blurbs they put out in your links could be considered akin to "executive summaries." Having read and crafted many such summaries personally, I know for a fact many are not accurate, with some not even being close.

This is one such case. The audience for those links are generally ignorant of energy concepts for crack propagation.

https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/fracture-mechanics-energy-concepts-for-crack-growth

There is nothing wrong with saying I'm wrong, or simply stop posting on a subject you're clearly not qualified to speak on. Not that it would be your fault, given the crap explanations given in those links.

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

Money is made out of paper, therefore all paper is money.

Quite a few governments have discovered this is not true, much to their chagrin.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

It was the climate "concensus" of the time.

I thought that's why they just went with climate change, that way they'd at least be right, since all of their predictions about ice ages and global warming were wrong.

Replies:   AmigaClone
AmigaClone ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

I thought that's why they just went with climate change, that way they'd at least be right, since all of their predictions about ice ages and global warming were wrong.

Of course, they want to blame most if not all of climate change on human activity, ignoring other factors like vulcanism or solar activity.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Remus2  Mushroom
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@AmigaClone

Of course, they want to blame most if not all of climate change on human activity, ignoring other factors like vulcanism or solar activity.

The biggest factor is that the Earth's orbit around the Sun wobbles, it changes over time in a semi-cyclical way.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

The biggest factor is that the Earth's orbit around the Sun wobbles, it changes over time in a semi-cyclical way.

Is many factors.

Milankovitch Cycles are complex, and involve a great many things. The tilt and speed of rotation, the orbit of the earth, which sometimes is more elliptical than others. As well as solar output.

This has all been known for over 100 years. And I find one of the funniest things is that I will bring up the Milankovitch cycles, and suddenly people scream at me I am a "denier".

Well, that alone is retarded, as if the planet was not warming, there would be no San Francisco Bay, and the Channel Islands (20 miles out to sea) would still be connected to the California mainland.

Just as it was when Humans first arrived in the area.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@AmigaClone

Of course, they want to blame most if not all of climate change on human activity, ignoring other factors like vulcanism or solar activity.

Ignoring solar activity is one of the larger mistakes both schools of thought make. Which makes no sense whatsoever. The source of energy to create global warming is the sun, the lack of the same energy creates an ice age. The global warming cult's dismissing the importance of the sun is proof positive they are full of crap imo. Not only do they dismiss it, they have actively cooked the books on historical numbers as evidenced by the change in total solar irradiance numbers.

https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/

Drop down to the historical reconstruction data and dig into the history of how it was done. That goal post is in a constant state of flux. How historical data can change when it's already recorded geologically is beyond me. I can only assume they believe the general populace is too stupid to catch on.

Replies:   Mushroom  hst666
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Ignoring solar activity is one of the larger mistakes both schools of thought make. Which makes no sense whatsoever. The source of energy to create global warming is the sun, the lack of the same energy creates an ice age.

And also there are the wind and ocean currents.

Geologists think the largest change since the KT event was when the Isthmus of Panama formed about 20 mya and seriously changed the climate.

Until that time, most of the Americas were wet and lush, and Europe was dry and cold. More like what is seen in Central Canada today. In fact, at that time they believe hurricanes traveled from the Americas to Africa, the reverse of today.

But that ended the warm Pacific waters entering the Atlantic, and changed the climate over 2 oceans and at least 5 continents. And it also roughly when the current cycles of ice ages started.

So want to make Europe cooler and the US and Mexico wetter? Just blast a deep 100 mile wide stretch through the middle of Panama, and wait a few thousand years.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

So want to make Europe cooler and the US and Mexico wetter? Just blast a deep 100 mile wide stretch through the middle of Panama, and wait a few thousand years.

Want to kill the planet? Blasting a channel through Panama connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans without gates to control it stands a real good chance of getting it done.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Want to kill the planet? Blasting a channel through Panama connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans without gates to control it stands a real good chance of getting it done.

Well, we would just be returning the planet to what it was like 20 mya. It would hardly "kill the planet".

Hell, you think that is bad? Wait another 200 million years. At that time, all the continents are expected to combine again to form "Pangea Proxima". Antarctica will be ice free again, roughly at the equator. And at that time things will really be rough. Much of life on the planet and most in the oceans will die off.

There is a reason why I largely laugh when people start acting crazy over 5 or 10 year weather changes. That is barely even a blip, other than on their heavily biased charts.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

200 million years verses less than a decade. Those currents you spoke of (thermohaline) are powered by the difference in level and salt content.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/Oceanography_Thermohaline_Circulation.jpg

Equalization between the two bodies of water would kill the world's weather. No more rain on the wheat and rice. The world dies.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

No more rain on the wheat and rice. The world dies.

Technically not quite right. The world would still live, just a whole lot of people would die.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

Technically not quite right. The world would still live, just a whole lot of people would die.

Exactly. "kill the world's weather"? What kind of nonsense is that? Change, yes. It is not like "weather" would vanish. It would change, it has always been changing. From "hothouse Earth" to "iceball Earth". It is always changing, and that will never end.

But some just can not comprehend change, and want to keep things locked as they are now in that way forever. I find that the ultimate in mental illness.

Accept evolution, but think that the planet will never change. While all around us is evidence everywhere that it is always changing.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

They don't dismiss sunspot activity. Man's contribution's are simply a much larger factor based on the evidence.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

Can you point to the evidence you keep quoting?

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@AmigaClone

Of course, they want to blame most if not all of climate change on human activity, ignoring other factors like vulcanism or solar activity.

And this is the problem.

Most "scientists" agree with Climate Change. It is real, has been happening for billions of years, and will continue on. But most do NOT agree it is caused by humans. But notice that the agenda pushers tend to hide this, and will openly misquote scientists and papers on the subject.

In a great many cases, even the writers of the paper have taken this movement to task, saying that is NOT what they said, and they do not care. I have even heard that movement lambasting some who's very papers they use as their "sources" as "deniers".

Replies:   Switch Blayde  Not_a_ID
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

But most do NOT agree it is caused by humans.

I thought they said it's being speeded up by the burning of fossil fuels.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Most "scientists" agree with Climate Change. It is real, has been happening for billions of years, and will continue on. But most do NOT agree it is caused by humans. But notice that the agenda pushers tend to hide this, and will openly misquote scientists and papers on the subject.

"Most scientists" also agree we are likely contributing to aspects of climate change. We obviously are, land-use change is a huge driver for altering local climates.

One of the more noteworthy scientific findings in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks and the subsequent grounding of all civilian air traffic was that "the temperature band" across North American increased by about 3 degrees(f) as I recall. It got about 1.5 degrees(f) cooler at night, and 1.5 degrees(f) warmer during the day. Obvious case for an Anthropogenic change to the climate. Just not the kind of change that the Global Warming types are looking for, well. Aside from the typical low temperature being bumped up at least.

Beyond those, there is a wide amount of dispute over the amount of warming things like CO2 is actually contributing.

I forget what the exact wording of the question was on that survey that had a 97% response answering "yes" to it which the Global Warming types love to trot out. But the way the question was phrased, I'm amazed they had 3% of the people polled answer no. I would have answered yes to that question as it was phrased.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@AmigaClone

Those who are old enough and had not had their brains destroyed might remember that in the 1970s there was a bunch of talk about 'the coming ice age'.

I remember it very well. Record snowfalls in Buffalo, New York being shut down for days, it was all over the media for years. Even Leonard Nimoy did an episode about it on his long running TV series.

I was already learning more at that time from a teacher who actually had a degree in Geology who scoffed at it even then. He said 2 or 20 or even 200 year "trends" did not matter worth a damn on a planet where such things take place over tens of thousands and even millions of years. He equated it to taking the temperature inside your fridge, and saying that was the temperature in an average home.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

I was reflecting on the absurdity of cancel culture.

My newspaper reported on a poll of some 2,300 young adults. Of those with left-wing tendencies, 37% supported cancel culture. Of those with right-wing tendencies, 7% supported cancel culture.

I know that's a small poll size and heaven knows what biases were involved in the selection process, but it does rather support the popular stereotypes.

AJ

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

I think this is meaningless without a definition of 'cancel culture'. If you just use that phrase, you'll get a discrepancy, but that's because right-wing-leaning people tend to listen to sources yelling 'cancel culture bad!' over and over.

Ask them if they support boycotts against companies that dispute right-wing priorities, if they support kicking out Liz Cheney, etc. Most likely they do.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

I think this is meaningless without a definition of 'cancel culture'.

If I recall the describing article correctly, the definition was something like having the right to silence the opinions of people you disagreed with.

AJ

Replies:   Mushroom  Grey Wolf
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

If I recall the describing article correctly, the definition was something like having the right to silence the opinions of people you disagreed with.

"I am entitled to my opinion, and you are only entitled to share my opinion. Anything else must be silenced."

Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Which, again, is hardly in any way a new thing. I remember plenty of conservative-leaning boycotts in the 1980s trying to demand that theaters not show this movie or that, which amounts to silencing their opinions, or even movies connected to one person or another.

Do they suppose silencing Liz Cheney and other "anti-Trump" Republicans? If so, they support "cancel culture", they just don't call it that. The vast majority of Republicans seem to be all in on cancel culture just now.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Mushroom
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

I remember plenty of conservative-leaning boycotts in the 1980s trying to demand that theaters not show this movie or that, which amounts to silencing their opinions, or even movies connected to one person or another.

Boycotting a movie is a bit different than boycotting every movie a particular actor or director has or ever will ever make in an effort to render them unemployable.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Been there, seen that, and it's not a new thing.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

Which, again, is hardly in any way a new thing. I remember plenty of conservative-leaning boycotts in the 1980s trying to demand that theaters not show this movie or that, which amounts to silencing their opinions, or even movies connected to one person or another.

"Cancel Culture" is a bit more extreme than just boycotting something. There is a difference from saying "We object to this and will not see it", and "Absolutely nobody should ever see this movie, or any other made by XXXX".

And the extreme examples are not by Conservatives. Enders Game in particular (or anything by Orson Scott Card), and as you have seen Michael Crichton are hot topics with Liberals not because of any of the content they created, but the opinions of the authors on various subjects.

And of course it can not go unsaid that the entire Music Censorship push of the 1980's was by none other than Al Gore.

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

And of course it can not go unsaid that the entire Music Censorship push of the 1980's was by none other than Al Gore.

And he, along with Tipper, were positively owned by Frank Zappa!

See:

Frank Zappa at PMRC Senate Hearing on Rock Lyrics [Youtube]

Frank Zappa debates Tipper Gore, summer 1987 [Youtube]

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OceijOEVqU
I'm thinking Dean Snider did a better job of it. Zappa took pains to dress up. Snider wore his normal fair with no attempt to conform as did Zappa.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Remus2

I'm thinking Dean Snider did a better job of it. Zappa took pains to dress up. Snider wore his normal fair with no attempt to conform as did Zappa.

That's how Zappa often dressed in public when not performing. See, for example, his pic in Rolling Stone in this article: Q&A: Frank Zappa [Rolling Stone]

He was also making a statement to the Senators that he was not a 'drug-addled rock musician' (he strongly disapproved of drug use, though was for decriminalization). He also wanted to make the point that he was respecting the Senators.

And it's not as if his concert attire was anything like Dee Snyder and Twisted Sister. See, for example:

Frank Zappa History - The Zappa In New York 40th Anniversary Editions - Chapter XXVI [Blogspot]

compare with:

Twisted Sister, "We're Not Gonna Take It" [Rolling Stone]

Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Quite a lot of the boycott/censorship efforts of the past were oriented around 'we object to this, therefore no one should see it or anything else by XXX'. It wasn't uncommon for protests to involve destroying all records by XXX, for instance, or XXX becoming effectively unemployable.

Yes, absolutely and without question, some of it goes over the top. We all know that. However, most of the whining and kvetching about "cancel culture" seems to be cover for "I have this extremely unpopular opinion, and I should be able to express it with no consequence whatsoever for my popularity and employability, and if there's even the slightest consequence, I'm being 'canceled', oh woe is me."

Free speech does not come with a lack of consequences. No one is required to like you, support you, go to your movies, or anything else, and they have the free speech to implore others to not do those things either.

And, honestly, if enough people think that you're such a horrible human being that you don't deserve whatever recognition you want, that's probably on you, not the 'cancel culture' mob. A ton of people have come out whining about being 'canceled'; the great majority of them are still working and in highly visible roles, because not nearly enough people could get riled up for long enough for it to matter.

Books have been banned for decades - and often it's the author, not just the book. Boycotts have existed for a hundred years (by that name), and often it's an entire business or anything connected with an individual.

I have yet to see a viable 'response' to cancel culture. Are we to ban the free speech of those who decry someone whose opinions they don't support? Or say that 'free speech' doesn't include calls for boycott, firing, censure, what have you?

Yes, it's a mighty weapon, but boycotts and such combined with mass media have always been a mighty weapon. The explosion of easy access to media was always going to have consequences.

As I said above, the limiting factor is that people are, in general, really bad at maintaining sufficient levels of 'cancelization' for more than a very brief time before they're distracted by the next dumpster fire to come along. The 'music censorship' push amounted to absolutely nothing. Woody Allen, cause celebre of much 'cancel culture', is still working, still making movies, and his once-canceled book found a publisher. He's still getting good reviews, too. The list goes on and on; James Gunn was canceled, but within months was not only uncanceled but helming two franchises, Gina Carano almost certainly gained far more recognition than she lost, and on and on. Mel Gibson has been on both right-leaning and left-leaning cancel lists since the late 1980s and has barely slowed down.

I continue to find 95% of the outcry some variant of 'woe is me, I said/did something people don't like and they're reacting to it in ways I don't like, so they must be stopped! For the good of my free speech, something must be done about their free speech!' The remaining 5%, where the reporting is wrong and they never said/did what they did in the first place, is a much more serious problem - but the problem isn't 'cancel culture', it's the vast volume of bad information in our media and the inability of people to cope with bad information (which, increasingly, is provably an innate human trait; we as a species are really bad at dealing with corrections to misinformation).

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

Boycotts

Boys sleep on boy cotts. Do girls sleep on girl cotts? In the spring we can eat april cotts. I cott you with some puns.

Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

@awnlee jawking

that's an unfortunate typo in the heading

fixed

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

fixed

Thanks.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

I don't get into trouble with my Italian readers

You wouldn't. They're like Irish, and not whiny little bitches.

I grew up near Clinton, Indiana, home of the Little Italy Festival. At least three-fourths of the town was of Italian descent, with a HUGE connection to the Chicago mob. Most of the older homes in town had sub-sub-basements, with tunnels connecting them to the OTHER houses in town.

The following were first told me by someone named Gianelli. How do you know when an Italian tire goes flat? Dago wop, wop, wop.

How do you keep an Italian from talking? Cut off his hands.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

You cannot read the minds of the collective cancel culture. They could up and decide helicopters were racist tomorrow. Besides, I think they blend in Italians into the "whiteness" stereotype. So I doubt there would be any cancelation based on "wop, wop, wop."

Replies:   Radagast
Radagast ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

A) First, they have to have a mind to read. For the last 30 years mass psychosis has been promoted to replace rational thinking. The % of the American public that are medicated is frightening.
B) Cancel culture is a means of psychological crowd control, like Orwell's 2 minutes of hate. It targets wrong think against the current ruling class goals and gives the plebs an approved target to vent their venom at. If it is desirable to declare someone racist then wop wop wop will be good enough. If a person is a useful pawn then nothing they have said or done will see them fired or deplatformed.

samsonjas ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

So now I have to go google this slang. It's not an international term.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@samsonjas

It's a US thing, a pejorative term from way back for Italian immigrants.

Vincent Berg ๐Ÿšซ

@samsonjas

So now I have to go google this slang. It's not an international term.

As usual, country has their own distinctive historical foes (our just change a bit more rapidly than most). When I discovered my roommate in college was a Swede, I had to resurrect all the old Swedish jokes my grandmother teasingly told us. I've never uttered a Swedish joke before or since, but it certainly wiled him up, and he had several Norwegian jokes under his best for a few rapid-fire retorts too. Most times, if it's not personal, you can get away with it, but nowadays, you can seemingly be as blatantly offensive as you want, only to wave your hands when the police arrive and say 'Hey, can't you take a joke?'.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

I think what I find most amazing is that the stereotypes that a great many of those who support that have. They are extremely bigoted, but do not even realize it.

Me, I laugh when some have already prejudged me, and in reality they do not know me at all. "Typical privileged white Republican male" is something I have thrown at me often when I do not agree with them, and I just laugh.

Of course, most would also scream that what I write in here is sexist and exploitive and I should be sent in for re-education. I honestly think that most of them simply have miserable lives, and they want to spread their misery to as many other people as they can.

Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

This is more about language than strict 'cancel culture', but it's interesting. The Atlantic, hardly a right-leaning publication (if anything, the opposite) ran a piece today mocking a great deal of politically correct speech, including retroactive looks at the ineffectiveness of prior attempts at politically correct modifications.

Sure, it's an opinion piece, but it's another sign that we may have hit 'peak cancel' / 'peak PC'. We'll see. I think a fair number of people are realizing that the language police and other such things are generally ineffective. For every term that is irredeemably offensive, there are dozens that hardly matter and where the cure may be worse than the disease.

Part of this entire issue is that 'politically correct' and 'cancel culture' are just too broad. Boycotts are now routinely derided as 'cancel culture'; if so, it means that cancel culture is over 100 years old. For every overbroad, ridiculous attempt at 'canceling' someone (which almost never works), there's a person who's legitimately awful and deserves to not fly under the radar to their next awful gig.

Replies:   JoeBobMack
JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

People who are participate on Twitter pay too much attention to Twitter. Cancel culture without social media - Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. - is not as big a problem. On social media, the hordes of the righteously angry (whether the righteousness of religion, of anti-racism, of LGBTQIA+, or whatever) can rampage based on little knowledge (like never reading a book or not knowing a person's stance or not seeing the whole interview) and less perspective.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

Cancel culture without social media - Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. - is not as big a problem.

And it is nothing new.

GO back a few decades, and you had BADD (Bothered about Dungeons and Dragons) screaming to any who would listen that it was bad and evil. Al and Tipper Gore screaming that the evils of "Rock Music" was destroying our youth. And Anita Bryant going on speeches that a TV show should be cancelled and holding lectures about the evils of homosexuality.

But even then, most largely shrugged unless it was something they themselves believed in so it reinforced their own beliefs. I think all were in the minority, and mostly forgotten. If those they were doing so today, you would have large social media followings pushing their messages to the masses. Instead of like then, where most simply shrugged at them and largely did not care.

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Everyone knows what BS is. MS is more of the same and PhD is piled higher and deeper.

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

I didn't mean to start a war when I mentioned "listen to the science." But I wasn't even talking about climate change. I was talking about Covid-19. People bashed everything Trump said (which often was valid) with the "listen to the science."

However, the "science" was changing daily. Don't wear a mask; wear a mask. The sun kills it; nope, we changed our mind. The virus stays alive on different materials for different amounts of time; one day no one mentioned that again so I guess they realized they were wrong. And so on.

And then there was the bashing of governors like mine for not doing complete lockdowns so our economy didn't crumble. The lives vs livelihood discussion. The scientists wore blinders. They weren't economists.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

I didn't mean to start a war when I mentioned "listen to the science."

You didn't start the war. As Helmut mentions a little later on, and my reply, this has been going on for a LONG time. In more modern times, anyone who ever read anything from Roy Spencer regarding 'man-made climate change' knows how they're using it to push a political agenda. Same thing with the Covid-19. If Trump said it - regardless of what he said - it had to be bad, because he couldn't have any political victories.

There's a reason a lot of us made the comment that Trump said that breathing air was good for you. We were sort of hoping the idiots and morons would quit breathing. (Still sort of hoping for that, actually.)

Due to her job, my wife got some info that wasn't public. Covid really COULD be a scary thing, but only if you caught it. And for most of the nation - if you were reasonably healthy and didn't have underlying conditions - you didn't have to actually do a damn thing, because you weren't going to get it. It's all about acceptable risk. (Note that due to my own medical history, I DO have underlying conditions, but I also didn't live in fear.)

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl

if you were reasonably healthy and didn't have underlying conditions - you didn't have to actually do a damn thing, because you weren't going to get it

That's not the case in my state. In fact, our numbers of new cases are going up again (but not hospital numbers). They assume it's because of the Fourth of July holiday. 100% of the people getting sick haven't been vaccinated. The majority of them are younger people in good health because the older people got vaccinated.

Pfizer said that, because of the Delta variant, fully vaccinated people need a 3rd shot, a booster shot, after 6โ€“12 months after the 2nd shot. The CDC and FDA both said no, that people with two shots are not in danger. I assume the Pfizer people are scientists. Why isn't the CDC and FDA listening to the scientists who know more about the product than anyone?

helmut_meukel ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Pfizer said that, because of the Delta variant, fully vaccinated people need a 3rd shot, a booster shot, after 6โ€“12 months after the 2nd shot. The CDC and FDA both said no, that people with two shots are not in danger. I assume the Pfizer people are scientists. Why isn't the CDC and FDA listening to the scientists who know more about the product than anyone?

Because they may be biased.
* If someone who had the two shots catches Covid again โ€“ highly improbable but not impossible โ€“ they had covered their corporate asses by saying you need a third shot.
* a third shot will increase their profits, consequently they might finally argue for booster shots every 5 years.

HM.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

* If someone who had the two shots catches Covid again โ€“ highly improbable but not impossible

In a recent outbreak of the Indian variant in Bolton,5 out of 49 people hospitalised had been double-jabbed. Admittedly, many of those received the AZ vaccine but 'official' figures claim to show that both the AZ and Pfizer vaccines reduce hospitalisations by over 90%

So while it's actually quite likely someone double-jabbed can catch the virus again, the effects are usually very mild or asymptomatic.

AJ

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

So while it's actually quite likely someone double-jabbed can catch the virus again, the effects are usually very mild or asymptomatic.

The correct claim for the jabs is that they are extremely effective at preventing hospitalization and death, and very effective at preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. That's what they are designed to do.

The general public equates 'vaccine' with 'you can never get the disease', which is why they freak out about 'breakthrough' cases. I don't know of any vaccine which is 100% effective in all individuals, but if you vaccinate enough individuals, you wipe out transmission vectors (cf smallpox, which was eradicated with a vaccine that was about 95% effective).

Three doses of the 'inactivated' version of the polio vaccine (injected intramuscularly) is >99% effective, not 100% effective. Four doses are recommended.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

a third shot will increase their profits, consequently they might finally argue for booster shots every 5 years.

If you are going to go there, annual, like flu shots.

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

If someone who had the two shots catches Covid again โ€“ highly improbable but not impossible

Not improbable. Israel is leading the way on vaccinations and they're finding the 90+% effectiveness after two shots drops to the 60s% with the Delta variant. The cases are mild or at least don't require hospitalization, but fully vaccinated people are getting Covid.

Of course government agencies are typically reactive. When fully vaccinated people here start getting sick they will change their mind and then there will be a rush on getting the booster. I'm afraid some of their decisions are also political. Biden had a one-shot goal that wasn't met. Stupid goal since one shot doesn't protect you. But that's where he's putting his resources. Trying to get more people vaccinated. That's a great thing. But maybe he doesn't want to scare those people off by now saying the vaccine isn't as good as touted.

I guess Pfizer's motive could be selling more. But they didn't take any money from the government to develop theirs. And the worldwide demand probably exceeds their production capabilities. As to boosters, people have always said we might get one as part of the flu shot every year.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Biden had a one-shot goal that wasn't met. Stupid goal since one shot doesn't protect you.

I believe a one-shot vaccine is on its way, but I haven't heard of it being approved yet.

Allegedly the Pfizer vaccine is best for antibodies but the AZ vaccine is best for t-cells. Recent research suggests that a mix-and-match approach is more effective, so someone double-jabbed with Pfizer should be better off with an AZ booster and vice versa.

AJ

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

I believe a one-shot vaccine is on its way,

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is a single shot. I think it is still approved in the U.S. even though some young women died after taking it.

But when I said "one shot" I meant the "first shot" of Pfizer or Moderna. The goal should have been "fully" vaccinated. People die when catching Covid after only having the first shot.

Replies:   awnlee_jawking
awnlee_jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

But when I said "one shot" I meant the "first shot" of Pfizer or Moderna

Oops. Thank you for the clarification.

AJ

Paladin_HGWT ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

All Proles Must Have Their Daily Dose of Soma!

Uh... it will be required that to have a job, or go out in public, all Subjects must have a (Profits) Boosting "JAB" every six months... six weeks... six days...

Congrescritters "need" bribes, er, "Contributions"... (from the pharmaceutical corporations)

Trusssst in Meee sings the Snake.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

In fact, our numbers of new cases are going up again (but not hospital numbers).

It was JUST released that here in Oklahoma, we were having an increase in the Delta variant, and they were going - hey, only 40% of the people in Oklahoma have been jabbed at all.

There's just one problem. Delta variant makes you sick, but not much else that anyone's found.

And that was, again, THREE MONTHS AGO that they knew about this, and JUST released it this weekend. They knew people in Oklahoma were going to tell them to fuck off anyway. The whole live in fear of something that interferes with you actually taking care of yourself, and ended up MAYBE causing a 10% increase in monthly deaths isn't our style. The reason I say maybe is because of all the lockdowns, how many people died that otherwise would have seen a doctor for that condition they had and died from it. I needed elbow surgery, and it was delayed for 9 months. No, it's not life threatening, but during that 9 month period, the nerve damage increased so much that while I have mobility, I have no feeling in half of my left hand, and can't actually type with my little finger anymore because while there's no feeling in the hand itself, there's a LOT of feeling in the fingertip - like serious stabbing pain any time I use it.

I've been double jabbed, but (a) I have underlying conditions and (b) wife is Director of Nursing at an assisted living, and everyone there has been exposed.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

Delta variant makes you sick, but not much else that anyone's found

I don't believe that's true for people who are not fully vaccinated.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

There seems to be little difference between Delta and the original strain in terms of lethality (around 1% with current hospital protocols). It's hard to tell - it may be slightly higher or slightly lower.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

There seems to be little difference between Delta and the original strain in terms of lethality

The Delta variant spreads more easily. That's why it's the dominant strain in most places.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Right - but once you get it, no one is quite sure if it's more or less lethal. It seems to be about the same.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

Right - but once you get it, no one is quite sure if it's more or less lethal. It seems to be about the same.

That I don't know. The only thing I know is it's more contagious and the Pfizer vaccine is less effective in preventing you from getting it.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

While Pfizer is 'less effective', it's currently 96% effective against hospitalization from Delta and 88% effective against symptomatic infection, well above the levels needed to be an effective barrier against community transmission (if people would just take the damn vaccines already).

I'm sensitive to this because 1) I got Pfizer, and 2) I'm in a community where infections are rapidly growing again. That said, we're nowhere even vaguely close to the peaks of times gone by, and if the vaccination rate doesn't get any WORSE, we're likely to effectively stop community transmission within this calendar year.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

if the vaccination rate doesn't get any WORSE

I saw a doctor on the news during lunch today say that unvaccinated people are putting children at risk. Children under 12 cannot get the vaccine so they have no protection against those spreading it (the unvaccinated).

The news segment said that children aren't as a high risk of getting it severely or dying from it, but 30% of them are long haulers with effects like neuro damage.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

I saw a doctor on the news during lunch today say that unvaccinated people are putting children at risk. Children under 12 cannot get the vaccine so they have no protection against those spreading it (the unvaccinated)

.

The politization of the subject makes it impossible for me to trust any information like that.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

This might be interesting to those arguing for "listen to the science" or "scientists...."

https://reason.com/2021/07/09/how-much-scientific-research-is-actually-fraudulent/

helmut_meukel ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

in today's cancel culture world

Cancel culture isn't new.
Alfred Wegener (1 November 1880 โ€“ November 1930) was a victim of cancel culture.

but today he is most remembered as the originator of continental drift hypothesis by suggesting in 1912 that the continents are slowly drifting around the Earth (German: Kontinentalverschiebung). His hypothesis was controversial and widely rejected by mainstream geology until the 1950s, when numerous discoveries such as palaeomagnetism provided strong support for continental drift, and thereby a substantial basis for today's model of plate tectonics.

HM.

Replies:   StarFleetCarl  Mushroom
StarFleetCarl ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

Cancel culture isn't new.

Galileo ...

Replies:   Mushroom  nalk
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleetCarl

Galileo ...

Not quite.

Remember, the fact that the sun was the center of the solar system was not new at all. In fact, he largely based his works on those of 2 monks.

What he got in trouble for was basically going "The Church is wrong about this, what else are they wrong about!" Not his saying they were wrong, but what he said that implied about everything they were saying being lies and wrong.

Heck, many had known that for over 1,800 years. Just as most who were really intellectual knew the Earth was round long before Columbus took his journey. The difference is that they did not take that and try to use it to make indirect attacks on the church.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

What he got in trouble for was basically going "The Church is wrong about this, what else are they wrong about!" Not his saying they were wrong, but what he said that implied about everything they were saying being lies and wrong.

From what I've read it's more complicated than even that.

The whole mess started with complaints brought to the church by other early scientists who supported the geocentric view.

From what I've read, initially, the Pope at the time actually supported Galileo until in correspondence Galileo insulted the pope personally.

Replies:   Mushroom  DBActive
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

From what I've read it's more complicated than even that.

The whole mess started with complaints brought to the church by other early scientists who supported the geocentric view.

From what I've read, initially, the Pope at the time actually supported Galileo until in correspondence Galileo insulted the pope personally.

Which ultimately boils down to the arguments of the era that the church was infallible, and the Divine Right of Kings.

The scholars bring it up was not a huge deal, as many concepts were still centuries away. Heck, at that time the most commonly accepted belief in procreation involved a homonucleus (tiny human) was inside the sperm, but only sometimes would be able to survive in the female.

You even had a reductio ad absurdum argument that those homonucleus even had other homonucleus inside of them. Therefore each person born already had little people living inside of them.

And the insult to Pope Urban were slightly true, but not intended to be so. While writing his previous book " Dialogue on the Tides", the Inquisition objected to the concept that some other body was powerful enough to affect the Earth. So even though what he had written was almost completely in keeping with the Tychonic system, he was forced to rename it to "Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea".

But when he next wrote "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", he included passages that were critical of the Inquisition, and how they were wrongly injecting themselves into his work. Not blaming any one person, but the system in place. A system that the Pope was in charge of.

Most of his problems would have been a lot better if he was simply a better statesman. Work within the system, instead of trying to bash it in constantly with a hammer. The objections were far more to do with the tone than the content itself.

DBActive ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Galileo didn't insult the pope in correspondence: he published a book in which a person of the same name as the pope was portrayed as an idiot.
Technically, his offense was not that he claimed the heliocentric idea was correct, but that he claimed it was fact based upon mathematical calculation rather than observation. If he had said "this is the basis of my belief" he would have not faced any problem.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@DBActive

Galileo didn't insult the pope in correspondence: he published a book in which a person of the same name as the pope was portrayed as an idiot.

Okay, from the Pope's perspective, that's probably even worse.

nalk ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleetCarl

Sokrates.

Replies:   nalk
nalk ๐Ÿšซ

@nalk

Jesus... :)

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

Alfred Wegener (1 November 1880 โ€“ November 1930) was a victim of cancel culture.

Yes, things like that have been happening for a long time. Mostly when a new theory is radically different than a previous one.

But it must also be remembered that for every one of those later shown to be right, there are 10,000 that were wrong all along.

My wife's uncle was actually one of those who helped prove the theories were more than theory by studying fossils of all things. He was a well respected paleontologist, and started to study into fossils to try and prove or disprove the theory. And he discovered turtle fossils in South America and Africa. Classified as 2 different species (as they were on different continents), but were in fact the same species.

Which helped prove that Africa and South America were indeed part of a single land mass at one time.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

Let's take a look at who are the climate scientists the AGW crowd quote so often. First, a link with a bit of history.

https://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm#N_46_

From that we can determine that there were no climatologists in the 60's, nor likely the 70's. Sometime after the 70's the degree in climatology slipped in. Prior to that, it was someone with one or more elements involved stirring the shit. Those elements are oceanography, geology, meteorology, heliophysics, and some scattered others. These days, it all falls under climatology. Follow the smell.

https://history.aip.org/climate/climogy.htm

The predecessors of climatology were more statisticians than scientists.

Somewhere, sometime, someone had to be the first person to stir the shit. The previous two links show some likely suspects for that.

Boiling the bullshit away, all that tells me that the community of "climatologist" is by default a very small one. There has been insufficient time to fully develope programs for PhD in climatology. Especially given the broad background required to tie it all together. 97% of 1,000 climatologist is to my mind, not a sufficient sample to base a "consensus" on. Especially when that consensus is being used to shut down large swathes of the world's economy.

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Especially given the broad background required to tie it all together.

This. I don't believe anyone anymore when it concerns climate change, either those who agree or disagree about the human influence on it. They just don't have enough data and knowledge to prove anything. I'm not worried specifically about CO2 levels, I'm more worried about overall pollution which I suspect does have some influence on the climate, how much is anyones guess.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

There is this wonderful process called photosynthesis that can take care of the co2. Unfortunately, the largest area on land that has or had enough trees is South America. In which large swathes of trees are removed daily.
Then there are the open oceans in which huge gyres are covered with floating trash, which no sane person would consider as good for the environment or for sea algae photosynthesis.

I'd be much more inclined to believe there was a serious problem if the jackasses in charge were doing more to correct those two obvious problems.
It's hard to take them seriously when they blow right past those two problems.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

The idea of cancelling either liberal or conservative opinions is repulsive to me. I personally would rather a person be forthright with their opinions. Trying to guess what kind of person they are is an exercise in futility.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

The idea of cancelling either liberal or conservative opinions is repulsive to me.

It's more than canceling their opinion. They destroy the person. If they have a large enough social media presence they are dangerous.

When Bill Cosby was released from prison because the DA did something unethical to get him convicted, there was a storm of negative tweets. The one person who had a warm tweet for Cosby was the actress who played his wife on the "Cosby Show," Phylicia Rashad. Not only did she get blasted for her tweet, but they tried to have her fired from her new job as Dean at Howard University. She ended up apologizing to the students and parents of the university.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

She did praise a rapist. Let's be clear - Cosby was not released because he was exonerated. He was released because the new DA did not honor an a prior DA's agreement not to prosecute (and to be clear, I support the appeals court decision as this protects all the people that do not have Cosby's means).

Replies:   Dominions Son  Mushroom  joyR
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

She did praise a rapist. Let's be clear - Cosby was not released because he was exonerated.

He hasn't validly been convicted either. Presumption of innocence and all that.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

When 5 dozen women have the same story, I tend to believe the accusers.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Mushroom
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

When 5 dozen women have the same story, I tend to believe the accusers.

What you do or do not believe about such accusations is irrelevant to the requirements for a criminal conviction under the US Constitution.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

When 5 dozen women have the same story, I tend to believe the accusers.

Does not matter. It is the right of anybody to say what they think, and the right of nobody to persecute them for having voiced their thoughts.

Unless somebody does not actually believe in "Freedom of Speech", and that somebody who speaks against what another believes should be persecuted for doing so. That is exactly the kind of thing that George Orwell was warning us all about over 70 years ago.

Heck, why do you think so many in here try hard to keep their anonymity? Imagine what would happen to a lot of authors here if what we wrote became publicly connected to ourselves.

I actually write rather innocuous stories compared to most. But if cherrypicked, some could accuse me of endorsing rape, the false narrative that I believe that a raped woman would actually enjoy it, in addition to incest, adults having sex with minors, and other things.

Even though none of those are really true, I was just telling a story, and any such accusations would actually be grossly out of context. But that does not matter to "cancel culture".

And what about things like if he had completed his sentence? Should somebody be persecuted for life afterwards? Be shunned forever? Of course, I also recognize that Bill Cosby had long been a target of "cancel culture" even before those accusations came to light.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

I think you miss the point, I agree that the state's right to punish you should be limited, but do you truly believe anyone can act however they want and suffer no social consequences? If you publicly support a rapist, expect to feel some consequences from your audience.

Replies:   Mushroom  Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

I think you miss the point, I agree that the state's right to punish you should be limited, but do you truly believe anyone can act however they want and suffer no social consequences? If you publicly support a rapist, expect to feel some consequences from your audience.

Why?

Tell me, should somebody who supports a murderer be treated the same way? If so, better start shunning all those that wear Che shirts, because that bastard made Charlie Manson look like a piker.

What about those who strip away human rights and freedoms? If so, where is the shunning of people that laud nations like North Korea and Venezuela?

No, what you support is little more than shunning, and feel that anybody that does not shun an individual should themselves be shunned. Cancel Culture at its finest.

And this is why I barely pay attention to most of what you keep saying. It is so obviously politically biased, that I know that is all you really ever care about. And you will try to justify anything, no matter what it is.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

I think you miss the point, I agree that the state's right to punish you should be limited, but do you truly believe anyone can act however they want and suffer no social consequences? If you publicly support a rapist, expect to feel some consequences from your audience.

Why?

Tell me, should somebody who supports a murderer be treated the same way? If so, better start shunning all those that wear Che shirts, because that bastard made Charlie Manson look like a piker.

What about those who strip away human rights and freedoms? If so, where is the shunning of people that laud nations like North Korea and Venezuela?

No, what you support is little more than shunning, and feel that anybody that does not shun an individual should themselves be shunned. Cancel Culture at its finest.

And this is why I barely pay attention to most of what you keep saying. It is so obviously politically biased, that I know that is all you really ever care about. And you will try to justify anything, no matter what it is.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

She did praise a rapist. Let's be clear - Cosby was not released because he was exonerated.

And how many have praised murders and torturers', and others?

And once again, it is always largely seen along political lines. Myself, I really do not care all that much, no matter what. I happen to believe that everybody is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, and such should be respected even if not accepted.

But there is something I find disturbing when others demand somebody be "silenced and removed" just because another does not agree.

And I find anybody that believes otherwise to be reprehensible. It is a disease that only recently has been affecting the US, and I find it distasteful

Either you believe in everybody having a right to say what they want, or you are full of shit. It is as simple as that.

What next, bring back the old traditions of "outlaw", and anybody who gives Mr. Cosby food or shelter can themselves be arrested?

Replies:   joyR  hst666
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

What next, bring back the old traditions of "outlaw", and anybody who gives Mr. Cosby food or shelter can themselves be arrested?

Not exactly. However it is extremely unlikely that nobody who employed him, worked with him or around him were oblivious to his actions. By failing to report their knowledge and or suspicions they actually aided or abetted him. THEY should be prosecuted.

The same applies to anyone, but like with the UK entertainment people who have been found guilty, going after those who 'enabled' them is a very public warning to everyone else that pretending ignorance isn't acceptable.

The same should apply to politicians and anyone else in government. THAT would be a welcome and refreshing change. University admission bribes aren't even scratching the surface of the cesspool.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Mushroom
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@joyR

However it is extremely unlikely that nobody who employed him, worked with him or around him were oblivious to his actions. By failing to report their knowledge and or suspicions they actually aided or abetted him. THEY should be prosecuted.

Failure to report is not a valid basis for an aiding/abetting conviction under US law. There is no legal obligation to report crimes.

You would need evidence of positive assistance to Cosby's criminal acts or explicit acts beyond mere silence in furtherance of covering them up.

ETA: And making failure to report a viable criminal charge in it's own right is somewhere you don't want to go. Because then they could prosecute rape victims who choose not to report it.

Replies:   joyR  joyR  hst666
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

There wasn't enough evidence to convict Cosby absent a confession. Do you really think they could make a case against anyone else for aiding/abetting?

First:

Cosby has been the subject of highly publicized accusations of rape, drug-facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, child sexual abuse, and sexual misconduct, the earliest of which were said by his accusers to have taken place in the mid-1960s. In October 2014, a part of comedian Hannibal Buress's comedy routine that described sexual misbehavior by Cosby went viral, resulting in more women coming forward to state that they were assaulted by Cosby. The dates of the alleged incidents span from 1965 to 2008 across ten U.S. states and one Canadian province.

Second:

Most of the allegations fall outside of the statutes of limitations for criminal prosecution, except for Andrea Constand's allegations.

So, he has been committing these crimes for more than fifty years. A comedian in 2014 described Cosby's actions, those actions were no surprise to those in the industry, his proclivities were well known.

So yes, I do believe those who knew and said nothing are themselves guilty of aiding and abetting.

Ask the parent of a rape victim if those who knew the rapist was 'active' yet did nothing should be prosecutedโ€ฆ

However, the legal system isn't designed or run to give universal justice, so it is unsurprising that it consistently fails to administer justice.

There was a time when books and film glorified the lawyer who fought for the innocent and gained them justice. How far we have fallen is made plain by the plethora of books, TV and films glorifying the lawyer who uses the system to get his guilty client set free.

If you are guilty, a fair trial should get you a fair sentence. A fair trial has nothing to do with the guilty getting off on a technicality.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

If you are guilty, a fair trial should get you a fair sentence. A fair trial has nothing to do with the guilty getting off on a technicality.

Actually, it has a lot to do with "the guilty" getting off on "a technicality." At least for how the American Justice system was designed.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Actually, it has a lot to do with "the guilty" getting off on "a technicality." At least for how the American Justice system was designed.

It was designed to be the shit-show it currently is?? Why??

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

If you are guilty, a fair trial should get you a fair sentence.

The primary purpose of a trial is to determine guilt, not to set the sentence.

If you have already decided that the defendant is guilty, that is not a fair trial.

JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

However, the legal system isn't designed or run to give universal justice, so it is unsurprising that it consistently fails to administer justice.

Prosecutors have tremendous amounts of virtually unfettered power in our system. They are almost never held to account for pursuing unfounded charges, hiding exculpatory evidence, continuing to uphold indefensible charges (tons of examples, including the day-care sex abuse scandals of the late 80s and 90s up to and including Kamala Harris' actions as attorney general for California). One of the few restraints that actually get applied is forcing a dismissal when the state fails to follow the rules. I'm not sure what books and films you are arguing, but criminal defense attorneys generally understand their role as making the state (a) play by the rules and (b) prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, they do not just represent their client, but every citizen who may be, rightly or wrongly, brought before a criminal court.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@JoeBobMack

So you are entirely happy with the US justice system and believe it has an exemplary record of providing justice to all, without exception?

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

No, but making failure to report a crime, a crime in it's own right for all people would be a step in the wrong direction.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

No, but making failure to report a crime, a crime in it's own right for all people would be a step in the wrong direction.

Exactly. And in most cases, it is only really applicable if it is reported to specific people where their reporting is to prevent a future crime.

If an individual reports to a minister that they had killed somebody, that is considered to be confidential and they can not be forced to reveal that in a trial. Hence, much of the speculation as to what OJ Simpson told to Rosey Grier. There was a lot of speculation that he confessed to his friend, but he could not be compelled as he had been an ordained minister since 1983.

However, if OJ had told him he was going to kill his wife before it happened, then he would have been required by law to inform the authorities.

And legally, somebody hearing of a "crime" like this is largely inadmissible in a criminal trial in the first place. It falls in the area of "hearsay" as they themselves have no actual knowledge of the crime itself.

JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

joyR, where in the world did you get that from my post??? I clearly indicated that prosecutorial abuse is a problem. Dirty cops planting evidence is a problem of some size, though I have no handle on how big that problems is. Social hysteria prosecutions such as the day-care sex abuse mass prosecutions of the late 80s and early 90s are a problem. The rich and socially connected getting a pass on prosecution while the less powerful get hammered (unless, of course, they were torching public buildings or looting during the "mostly peaceful" riots of last summer) is a problem. There are lots of problems.

But, as Winston Churchill said about democracy, the US system, and the similar systems of other western democracies, may be the worst, except for all the others. To see how bad it could be, just look at some of the bizarre results that higher-education Title IX officials achieved in adjudicating sexual assault claims under the Obama administrations "Dear Colleagues" guidance.

I don't mind being challenged on what I say, but being challenged on a "So you are saying..." basis reminds me of Cathy Newman's bizarre interview of Jordan Peterson.

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

If you are guilty, a fair trial should get you a fair sentence. A fair trial has nothing to do with the guilty getting off on a technicality.

And what happens if you're not guilty?

I saw on the CBS Sunday news show a story about two men who have been in prison for decades for crimes they didn't commit. Both are in Missouri and the DAs have requested they be let out of prison. If I heard it right, one of the real killers served his time and is out of prison, but the man falsely found guilty of that crime is serving life without parole.

The thing is, there's a Missouri law that prevents the men from getting out even though they are innocent and the DA requests it. It's a technicality, but they're still in prison.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

And what happens if you're not guilty?

Then there is no sentence..!! It ain't rocket science..!!

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Then there is no sentence..!! It ain't rocket science..!!

Tell that to the two guys rotting in prison.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Tell that to the two guys rotting in prison.

Or to the victims of crimes perpetrated by those awaiting a hearing for their previous crime.

There is a difference between discussing what should happen rather than what actually happens. We can do either, but responding to one with the other is pointless.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Or to the victims of crimes perpetrated by those awaiting a hearing for their previous crime.

Huh? What previous crimes?

joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

You would need evidence of positive assistance to Cosby's criminal acts or explicit acts beyond mere silence in furtherance of covering them up.

Those who knew could have acted. Look at what has happened since, honorary awards revoked, re-runs no longer aired etc.

The point is that those people SHOULD have come forward of their own accord. Going after those who enabled high profile criminals sets a worthwhile example and reminds others of their civil duty.

No, I'm not in favour of a nation of informants who report everyone they know for every slight infringement of the law. Assault, rape etc isn't petty crime. It should be dealt with.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@joyR

Those who knew could have acted.

Morally, Yes. However, there is no legal obligation to act for which they could be prosecuted criminally on their failure to act.

Aiding/abetting requires positive acts either in furtherance of the crime, or in covering it up (helping with disposal of potential physical evicence for example).

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

And their moral failure, is why I have no issue with them facing public criticism over their actions/inactions

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

No, I'm not in favour of a nation of informants who report everyone they know for every slight infringement of the law. Assault, rape etc isn't petty crime. It should be dealt with.

Again, making failure to report a crime would result in victims who fail to report being prosecuted. I don't think you want to go there.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Again, making failure to report a crime would result in victims who fail to report being prosecuted. I don't think you want to go there.

No, it wouldn't. Prosecutors could choose NOT to prosecute victims, just as one chose not to prosecute Cosby. As for you not thinking, I actually stated what I thought so you shouldn't be in any doubt.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Dominions Son

Yes. And if your argument is he should not be punished by the state for his crimes, that's fine. In a court of law, he should have the presumption of innocence. That does not mean it's not clear that he did the crime. There's as much or more evidence in Cosby's case than there was in OJ's. However, for good reasons, some of the best evidence had to be excluded.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Not exactly. However it is extremely unlikely that nobody who employed him, worked with him or around him were oblivious to his actions. By failing to report their knowledge and or suspicions they actually aided or abetted him. THEY should be prosecuted.

No, they should not. There are only a few cases where "reporting" becomes mandatory. And that generally involves the first had knowledge of a specific crime, and the profession of the individual reporting it.

And guess what, that's show business. That is how that industry was run for over 100 years, and every year hundreds of women took part in it knowingly, believing it was a way to get rich and famous. Heck, there was even an early porn movie made in 1924 called "The Casting Couch", which shows that the term was well known even then.

In the ten-minute film, a casting director tells a young actress to wear a swimsuit during an audition, spies on her in a voyeuristic manner while she undresses in a different room, and enters the room to solicit sex from her. The actress initially rebuffs his advances with disgust, but returns to the director after taking advice from a book titled How to Become a Movie Star. She performs fellatio and vaginal intercourse in exchange for a role in his film; the latter takes place on a couch. The Casting Couch concludes with an intertitle that states, "the only way to become a star is to get under a good director and work your way up.

The movie is not hard to find on free streaming sites, so it is not exactly a new concept. Hell, even in that era Charlie Chaplin was infamous for bedding almost every single female he stared in a movie with (including 16 year old Mildred Harris - who he married as law enforcement was starting to get involved and she believed she was pregnant).

So I guess that probably half of show business should be arrested, and all their works prevented from ever being shown again.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Once again, who has been silenced and removed? This phantom fear would be laughable if there weren't so many paranoid old white men out there.

joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

He was released because the new DA did not honor an a prior DA's agreement not to prosecute (and to be clear, I support the appeals court decision as this protects all the people that do not have Cosby's means).

Would those without his means have gained the agreement not to prosecute in the first place?

Also, why should it be acceptable to NOT prosecute a rapist?

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

why should it be acceptable to NOT prosecute a rapist?

It should never be acceptable.

As I understand it, the prosecution only got a confession based on an agreement that should have never been.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

@joyR

why should it be acceptable to NOT prosecute a rapist?


It should never be acceptable.

Really, they should prosecute every person accused of rape even if there is no evidence to support the charge?

Replies:   Remus2  hst666
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Really, they should prosecute every person accused of rape even if there is no evidence to support the charge?

The assumption in the statement was they were rapist sans being prosecuted. Prosecution comes with submittal of evidence. No evidence no prosecution.

hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

There was. The original DA just felt there was not enough and he has been criticized for that decision.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

There was. The original DA just felt there was not enough and he has been criticized for that decision.

If there was enough evidence, why did the later DA feel he had to use the depositions from the civil suit as evidence?

If the later DA had gotten a conviction on the evidence that was before the Original DA without using the civil suit depositions, the conviction wouldn't have been overturned.

That was the basis on which the configuration was overturned.

Cosby waved his 5A right against self incrimination in the civil suit depositions on the basis on the original decision not to prosecute. Then the later DA used the depositions as evidence against Cosby.

The Circuit court determined that they wouldn't have gotten a conviction without the depositions and the use of the depositions was a violation of Cosby's 5A rights.

Replies:   hst666  Switch Blayde  Not_a_ID
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

None of that evidence would have been admissible as it related to a prior victim of Cosby's. It's prejudicial to use evidence of a defendant's other crimes in a criminal case (except at sentencing).

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

None of that evidence would have been admissible as it related to a prior victim of Cosby's.

In which case, the original DAs decision not to prosecute was absolutely correct.

By the way, in my opinion, "evidence" that isn't admissible in court isn't evidence.

Replies:   hst666
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

No. What would have been admissible in one case would not have in the other.

Also, you are being pedantic. There is legal evidence and there is evidence in a broader sense.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

Also, you are being pedantic. There is legal evidence and there is evidence in a broader sense.

If you are talking about the original DA's decision not to prosecute being wrong, legally admissible evidence in that one specific case is the only thing that matters.

And no, they don't have much evidence in the other accusations against him either.

Accusations are not evidence in any sense.

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

None of that evidence would have been admissible as it related to a prior victim of Cosby's. It's prejudicial to use evidence of a defendant's other crimes in a criminal case (except at sentencing).

Not in Illinois. They changed the law to explicitly permit this during trial - including uncharged acts.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

Not in Illinois. They changed the law to explicitly permit this during trial - including uncharged acts.

Cosby was tried in Pennsylvania, not Illinois.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

They changed the law to explicitly permit this during trial - including uncharged acts.

Including contemporaneous uncharged acts in sentencing is one thing. Using prior bad acts or even contemporaneous uncharged bad acts as evidence of guilt is a constitutional violation, even if Illinois law explicitly authorizes it.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Including contemporaneous uncharged acts in sentencing is one thing. Using prior bad acts or even contemporaneous uncharged bad acts as evidence of guilt is a constitutional violation, even if Illinois law explicitly authorizes it.

In sex offenses, this is done and has been upheld in Illinois.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

In sex offenses, this is done and has been upheld in Illinois.

By the Federal courts? Can you cite a specific case on that?

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

By the Federal courts? Can you cite a specific case on that?

I am not sure when that would even apply.

Almost all cases of such occur in state Superior Courts. Federal Courts when involved in sex related cases are normally when the case involves things that pass state borders. Such as kidnapping for sexual exploitation, distributing pornography across state lines (Internet), and things of that nature.

It probably has come up, but it is rather pointless. And such has been proven many times in appellate court decisions, so I have no reason to believe they would be overturned at a Federal Court level.

In addition, you have the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), enacted in 1988. It in itself did not create a "Federal Law" to require such. However, it did mandate that all US states and territories enact such laws. And every state and territory (including DC) has been found to be in compliance with it.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

I am not sure when that would even apply.

The federal circuit courts review constitutional challenges to state law criminal convictions all the time.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

The federal circuit courts review constitutional challenges to state law criminal convictions all the time.

But that is not a "Federal Court", they only rule on completed trials.

But fine, have any examples of where they threw it out for that reason?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

But fine, have any examples of where they threw it out for that reason?

Threw what out? That comment by me wasn't even in reply to you, so I'm not sure you are putting it in the right context, especially since you raisee CAPTA as a driver. Which as far as I can find had no relevant requirement to what I was talking about.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

In addition, you have the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), enacted in 1988. It in itself did not create a "Federal Law" to require such. However, it did mandate that all US states and territories enact such laws. And every state and territory (including DC) has been found to be in compliance with it.

The US Congress does not have the authority to directly mandate that states do anything.

And I very much doubt that CAPTA in particular contains a mandate for states to allow uncharged conduct as proof of guilt of charged conduct.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

The US Congress does not have the authority to directly mandate that states do anything.

Oh nonsense, of course they do!

All driving ages are 16 or over
All drinking ages are 21 or over
All State DL and ID cards must comply with Federal guidelines
And that was just in a few seconds of thought. They do it all the time however. Width and composition of roads, Mandate use of Federal Databases, all kinds of things are mandated all the time upon States by the Federal Government.

And it did it the exact same way other things are done like I listed above. "We are setting up a system, want to get some of the money we use, you follow our requirements".

You know, it really is that simple. Raise drinking ages to 21, or loose money. Raise driving ages to 16, or lose money. Follow our requirements when building roads, or lose money.

Included in it is the requirement to perform drug tests on all newborn babies, mandatory reporting of all abuse against children. Then later expanded to the elderly, then finally just all through mandatory reporting by medical personnel, clergy, and all state and Federal government officials.

And they continue, because the grants continue to this day. Do you think a state is going to pass up "free money", when a program is a good idea?

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

All driving ages are 16 or over

All drinking ages are 21 or over

All State DL and ID cards must comply with Federal guidelines

All predicated on grants/denials of federal funding.

Commanding those things directly would be a violation of the constitution.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt10_2_4_1/

And in any case, absolutely no of the requirements from CAPTA have anything to do with the issue I was talking about.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Do you think a state is going to pass up "free money", when a program is a good idea?

There have been states that passed up the federal money against certain programs.

Several states took the loss of federal highway funds rather than adopt the 55mph "federal" speed limit.

Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands never adopted a 21 drinking age despite the loss of federal highway funds.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Several states took the loss of federal highway funds rather than adopt the 55mph "federal" speed limit.

Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands never adopted a 21 drinking age despite the loss of federal highway funds.

Really? Name one of the states then that did not reduce the speed limit to 55.

And PR and the VI are territories, not states. Therefore things can not be compared equally because of that. Even the Supreme Court has declared many times that Congress has less authority over a territory than a state, as the delegates of such in congress are observers and not actual voting members. The US has sovereignty over them, but they are still largely autonomous

Both are unincorporated territories, along with the others like Guam. Most "Federal Laws" such as the drinking age actually do not apply to them. That is also why after the passage of "ObamaCare", many saw PR as a haven, as being an unincorporated territory, the requirements were nothing like what the States had to do.

They did get a watered down version, without the mandate that people living in states had. Individuals could chose to participate or not, with no penalty if they decided against it. And no penalty against those territories if they did not come into compliance at all.

Interesting. You listed one law that I could not find a single instance where a state decided to not follow it, and then two political entities that do not have to because of their status because they are not state sin the first place.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law#Opposition_and_noncompliance

Despite federal compliance standards mandated by Congress that no more than 50 percent of free-flowing traffic on 55 mph-posted highways exceed 55 mph from 1981 onwards, which required up to a 10 percent reduction in federal highway funding for states in noncompliance,[35] by the 1980s traffic surveys showed the NMSL was widely violated:

Western states began to reduce fines in the 1980s, effectively minimizing the impact of the 55 mph (90 km/h) limit:

Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada replaced traditional speeding fines with $5โ€“$15 energy wasting fines as long as drivers did not exceed the speed limit in effect before the 55 mph (90 km/h) federal requirement.[36]
Nevada's energy wasting fine was enacted on April 15, 1981, when signed by Governor Robert List. Motorists not exceeding 70 mph (110 km/h) in 55 mph (89 km/h) zones could be issued $5 "energy wasting" fines. However, standard speeding tickets were still allowed and "troopers were directed not to take the new law as a signal to stop writing tickets.",[40]
In 1986, North Dakota's fine for speeding up to 15 mph (24 km/h) over the limit was only $15 and had no license points.[41]
South Dakota cut speeding fines in 1985 and stopped assessing points for being 10 mph (16 km/h) or less above the speed limit in 1986.[41]
On August 1, 1986, Minnesota, which normally suspended licenses after three tickets, stopped counting speeding tickets for no more than 65 mph (105 km/h).[41]

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Western states began to reduce fines in the 1980s, effectively minimizing the impact of the 55 mph (90 km/h) limit:

Reducing fines is not the same thing as refusing to adopt it. And as you said, that happened over a decade later. 55 remained the law until 1995 when it was repealed.

And the only reference I could find to it actually being tried, was in 1986 when Nevada posted a 3 mile stretch of a single freeway to 70 MPH. Funds were withheld for one year over that until Nevada removed the signs, and Nevada took the DoT to court. And lost, appealed it and lost again.

So a single instance a decade later and states choosing to not enforce it strictly is not the same at all as "Several states took the loss of federal highway funds rather than adopt the 55mph "federal" speed limit.". A single state did that over a decade later, briefly.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

https://helenair.com/news/local/recent-history-of-highway-speed-limits-in-montana/article_a27bf2e5-ca02-5353-8499-57ac7068a777.html
Montana never bought into the 55 limit. Instead they instituted a stop gap "resource wasting fine" of $5. That is not the same as accepting a fed mandated 55mph limit.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Montana never bought into the 55 limit. Instead they instituted a stop gap "resource wasting fine" of $5. That is not the same as accepting a fed mandated 55mph limit.

Which as I just said, reducing fines is not the same as failure to adopt.

Much as how California decades ago did things like capping the penalty of marijuana possession at $50, and has increased the amount that falls under "Petty Theft" to $1,000.

Failure to strictly enforce a law is not the same as decriminalization.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Which as I just said, reducing fines is not the same as failure to adopt.

Except the law in question had funding reductions for failure to meet a set level of compliance, so in essence they were turning down some level of extra federal funding with deliberately weak enforcement even if they nominally adopted the standard.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

then two political entities that do not have to because of their status because they are not state sin the first place.

The source I found on the territories and the federal drinking age said all three lost federal funding over it.

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

the use of the depositions was a violation of Cosby's 5A rights.

I can't believe the DA wasn't disbarred for that.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

I can't believe the DA wasn't disbarred for that.

1. The federal circuit courts do not have the authority to disbar lawyers.

2. Stat Bar Associations generally won't act on misconduct complaints against prosecutors, not even in far more egregious cases than the Cosby case.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

State Bar Associations generally won't act on misconduct complaints against prosecutors

Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law in NY and I believe D.C. because they say he lied about the election being a fraud. Sounds like what that DA did was a lot worse than that. I guess it's another form of cancer culture. Punish those you don't like.

Replies:   hst666  Dominions Son  Mushroom
hst666 ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

"they say he lied"? Do you have any doubts about that? Or do you just believe he is mentally ill or addled by booze and drugs?

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@hst666

"they say he lied"? Do you have any doubts about that?

That was the reason they took away his ability to practice law. That's what I stated. Something much less offensive than violating someone's constitutional rights. People today cherry-pick who they go after.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law in NY and I believe D.C.

Isn't a prosecutor. Most state bars seem very reluctant to discipline or even entertain complaints against prosecutors.

Discipline against a private lawyer is not at all the same thing.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law in NY and I believe D.C. because they say he lied about the election being a fraud.

He was given a suspension, not disbarred. And that all deals with a case he filed earlier this year when in the motion he stated he was a member in good standing of the DC Bar. Which was untrue, he had not actually been in a courtroom in over 30 years, and had been suspended from the DC Bar administratively for nonpayment of fees. That is what he "lied" about.

I guess that at the end of "My Cousin Vinnie", we should have seen the Joe Pesci character prosecuted for the same thing.

But at 77, I can't really see him working to try and renew his license now that the suspension has been lifted.

But as always and what this very topic is about, this is more political than anything else, and I see lots of people making decisions based entirely on that and not the actual situation itself.

JoeBobMack ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

This is part of the problem. DAs are rarely, very rarely, held personally responsible for their actions. This is true also for many government lawyers. See for example, the harsh words the FISA court had for FBI lawyers in the Carter Page matter.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Dominions Son

Cosby waved his 5A right against self incrimination in the civil suit depositions on the basis on the original decision not to prosecute. Then the later DA used the depositions as evidence against Cosby.

It should also be pointed out that it was not just a decision between Cosby and the DA, the relevant victim also agreed to the waiver.

So as far as the courts were concerned, no testimony from Cosby in that civil case (which only had to conclude "it was likely") could be used in a criminal case against Cosby later. The Victim should have known the stakes at the time, the DA obviously did.

What a later Victim and DA feel about the matter doesn't matter. The law is clear on this, that testimony was never to be used in a criminal prosecution of Cosby.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

It should also be pointed out that it was just a decision between Cosby and the DA, the relevant victim also agreed to the waiver.

As I understand it, it was primarily a deal between the victim and the DA to block Cosby from taking the fifth against questions in his deposition for the civil case. The original DA made a public statement to that effect.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

As I understand it, it was primarily a deal between the victim and the DA to block Cosby from taking the fifth against questions in his deposition for the civil case. The original DA made a public statement to that effect.

Most do not realize that the 5th Amendment is only in full force in a criminal trial. This is because it involved the loss of freedom, therefore an individual has the maximum protections.

But in a civil trial, especially if the individual had been found not guilty, it is much less so. Just look to the OJ Simpson cases to see that. At that point, the risk of a disclosure coming to light and resulting in a future prosecution is much less likely, due to double jeopardy.

And an individual can be forced to testify, even if they refuse to actually answer. This is unlike in a criminal trial, where they can not be forced to testify no matter what.

This is why the deal was struck, because otherwise Bill Cosby would never have said a damned thing during the trial. But removing the risk of criminal prosecution removed this as a risk so the civil trial progressed.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Bill Cosby would never have said a damned thing during the trial.

It wasn't even the trial, just deposition transcripts that were used against him in the criminal case.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Also, why should it be acceptable to NOT prosecute a rapist?

Because there is zero chance of a conviction without a confession?

There was also a civil lawsuit against Cosby.

The deal not to prosecute was so that Cosby wouldn't/couldn't refuse to answer by claiming his 5th amendment rights when deposed for the Civil suit.

Without that, it was highly likely that both the civil suit and the criminal prosecution would have failed.

They only got the criminal conviction that was overturned by using his deposition from the civil suit as evidence against him.

But the deposition only contained the evidence they needed because of the original agreement not to prosecute.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

The deal not to prosecute was so that Cosby wouldn't/couldn't refuse to answer by claiming his 5th amendment rights when deposed for the Civil suit.

Without that, it was highly likely that both the civil suit and the criminal prosecution would have failed.

Which is also a major reason why civil suits almost always follow the criminal trial. The 5th Amendment does not apply anywhere in the same way in a civil suit as it does in a criminal one.

Legally, the Cosby Lawyers could have tied the civil suit up for years, because of his 5th Amendment rights. The prosecutor made the decision to not prosecute not only because the prosecution would have been tricky at best, but because it also allowed the civil suit to progress.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Also, why should it be acceptable to NOT prosecute a rapist?

Also: Define rapist. Given the re-definition games that have been going on over the past 20 years, it needs to asked.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Also: Define rapist. Given the re-definition games that have been going on over the past 20 years, it needs to asked.

The simple, sane and obvious definition is that no means no, ignoring the "no" is rape. If your partner is unconscious, drugged, intoxicated and not able to consent then it is rape.

If an initial "yes" becomes a "no" then you stop. Doing so means you did nothing wrong, ignoring the "no" is rape. Simple.

Oh, and as much as I'd like to see every rapist castrated, I'd also like to see anyone crying wolf or falsely claiming rape severely punished as well.

Neither of these things will happen, but you asked, so I answered.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Not_a_ID
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

The simple, sane and obvious definition is that no means no, ignoring the "no" is rape.

What they are pushing on US University campuses these days is that anything less than an explicit yes for each individual action is rape.

You've mentioned on anther thread blowing guys who are asleep. By this definition, that would be rape.

Replies:   joyR  Mushroom
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

What they are pushing on US University campuses these days is that anything less than an explicit yes for each individual action is rape.

Who are 'they'.?

You've mentioned on anther thread blowing guys who are asleep. By this definition, that would be rape.

Fortunately I and those I chose to be intimate with are adults and act accordingly.

More to the point do you actually believe that two people engaged in sexual activity are actually going to gain consent from each other prior to each touch, move, kiss, lick, caress, etc.???

Consent can be given prior to an act, it can even legally be given for unspecified acts and consent hours, days, or months prior is perfectly legal. The opposite is also true, non consent is legally recognised and often occurs long before the situation arises.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@joyR

Who are 'they'.?

Anti-rape activists on US university/college campuses.

More to the point do you actually believe that two people engaged in sexual activity are actually going to gain consent from each other prior to each touch, move, kiss, lick, caress, etc.???

Do I believe that, no. But there are activists pushing to have university sexual misconduct rules require exactly that. Some of them are even trying to get state rape laws changed to require this.

Consent can be given prior to an act, it can even legally be given for unspecified acts and consent hours, days, or months prior is perfectly legal.

It's legal now. There are people trying to change that.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Do I believe that, no. But there are activists pushing to have university sexual misconduct rules require exactly that. Some of them are even trying to get state rape laws changed to require this.

So why are you using their opinion as if it is the only valid definition?

Are you trying to highlight their stupidity or did you simply cast around to find anything to argue with and went with these activists?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

I'm yanking your chain because of your attitude on the Cosby trial and insistence that anyone who was aware no matter how peripherally ought to be prosecuted (or should that be persecuted?).

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Actually the Cosby trial isn't in anyway important in that regard. Those aware of such crimes should be motivated to report them, doing so would have saved a great deal of pain and suffering by both victims and their families.

It isn't persecution. It is the expectation that people should do what is right. To object to that is despicable.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@joyR

It is the expectation that people should do what is right. To object to that is despicable.

I don't object to that as a moral expectation.

I object to the suggestion that failure to do the right thing in this kind of case ought to be a criminal offense in it's own right. It would be a cure far worse than the disease.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

I object to the suggestion that failure to do the right thing in this kind of case ought to be a criminal offense in it's own right. It would be a cure far worse than the disease.

In that I fully agree. It is literally a page right out of the rulebook of Stalin and Mao. People who make it their life work to inform on others.

And like both of those, if somebody is later accused of a crime, all others being brought in as well, because they knew or might have known something and suffering the same fate.

Now when it comes to knowing of something BEFORE a crime was happened, then I go the other way because their speaking up can prevent the crime from happening. Or in an ongoing crime, like say child abuse. But simply knowing of it after the fact, no.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

Now when it comes to knowing of something BEFORE a crime was happened, then I go the other way because their speaking up can prevent the crime from happening.

No, even then, outside of certain types of professionals (mostly psychiatrists, psychologists, and government employees), criminalizing not getting involved would be terrible.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

No, even then, outside of certain types of professionals (mostly psychiatrists, psychologists, and government employees), criminalizing not getting involved would be terrible.

It is already a law. When those individuals know of a crime that is ongoing, they must report it. In fact, this is a very specific subplot in Grey Wolf's " Variation on a Theme" series. Where the main character and his sister are seeing a shrink, and discuss letting her know some things. But they are aware that as a medical practitioner she is mandated to report things such as sexual or physical abuse.

This has also been used in a great many trials, most especially in cases of abuse. Mothers not reporting that their partner physically, or sexually abuses their children. Siblings not reporting on another for abusing their aged parents, the list goes on and on. And in most instances, this only comes to light sadly after the subject of the abuse is killed.

I can easily separate the difference between an instance, and an ongoing situation where reporting should be mandated for the protection of the victim. But I have also been the victim myself of the reverse.

Having to plead guilty for failure to report child abuse, when my son and daughter got into a fight. My wife and I knew about it, and handled it ourselves. But later on this came up, and I was basically forced to plead guilty (with no punishment) in order to avoid being charged with being an accomplice. That was over-zealous prosecution, and even I was stunned when I challenged the DA if it was required that I call the cops if siblings get into a fight and was told "yes".

That to me was simply a failure of common sense, and the way such are often handled in California (especially against fathers seeking custody).

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Consent can be given prior to an act, it can even legally be given for unspecified acts and consent hours, days, or months prior is perfectly legal.

That's why 'rape' within marriage is fine within some cultures. The marriage vows are considered to be eternal and irrevocable consent :-(

AJ

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

That's why 'rape' within marriage is fine within some cultures.

What is the relevance of comparing a law in one country with the religious teaching in another?

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

religious

I wonder, is it religious? It certainly applied to the Abrahamic cults. But perhaps there's something more basic and primitive, about the propagation of genes and keeping up the birth rate.

AJ

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

What is the relevance of comparing a law in one country with the religious teaching in another?

In some places, they are one and the same. Think Saudi Arabia.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

In some places, they are one and the same. Think Saudi Arabia.

Which part of "law in one country with the religious teaching in another" confused you?

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

What is the relevance of comparing a law in one country with the religious teaching in another?

He said some cultures, not some religions. While the majority religion can have a big impact on culture, they are not the same thing.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

He said some cultures, not some religions.

He actually said. "That's why 'rape' within marriage is fine within some cultures."

Marriage is religious, not cultural.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Marriage is religious, not cultural.

That is not true everywhere.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Marriage is religious, not cultural.

There's an argument that it's economic. Two people living together can achieve a more affluent lifestyle than if they were living singly. And, depending on where you live, there can be large tax breaks to reward marriage. And there have been several deathbed marriages to keep assets free of inheritance tax.

AJ

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Consent can be given prior to an act, it can even legally be given for unspecified acts and consent hours, days, or months prior is perfectly legal. The opposite is also true, non consent is legally recognised and often occurs long before the situation arises.

Until "I changed my mind" is thrown out there.

Sorry, but what you assert is wrong. What the colleges are pushing. "Consent for every act, every time." Means exactly that. The victim is under no obligation to send you a notarized letter stating that they changed their mind on the earlier permission.

So just because you were given "a blanket permission for sex acts" 2 weeks ago doesn't mean your partner didn't have a change of heart last night. Where they hadn't gotten around to telling you until you gave them the gift of a sexual morning wake up. Congratulations, you just raped somebody because you commenced a sexual act with another person without giving them a chance to decline the act first.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

You've mentioned on anther thread blowing guys who are asleep. By this definition, that would be rape.

And that is indeed rape, under the definition of the law.

Half of adult women say they've woken up to a partner sexually assaulting them while they're asleep, according to a new report.

One in two women have been raped or sexually assaulted by a partner in their sleep - according to research by the group Victim Focus.

They surveyed more than 22,000 women earlier this year, and found that 51% of respondents said they had "woken up to their male partner having sex with them or performing sex acts on them whilst they are asleep."

27% said it had happened to them multiple times.

The work was authored by Jaimi Shrive and Dr Jessica Taylor. Dr Taylor told LBC she was shocked by the findings:

"I thought it would be high, so i.e. 20 to 30%, but one in two?!

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/half-of-women-have-suffered-sexual-assault-by-a-partner-while-asleep/

Of course, I know that more than once (especially shortly after we were married) my wife and I woke up during or after we were having sex, both of us had started in our sleep. Once she even came to me and asked if we had, as neither of us had a memory of making love the night before. But she woke up with the evidence the next morning.

So technically, under the wordage used in that report we had raped each other multiple times.

Replies:   joyR  Not_a_ID
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

And that is indeed rape, under the definition of the law.

Please post a link to that definition.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@joyR

Please post a link to that definition.

Oh hell, this is very easy!

California Penal Code, Section 261, Paragraph 4, Clause A.

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets any one of the following conditions:

(A) Was unconscious or asleep.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=9.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article=

I could have posted this earlier, but to be honest I guess I made the assumption that everybody already knew this. And I suggest that in the future, you might try and reverse it. If you think somebody is wrong, research yourself then prove where they are mistaken.

And yes, I did at one time consider going into law. Which is why it is not unusual for me to sometimes add some obscure legal things into my stories. One even calling a story "Formula 267.30". In the old California Penal Code (made obsolete in the 1960s), California PC 267.30 was a felony, essentially sex through seduction. For example promising that you might marry somebody as a way to get sex from them.

Replies:   Dominions Son  joyR  Remus2
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

I could have posted this earlier, but to be honest I guess I made the assumption that everybody already knew this.

Laws very between the US states and not every one lives in California. And more than a few people don't know the laws of their home state/nation that well.

ETA:

I looked up the law in my state, Wisconsin.

It's worded differently, but would also likely cover this.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/ii/225

(2)โ€‚ Second degree sexual assault. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class C felony:
(a) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without consent of that person by use or threat of force or violence.
(b) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without consent of that person and causes injury, illness, disease or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ, or mental anguish requiring psychiatric care for the victim.
(c) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who suffers from a mental illness or deficiency which renders that person temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the person's conduct, and the defendant knows of such condition.
(cm) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who is under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree which renders that person incapable of giving consent if the defendant has actual knowledge that the person is incapable of giving consent and the defendant has the purpose to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the person while the person is incapable of giving consent.
940.225(2)(d)
(d) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who the defendant knows is unconscious.

joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

It seems you made the right choice in not going into law.

1. You have no idea where I was at the time. (Globally/Jurisdiction)

2. You appear to think that Californian law applies globally..

3. If you think others should research first then please ensure that in every post you include sufficient details so that the research relevant to your specific post can be accomplished.

4. Outside of a story written by you, your opinion and/or interpretation of the law is utterly irrelevant, (especially when you make assumptions) having once considered going into law isn't actually a recognised qualification.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

It seems you made the right choice in not going into law.

1. You have no idea where I was at the time. (Globally/Jurisdiction)

2. You appear to think that Californian law applies globally..

3. If you think others should research first then please ensure that in every post you include sufficient details so that the research relevant to your specific post can be accomplished.

4. Outside of a story written by you, your opinion and/or interpretation of the law is utterly irrelevant, (especially when you make assumptions) having once considered going into law isn't actually a recognised qualification.

Then fine, feel free to give us a reference to a law where you are at then which says that sex with somebody sleeping or unconscious is legal and not rape.

British Law:

Evidential presumptions (section 75 SOA 2003)
Section 75 lists the circumstances in which rebuttable evidential presumptions about the absence of consent apply. If the defendant did the relevant act, as defined in section 77 (the sexual activity within sections 1 - 4), and any of the circumstances specified in section 75(2) existed, and the defendant knew they existed, then: (i) the complainant is to be taken not to have consented and (ii) the Defendant is taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless in either case, sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to the contrary.

The circumstances set out in section 75(2) are:

Violence or fear of violence, subsection 2(a) and (b)
Unlawful detention, subsection 2(c)
Complainant asleep or unconscious, subsection 2(d){/quopte}
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-6-consent

And I can go on and on, and I am aware that it is different in many places. In fact, one of the last "Western Nations" to change it in this way was Germany. Which finally in 2016 changed their law to mandate specific permission for an act prior to it occurring to avoid it being rape. Which changed the law from "no means no" to "yes means yes".

And has specifically resulted in convictions against those who were raped while intoxicated, sleeping, and unconscious.

But fine, show us where sex against a sleeping or unconscious person is not rape. You said over and over again I was wrong, I have now given several instances showing I am right. OK, fine. Show me the instances in the "Western World" that show I am not.

And no, just posting a law out of say some Fundamentalist nation which essentially decriminalizes rape and allows any abuse against women to go without consequences does not count as that. Especially in some areas such as Somalia, where women who were raped were actually stoned after she was raped for adultery.

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

I would take you more seriously if you had actually both read and comprehended the sources you quote and/or link to.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Mushroom

If you think somebody is wrong, research yourself then prove where they are mistaken.

What is that phrase... oh I remember "Physician heal thyself."

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Mushroom

Half of adult women say they've woken up to a partner sexually assaulting them while they're asleep, according to a new report.

One in two women have been raped or sexually assaulted by a partner in their sleep - according to research by the group Victim Focus.

They surveyed more than 22,000 women earlier this year, and found that 51% of respondents said they had "woken up to their male partner having sex with them or performing sex acts on them whilst they are asleep."

27% said it had happened to them multiple times.

The work was authored by Jaimi Shrive and Dr Jessica Taylor. Dr Taylor told LBC she was shocked by the findings:

"I thought it would be high, so i.e. 20 to 30%, but one in two?!


https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/half-of-women-have-suffered-sexual-assault-by-a-partner-while-asleep/

The problem with that kind of reporting is they put the conclusion ahead of the data, and they downplay what the data actually said.

They surveyed more than 22,000 women earlier this year, and found that 51% of respondents said they had "woken up to their male partner having sex with them or performing sex acts on them whilst they are asleep."

Is probably the literal question asked that they responded to. That wasn't them selectively editing down the question. That is the full question. From there, their logic train went "They're unconscious, they cannot give consent, therefore they were raped!" (Although really, that was their rational for asking the question in the manner they did in the first place.. To find "hidden cases of sexual assault.")

There was a comparable problem with one of the "sexual assault" surveys for women on college campuses about 10 years ago. Where the advocacy group that commissioned the study was looking for "hidden cases, where the victim may not even realize they were victimized."

So they ask the question along the lines of "Have you engaged in sexual activity while intoxicated?" And the number of people who answered "yes" magically became the percentage of women on college campuses who have been sexually assaulted.

"Get drunk, get laid." Evidently is not an expression these people want to acknowledge as having ever existing in the cultural lexicon. As they're wanting to render it "get drunk, get raped" for everyone.

Yes, drunk people get raped. But plenty of people went out to get drunk with their goal being to get laid. I don't think those people properly qualify under the "unable to give consent" and thus raped category.

Replies:   Mushroom
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Is probably the literal question asked that they responded to. That wasn't them selectively editing down the question. That is the full question. From there, their logic train went "They're unconscious, they cannot give consent, therefore they were raped!" (Although really, that was their rational for asking the question in the manner they did in the first place.. To find "hidden cases of sexual assault.")

And in that, I agree. This is not a case where actual "rape" happened, but they were selectively using the wordage in order to "sell a message" that over 50% of women had been "raped".

And calling each and every instance "assault" without even trying to determine if such was even applicable shows that this is exactly the case. As that is why the report itself came under attack by a great many, including "Women's Rights" groups.

They specifically wrote their "findings" which classified each and every case of this a "sexual assault". Of course, they might also be of the type who see all sex as "sexual assault" and "rape". And sadly, there actually are people that think all sex is rape.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

The simple, sane and obvious definition is that no means no, ignoring the "no" is rape. If your partner is unconscious, drugged, intoxicated and not able to consent then it is rape.

Okay, so at what BAC level does a person no longer have the ability to consent to sex?

Also, does this apply if the victim in this case is the person who "self-medicated" in this context? (I understand the cases where they were unknowingly intoxicated, which is why I'm willing to grant some acceptance of your definition, but it has problems)

Because really, by strict interpretation, every bar/nightclub "hookup scene" where the parties involved engaged in drinking now contains rape scenes by that criteria(the parties involved were intoxicated). Oddly enough, both parties are evidently getting raped, but that's a side issue.

People "say the words" on this definition. But I don't think many have bothered to think about what those words actually mean. It utterly and completely destroys the bar/nightclub "hookup scene" if they did.

Not that I'd miss it, I never was in it to start with, but I know a number of people who were.

I do find it amusing to see a rape definition getting wide-spread use that turns a number of "how we first met" stories into "we mutually raped each other the night we first met."

That kind of scenario kind of deprives the word of any real significance for a great many people. And I'd think a number of rape victims would be fighting that use change far more than they are.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Mushroom
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

@joyR

The simple, sane and obvious definition is that no means no, ignoring the "no" is rape. If your partner is unconscious, drugged, intoxicated and not able to consent then it is rape.


I missed that earlier. Her own definition of rape included unconsciousness. Which would apply to a sleeping partner.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Okay, so at what BAC level does a person no longer have the ability to consent to sex?

General rule of thumb is when the BAC reaches the level which would be considered to be unsafe for operating a motor vehicle.

I doubt there is any real "definition", as who goes around with a blood-alcohol meter and checks their prospective partners prior to engaging in sexual activity? I know in the military, the limit is now actually recognized as a single drink.

Heck, I have even known of guys to have "consent forms" in their wallet, where each fills one out prior to engaging in sexual activity. And I know even more that simply refuse to ever consider sex with a female in the military.

palamedes ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Would those without his means have gained the agreement not to prosecute in the first place?

Actually the agreement that he received to not be prosecuted is that same type of agreement that is given out to those in the mob or drug cartels to testify against their boss or others in a group that the FBI or DEA wish to prosecute. There are alot of little no name nobodies that get a deal just like Cosby where if you agree to this we will not charge you for the crimes you committed.

That was why Cosby admitted to his crimes when he settled the lawsuit against him as he was offered the get out of jail free card and it only cost him some money to settle the case. The problem was the new DA not only chose to ignore the agreement but he used those admissions in court against Cosby and it was because of that the appeals court called foul and threw out the conviction against Cosby.

Heck the majority of the witness protection program is pretty much based on similar deals like what Cosby received. If you agree to this deal we will ignore the crimes you committed because we want the other guy more than you.

irvmull ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

McDonald's will be forced to shut down.

The woke crowd found out you can't make a burger without the brown, black (overcooked) or red (raw) meat being oppressed by a white bun.

Patties of Color, unite!

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@irvmull

McDonald's will be forced to shut down.

Historically the Arab slave traders lost fortunes when the dhow sank.

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

Par is getting into the hole with a designated number of strokes. e par is doing it with a computer. Rape is e par backwards.

Virt ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

So many alt-right narratives passing by here, remarkably without any inclination towards validation.

Replies:   Switch Blayde  Remus2
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Virt

So many alt-right narratives passing by here, remarkably without any inclination towards validation.

I guess which side of the fence a person sits on sees the narratives as "alt-right narratives without validation" or "far-left narratives without validation."

Just saying.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

I guess which side of the fence a person sits on sees the narratives as "alt-right narratives without validation" or "far-liberal narratives without validation."

I see myself as more libertarian. I see "delusional authoritarian narratives" in Coke and Pepsi flavors. :)

Replies:   Mushroom  richardshagrin
Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

I see myself as more libertarian. I see "delusional authoritarian narratives" in Coke and Pepsi flavors. :)

I see myself as what one of my friends called me. A "militant moderate". I do not fit strongly on either side of the fence politically, and have long been "my own person".

Which often causes me to laugh as I got older, because I recognize the extremes on both sides, and mock both equally. And I especially find it amusing when I recognize somebody on the fringes and using certain language, yet they for some reason think they are "mainstream".

And one common trend among all of those on the extremes is to point fingers and call names, without any clarification or justification. Or even just assuming that the use of something like "liberal", "conservative", or "libertarian" is an insult. Shows just how far their viewpoint is skewed.

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

I see "delusional authoritarian narratives" in Coke and Pepsi flavors

Pepsi Cola hits the spot, Twelve full ounces, that's a lot, Twice as much for a nickle, too. Pepsi Cola is the drink for you.

Actually I drink Shasta Cola. "It hasta be Shasta".

More information than you want to know:
"RD.COM Knowledge Facts

The Fascinating Origins Behind 9 Sodas You Love to Drink
Bathroom Readers InstituteBathroom Readers Institute
Updated: Dec. 14, 2018
Which drink used to contain cocaine? Which was inspired by the inventor's honeymoon? Read on for mind-blowing trivia on your favorite sodas.
Coca-Cola Soda Soft Drink, 12 fl oz, 12 Pack VIA AMAZON.COM
Coca-Cola: Used to be a cocktail
It's a well-known fact that the original formula for the world's most popular soft drink featured cocaine, but did you know that the original also contained alcohol? The carefully guarded secret formula for Coca-Cola is derived from "Pemberton's French Wine Coca," a concoction of coca leaf, kola nut, and damiana, a fragrant flower often used to make a stimulating tea. Its creator was Atlanta pharmacist Dr. John Pemberton, who touted the wine coca's medicinal qualities for anyone who was "devoted to extreme mental exertion."

However, in 1886, when temperance laws went into effect in Atlanta and Fulton County, Pemberton had to change the tonic's formula so it was alcohol-free, although it still contained cocaine and would until 1905. The result: Coca-Cola was marketed as a nerve tonic as well as a temperance drink.

Buy now

Pepsi Cola Cans (12 Count, 12 Fl Oz Each) (Packaging May Vary) VIA AMAZON.COM
Pepsi-Cola: Known for medicinal properties
Beyond its carbonation and cola flavor, Pepsi shares something in common with its main competitor, Coca-Cola. Pepsi also was originally formulated by a pharmacist: North Carolina's Caleb Bradham, who in the 1890s began selling the concoction as "Brad's Drink." He touted the drink's medicinal properties. Indeed, the name Pepsi-Cola, introduced in 1898, implies its origin as a health tonic: "Pepsi" is taken from pepsin, a digestive enzyme used in Bradham's original formula. Just as Coca-Cola no longer contains cocaine, Pepsi no longer includes pepsin. In 1898, Bradham wisely bought the rights to the trade name "Pep Cola" from a bankrupt competitor. He trademarked the new name in 1903. Check out these 7 inventors who actually regretted their inventions.

Buy now

Diet Dr Pepper, 12 fl oz cans, 12 count VIA AMAZON.COM
Dr Pepper: A strange name
Was there a doctor involved in the creation of Dr Pepper? No, but there was yet another pharmacist who, while not actually named Pepper (his name was Charles Alderton), invented the drink in Waco, Texas, in 1885. And if you're guessing that "Dr Pepper's Phos-Ferrates" was originally touted as a health tonic, just like Coke and Pepsi, you'd be correct in that as well. One ingredient in Dr Pepper's early formulas was pepsin, the same digestive enzyme that gave Pepsi its name. (However, prune juice, commonly rumored to be an ingredient, is not and never was part of the formula.)

Interestingly, no one, including the folks at Dr Pepper or the Dr Pepper Museum in Waco, knows exactly how the soda pop got its name; theories range from a nod to pepsin to the soda being named in honor of the former owner of the drugstore where the drink was invented. None of these theories is verified. (And for you editorial types, there is no period after the "Dr" in "Dr Pepper"; it was removed sometime in the 1950s.)

Buy now

Novyy Urengoy, Russia - November 7, 2018: Aluminium can of the 7Up Lemon Lime isolated over white background.ART KONOVALOV/SHUTTERSTOCK
7-Up: A mood stabilizer
This classic lemon-lime beverage is the first and only soda on our list that wasn't invented by a pharmacistโ€”it was created by businessman Charles Leiper Grigg in 1929. However, like our previous pops, it was originally marketed for its health benefits; its original formula featured lithium citrate, a chemical still used today as a mood stabilizer. And while 7-Up is one of the shortest soda brand names today, the drink's original name was more of a mouthful: "Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda." Grigg changed the name of the soda pop shortly thereafter, and then changed the name of his business from the Howdy Corporation to the Seven-Up Company in 1936. Another good call. These are the 10 reasons to avoid all sodaโ€”including diet.

Buy now

Vernor's Ginger Ale Soda, 12 Ounce (24 Cans)VIA AMAZON.COM
Vernor's: The oldest pop still around
Vernor's Ginger Ale is generally accepted as the oldest American soda pop brand still in existence. It got its start just after the Civil War when Detroit's James Vernorโ€”a pharmacist, of courseโ€”discovered that a ginger-ale syrup he'd left to age in an oak cask ended up with a distinct flavor thanks to the wood. The company legend is that the syrup had aged from 1862, when Vernor left Detroit to fight in the Civil War, until 1865, when he returned. Vernor originally sold the soda pop in his drugstore, but by 1896, the drink was so popular that he was able to close the drugstore and focus purely on selling the soda. Don't miss these 13 foods that were invented by accident.

Buy now

Hires Root Beer - 12 Pack Cans, 12 Fl. Oz. (Pack of 1)VIA AMAZON.COM
Hires: Inspired by a honeymoon
Another soda pop, another pharmacist inventor. In this case, it was Philadelphia's Charles E. Hires. While on his honeymoon in 1875, Hires was served a "root tea" he liked so much that when he got back home, he set to work replicating the taste experience. By the next year, he was selling root tea packets, which people could take home to brew their own drinks. By 1884, Hires decided people would buy more of the stuff if they didn't have to make it themselves. He'd also decided to take the suggestion of a friend who said the working class would like it more if he called his root concoction a beer rather than a tea. Smart friend. Here are 12 things that happen to your body when you stop drinking diet soda.

Buy now

Mountain Dew, 12-Pack, 12 oz Cans VIA AMAZON.COM
Mountain Dew: Made for mixing
Ally and Barney Hartman initially worked for the Orange Crush soda plant bottling in Georgia before the Great Depression, according to Mental Floss. After the business went bankrupt, the Hartmans' discovered a lemon-lime soda that mixed perfectly with their favorite drinkโ€”bourbon. The duo began bottling it for their own use as a chaser in Knoxville, Tennessee during Prohibition. Smithsonian Magazine reports the phrase "mountain dew" was slang for mountain-brewed moonshine. Here are 9 quirky facts we bet you didn't know about your favorite foods.

Buy now

Canada Dry Ginger Ale, 12 fl oz cans, 12 count VIA AMAZON.COM
Canada Dry: Not related to Prohibition
One popular and false claim is that the Canada Dry beverage company got its name because it produced alcohol-free beverages during prohibition. That's not the case according to Snopes. The company was actually started by Canadian pharmacist John J. McLaughlin, before the Texas-based Dr. Pepper Snapple Group bought by the company. The "dry" part of the name could be a nod to dry wine or a dry martini. There's also the fact that Canada Dry is lighter and less sweet than other ginger ale.

Buy now

Fanta Orange Soda, 7.5 Ounce (24 Cans)VIA AMAZON.COM
Fanta: Is rooted in history
This soft drink wasn't an accident. Max Keith ran the German Coca-Cola operation in 1938 after the untimely death of an American-born man who passed after a car accident. During WWII, Keith ran the plant even though he didn't have the necessary Coca-Cola syrup ingredient due to the war, per Snopes. He formulated a new soft drinkโ€”Fantaโ€”to keep the plant operating."

Replies:   ystokes
ystokes ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

They stopped canning Barq's root beer but you can still get at Despencers.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Virt

So many alt-right narratives passing by here, remarkably without any inclination towards validation.

Instead of dropping a flaming political turd in the room, why don't you point out an example? Or was that post just as it smelled, a deliberate attempt to stir the shit?

ystokes ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

In 2006 country music radio and stars tried to cancel the Dixie Chicks for only saying they were ashamed to be from the same state as Prez. Bush. They were screaming how dare they insult the leader of the US of A. 2 years later these same people were screaming that Obama wasn't born in the US of A.

Now you have those on the right demanding schools banning books. So excuse me when I laugh when people say cancel culture is only the left do.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@ystokes

Now you have those on the right demanding schools banning books. So excuse me when I laugh when people say cancel culture is only the left do.

If you think that's an example of cancel culture on the right, you have no understanding of what cancel culture is.

Cancel culture is about denying people any platform to speak publicly anywhere ever.

When the left went after J. K. Rowling because she sided with the TERFs(Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, their term not mine) they tried to get major book sellers to stop selling her books, tried to get her publisher to pull her books off the market.

Saying that the content of a particular book is inappropriate for children and so should not be in K-12 school libraries is not remotely the same thing.

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

When the left went after J. K. Rowling because she sided with the TERFs(Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, their term not mine) they tried to get major book sellers to stop selling her books, tried to get her publisher to pull her books off the market.

It even goes beyond this to making them an 'unperson' โ€” denying them employment, access to financial services, the ability to appear anywhere in public, to use any online platform, and so on.

Orders of magnitude of difference from a debate about whether a particular book should be in a K-12 library.

Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

If you think that's an example of cancel culture on the right, you have no understanding of what cancel culture is.

No, it means ystokes has no understanding of what you feel 'cancel culture' is. Unless you've suddenly been appointed the definer of terms while I wasn't paying attention, eliminating all other definitions along the way, it's not what most people feel 'cancel culture' is.

Attempting to put books (aka ideas) on the 'banned, must be burned' list is exactly 'cancel culture'. It's not the only form of it - your examples also count - but it's playing silly semantic games to claim book burning is NOT 'cancel culture'. It's literally attempting to cancel the ideas of the author. I fail to see how actually setting books on fire (with the implication that no one should ever see or read them) is somehow 'better' than trying to get book sellers to stop selling books.

Similarly, Republican attempts to deplatform Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for having the audacity to support the ideals of the party as they were a mere decade ago and stand against the latest Republican fads is 'cancel culture'. The 'anti-woke' boycotts against Coke, Disney, and other companies are 'cancel culture'.

Sure, one can create an odd and narrow definition that excludes things. We're all good at doing that. But then the other side is perfectly free to come back and say "nope, the way J. K. Rowling is being treated isn't cancel culture at all, it's blahblahblah".

If, in fact, 'cancel culture' is 'about denying people any playform to speak publicly anywhere ever', it is an utter and complete miserable failure and completely laughable. There are far too many ways for people to continue to be able to 'speak publicly anywhere ever' for 'cancel culture' to be in the least effective. Ms. Rowling is an excellent example - it's hardly the case that she's somehow been 'muzzled'. If anything, she seems to be more prominent than ever at the moment.

One might as well say 'cancel culture is about creating utopia on Earth'; that's equally as likely as 'denying people any platform to speak publicly anywhere ever', unless one is presuming that we'll transition to a super-effective authoritarian government along the way. And, of course, if we did, the 'villain' would be the new authoritarian government, not 'cancel culture'.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

Similarly, Republican attempts to deplatform Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for having the audacity to support the ideals of the party as they were a mere decade ago and stand against the latest Republican fads is 'cancel culture'.

I never said that there aren't any examples of cancel culture on the right, all I said was that trying to remove books with content that is inappropriate for children from K-12 school libraries isn't such an example.

Yes, what they have tried to do to Liz Cheney would definitely qualify.

If, in fact, 'cancel culture' is 'about denying people any playform to speak publicly anywhere ever', it is an utter and complete miserable failure and completely laughable.

They have had a few limited successes. But yes, for the most part their efforts have failed so far. That doesn't mean that they aren't doing a lot of harm in the effort.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

It depends on the nature of the banning, I'll agree. There's a nuance. I would have no problem with a statement that certain books are inappropriate for e.g. K-5, and others for grades 6-8. My list may not match others' lists, but that's a reasonable statement.

However, I would also tend to argue (without having read a list of target books) that none of the books in question are 'inappropriate' for 9-12th grade school libraries. Pure pornography with no redeeming value, yes, that's unnecessary. Most SOL fiction (not all) would be inappropriate. And most of the hyperbole around banning books at the high school level tends to take the tack that the books in question are simply 'inappropriate' entirely - not for school, but that they're 'garbage' and should not exist.

Very few of the books which either the right or the left attempt to ban from school libraries should be banned from school libraries, I think. In most cases, the fact that someone is trying to ban them is evidence that schools should be teaching the book in question. We need more thinking, more exposure to divergent opinions, and better education, not less exposure and more homogenization and regurgitation.

While I agree that 'cancel culture' efforts are doing a lot of harm, I think nearly as much of the harm that they're doing is to their own side. The people attempting to cancel J. K. Rowling are generally laughingstocks to average people on the left, in my experience. She's gotten more attention on her political beliefs after her statements on trans people than she ever did before, and even on highly partisan threads I see plenty of left-leaning people supporting her and right-leaning people denouncing her.

In my opinion, at least, the real harm that coming from this is that it furthers the polarization of society. Even twenty years ago it was common for leaders of both parties to say 'well-intentioned individuals may disagree'. That's become something that gets you ostracized from your political party (I would argue more so on the right, but it obviously happens on the left as well).

Even though I don't agree, I can intellectually understand people taking a no-compromise standard about something like abortion. It's literally a life-or-death issue, and it makes sense that people may disapprove of those who stand on the sidelines or attempt to compromise. I still think compromise and 'agree to disagree' are the right thing, but at least it's understandable when people don't.

Most 'wedge issues' don't deserve that, though. The crazy amount of fighting on both sides over whether people who are transgender deserve every possible courtesy or should be held in utter contempt harms society. IMHO this should be simple: refer to people in a way that respects them (regardless of what's in their pants), use the bathroom that matches how you dress - and don't do things that are illegal while you're in there, of course (regardless of what's in your pants), and stop worrying about what anyone else has in their pants, or in their thoughts either.

Obviously there are corner cases and places where we need to compromise, but the key is compromise, something both sides seem to increasingly treat as a 'dirty word'. Sports is one. Full participation is ridiculous; total exclusion is equally ridiculous.

How we build a culture of mutual respect I have no idea, but that would fix so many problems.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

It depends on the nature of the banning, I'll agree. There's a nuance.

No, an effort to remove specific books from K-12 school libraries it never cancel culture.

If there were a larger/broader effort to get non-school related booksellers to drop the title or to get the publisher to unpublish it, that would be different.

It's not about whether the effort to remove that particular book was justified or not, it's about the scale of the effort, the scope of what they are trying to remove it from.

However, I would also tend to argue (without having read a list of target books) that none of the books in question are 'inappropriate' for 9-12th grade school libraries. Pure pornography with no redeeming value, yes, that's unnecessary.

The book that the one father recently attempted to read at a school board meeting. which effort made the national news, came very close to pure pornography, it was that explicit.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

The book that the one father recently attempted to read at a school board meeting. which effort made the national news, came very close to pure pornography, it was that explicit.

Not much in the way of education was forthcoming from that book. While I have no problem with such books, they should not be on a school library shelf. The students are struggling as it is with basic writing, reading, and arithmetic, without adding a distraction like that.
In my metal working shop, I've had to resort to teaching basic fractions and other math, as they could not use a tape measurer or machinist scale.
There definitely needs to be more focus on the basics.

Replies:   samsonjas  Paladin_HGWT
samsonjas ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Move inferred a definition of "cancel culture" as:

When the banning or suppression of something is about who wrote it, not what they wrote in it.

Eg banning a book because it is explicit is not cancel culture. Banning a book because it's author has stance x on subject y is.

As a European so much of the things being banned and canceled in the US seem so silly. We still have gendered toilets in large public buildings, but they are steadily giving way naturally to unisex bathrooms with doors that close properly. And not because of debate, but just because gendered toilets are a waste.

Likewise your tv is full of violence but not sex. Young kids are bombarded with graphic depictions of violence and guns and things!

It's all crazy.

Replies:   Remus2  awnlee jawking
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@samsonjas

Likewise your tv is full of violence but not sex. Young kids are bombarded with graphic depictions of violence and guns and things!

A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It does not decide on its own to shoot anything. A firearm is only as violent as it's weilder.

My problem with firearms on television is not that they are there, it's the unsafe practices typically depicted. The people who didn't grow up being trained in the safe usage of them, tend to get their ideas of how to from movies and TV. Worse yet, not even the actors portrayed using them have been trained as proven by Alec Baldwin recently.
In my eyes, the word accident should never be applied to shootings short of a mechanical failure of the firearm. Even then, if safe practices have been followed, it's highly unlikely.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

My problem with firearms on television is not that they are there, it's the unsafe practices typically depicted.

A current US TV crime drama that I watch frequently has shootouts. The good guys hide behind their barricades while the bad guys stand up and shoot, then the bad guys hide behind their barricades while the good guys stand up and shoot. And the ace marksmen in target practice scenes can't hit a barn door in the shootouts until they've reached their allotted time allowance, then they suddenly become deadly accurate.

What's really funny is that one of the big name stars, who plays an all-action hero, seems to have a slimline body double for every scene in which he has to go faster than a slow walk ;-)

AJ

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

And the ace marksmen in target practice scenes can't hit a barn door in the shootouts until they've reached their allotted time allowance, then they suddenly become deadly accurate.

That's probably closer to realistic than the rest of it. It's one thing to shoot at defenseless paper, it's another altogether when the target is shooting back.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  ystokes
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

That might explain why, when the goodies shout,"Stop. Federal Agents," while waving their guns around, if the baddy is more than, say, ten feet away, they make a run for it. I assumed it was because they knew the goodies wouldn't shoot. It always struck me as weird, that after the goodies outmanouevred the baddy until they were only, say, four feet away, the same command would cause the baddy to surrender rather than making another break for it. They must have reckoned the goodies might hit from four feet ;-)

AJ

ystokes ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

That's probably closer to realistic than the rest of it. It's one thing to shoot at defenseless paper, it's another altogether when the target is shooting back.

The thing I find funny in TV shootouts is they show the gun is level at chest high yet all the bullets hit the ground even though the people they are shooting at are only 20-30 feet away.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@ystokes

the bullets hit the ground

In Steven Spielberg's new movie, "The Fabelmans," which is loosely based on his young life, they show him filming a war scene when he was a kid. He laid a small plank on a rock like a seesaw and piled dirt on the lowered part. Then the kid playing the soldier stepped on the raised part when running which sent the dirt flying in the air making it look like a bullet hit the ground at his feet. Pretty clever.

samsonjas ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

I know plenty of people who hunt. Where I am it is common. And, yes, hunting rifles are tools.

I have mixed feelings about it. None of my friends are hunting to sustain themselves but I do have to have fence around my garden after it got wrecked by wild pigs. Can't keep the deer out though. And I eat plenty of what gets shot.

So that was "guns are tools". But the vast majority of guns on tv, and the vast majority of real guns in the US, are for hurting people. They are not dual use.

Tv depictions of violence can not teach gun safety. They all break that cardinal rule of never pointing a gun at a person!

Things are pretty screwed up when graphic depictions of violence are somehow ok for kids whereas sexuality isn't.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@samsonjas

But the vast majority of guns on tv, and the vast majority of real guns in the US, are for hurting people. They are not dual use.

I own some of those guns you speak of. They are in fact duel use. I've taken feral hogs with an AR15, and target shoot with a Glock 17.

As I said before, the firearm is no more violent than the person who weilds it. The idea that the vast majority of firearms here are for hurting people, is a false statement. There are an estimated 434 million firearms in private possession here. That's among a population of 331 million. By your logic, we should all be dead already.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@samsonjas

but just because gendered toilets are a waste.

They're a safe haven for the vulnerable. In UK schools which have gone unisex, there's a disturbing number of girls now staying home when they're having their periods - a larger number than the actual number of trans pupils who might benefit from them.

The woke tail is wagging the dog :-(

AJ

Replies:   samsonjas
samsonjas ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

If one child genuinely stays home for that reason then that is a "disturbing amount".

But it's not like that is a thing in the schools with unisex bathrooms that I know of. In fact, truancy isn't really a thing here either.

I think we should file "unisex toilets cause truancy" in the hyperbole tray for now.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@samsonjas

the hyperbole tray for now

You can file it there if you want, but the article I read had statistics to back it up.

I wouldn't want to use a cubicle during my period with biological boys milling around outside, and where a biological boy might be the next user and able to look in the bin for bloody towels and tampons.

AJ

Paladin_HGWT ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

The students are struggling as it is with basic writing, reading, and arithmetic, without adding a distraction like that.
In my metal working shop, I've had to resort to teaching basic fractions and other math, as they could not use a tape measurer or machinist scale.
There definitely needs to be more focus on the basics

Well, They Are Focusing on the "Basics" of Partie Indoctrination... "To Make An Omlet, You Must Break Some Eggs." In this case, to develope a docile proletariate, that may be "activated" to achieve certain agendas, "Trivial matters" such as reading, writing, and arithmatic, must "neccesarily be neglected" to achieve the woke goals.

Clearly You are a RRRRRRRRRRACIST! because you fail to vociferously acknowledge that Mathematics, Your "Science" the English language and HIStory are All Iredemibly RRRRACIST!

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@Grey Wolf

Similarly, Republican attempts to deplatform Liz Cheney

And the Democrats doing that to Kyrsten Sinema. You should see the adds in my home state of Arizona.

samsonjas ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

what are the titles of these books that are inappropriate for children?

I find myself curious to know exactly what kind of books we are talking about.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@samsonjas

what are the titles of these books that are inappropriate for children?

I don't track them, and there isn't a collated nation wide list. You'd have to go and collect complaints/petitions from individual local school boards, or even individual schools.

You'll find attempts to remove books from school libraries from both the political left and the political right.

There was one in the news recently where a father attending a school board meeting attempted to read passages from a book he was complaining about. The school board shut him down because the book was very sexually explicit and the school board considered it inappropriate to read aloud in the meeting.

Some general things that turn up.

On the left:
The Bible and other religious books. (yes athiest activists and parents on the left have argued that public school libraries should not carry any religious books).

Books considered racist or that have "racist" content.
This includes a number of books by Mark Twain(Samuel Clemens) that while they contain language now considered offensive, they were actually quite anti-racist for the time they were written.

On the right:

Books with sexually explicit content.

Books that address issues around sexual orientation and/or transgender issues. Note: most of the complaints of this type I have seen are for schools that include students in grades K-8. There tend to be fewer objections to this kind of material for high school libraries (grades 9-12), which is not to say there are none.

Books that are seen as promoting socialism/communism.

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@ystokes

You may (or may not) find this article interesting ("'You're already in the authoritarian state': Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei criticizes US 'woke' culture") at https://www.yahoo.com/now/already-authoritarian-state-chinese-dissident-220013942.html

Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei has warned about political correctness in the U.S., saying its perpetuation has already turned the country into an authoritarian state without people knowing it.

Ai shared his bleak outlook of the U.S. while promoting his memoir in a new interview on PBS' "Firing Line." He pointed out that authoritarians cannot be by themselves and instead must rely on a system that supports their views.

In his book, Ai described Mao Zedong's directives during the Cultural Revolution, which were distributed at night. He compared them to former President Donald Trump's "midnight tweets."

Ai disagreed, however, when asked if he thought Trump was authoritarian. He stated that the U.S. is already behaving like an authoritarian state, and much of it has to do with efforts for people to be "unified in a certain political correctness."

"In many ways, you're already in the authoritarian state. You just don't know it," Ai told "Firing Line" host Margaret Hoover, who asked him to elaborate.

Ai explained that with today's technology, we know so much more than we actually understand. "The information [has] become jammed, but we don't really ... have the knowledge, because you don't work. You don't have to act on anything. You just think you're purified by certain ideas that you agree with. That is posing dangers to society, to an extremely divided society," he said.

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Based on the mess in boys toilet rooms, probably girl only rooms are cleaner and more sanitary. So half the rooms are easier on the Janitor.

helmut_meukel ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

Based on the mess in boys toilet rooms, probably girl only rooms are cleaner and more sanitary. So half the rooms are easier on the Janitor.

Did ever really look into females toilet rooms or are you just assuming they are cleaner?
It may depend on nationality, but here in Germany I've heard enough females who work in restaurants, bars and hotels complaining about the messy toilets and some using the men's toilets after closing time because they are cleaner.

HM.

Replies:   joyR  awnlee jawking
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

It may depend on nationality,

The truth is it depends upon culture, not nationality.

A culture might believe that bathing in a highly polluted river is a good thing. Another might teach the use of one hand to eat with and the other to wipe your ass with. Both in their way are better than the alternative but neither address toilet use or thought for the next user.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@helmut_meukel

Did ever really look into females toilet rooms or are you just assuming they are cleaner?

When working late in the office, there was a convention that when the men's toilets were closed for cleaning, men could use the women's toilets provided they were unoccupied. Not only were they cleaner but they had air-freshener!

And after 6pm, the away team dressing rooms at a girls' school where my sports club was based became 'men only'. The toilets were cleaner than the boys toilets at comparable schools, but the little darlings who used them during the day weren't shy with their graffiti. My lips remain sealed about their other vices ;-)

AJ

John Demille ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

Based on the mess in boys toilet rooms, probably girl only rooms are cleaner and more sanitary. So half the rooms are easier on the Janitor.

Cleanliness has nothing to do with the sex/gender of users.

When I first came to Canada from Iraq, I worked as a janitor in a high school for few months. Girl bathrooms were disgusting; way dirtier than boys' bathrooms. You probably haven't seen it, but for a while it was a thing that girls would do that was to throw their used tampons onto the mirrors in the bathroom to see if they would stick. Everyday there would be tens of bloody tampons on mirrors and in the sinks.

Women always pretend to be better at that kind of stuff than men, but in reality, they can be worse.

Have you ever lived with a female roommate? I've had the misfortune of doing it multiple times in my youth in Canada. Only 1 out of the 6 that I lived with was clean and neat, two were absolutely awful and three were like the average man.

joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Worse yet, not even the actors portrayed using them have been trained as proven by Alec Baldwin recently.

Last night Alec Baldwin awoke from a dream, things are going to be ok. Finally he can see light at the end of the tunnel.

Of course that light is actually muzzle flash...

Replies:   ystokes
ystokes ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

Last night Alec Baldwin awoke from a dream, things are going to be ok. Finally he can see light at the end of the tunnel.

Of course that light is actually muzzle flash...

I have been on movie sets where we were given guns to shoot and because we were background actors they loaded each gun in front of us showing that they were blanks.

Alec on the other hand who had been shooting guns for a while and never given a gun loaded with live rounds took the word of not just one person but two people (the armorer and the 1st AD) who were in charge with making sure the guns were either unloaded or only had blanks.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@ystokes

who were in charge with making sure the guns were either unloaded or only had blanks.

1. At the range that the "Rust" incident occurred, blanks can be dangerous.

Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee) was killed on set by a freak accident involving firing a blank round.

From what I recall reading on it, the gun at issue in that case was being passed back and forth between two different productions and was used on the other production with poorly constructed dummy rounds. When it was unloaded before being passed back to the production involving Brandon Lee, a fragment of one of the bullets was left lodged in the barrel. When the gun was fired with blanks on the Brandon Lee set, that fragment was propelled out and struck Brandon.

But even without such a problem with a bullet or fragment there of in the barrel, the wadding from a blank round can be deadly at very close range.

2. The gun was supposedly loaded with dummy rounds. These are not blanks, they are cartridges that have a bullet, but no gun powder and thus can not be fired. This is the opposite of a blank which has gun powder but no bullet.

Dummy rounds are used in situations where the camera will see them, "loose" rounds in a bandoleer, on a gun belt, or loaded in a revolver where the camera will see the front of the cylinder.

Replies:   ystokes  Mushroom
ystokes ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

This is the opposite of a blank which has gun powder but no bullet.

Although a blank may not have a bullet it does have a wad pf paper holding the powder in and the way I remember it was that Brandon put the barrel up to his temple when he pulled the trigger. The other thing you need to watch out for are squibs, they can hurt if not applyed right.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@ystokes

Although a blank may not have a bullet it does have a wad pf paper holding the powder in and the way

I addressed that directly:

But even without such a problem with a bullet or fragment there of in the barrel, the wadding from a blank round can be deadly at very close range.

Mushroom ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee) was killed on set by a freak accident involving firing a blank round.

Jon-Erik Hexum was also killed by a blank on set. He was joking around playing Russian Roulette with a prop gun loaded with a blank, and blew a quarter sized hole in his skull. From a blank.

I often shake my head in disgust at how Hollywood normally portrays guns. I am just surprised that such incidents do not happen more often.

ystokes ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

The biggest in school boards banning books is they have no clue why because they never read the books, they are just taking the words by a small number of people.

One school board just canceled a school play that the school has been working on for months just days before it was to run. The reason turns out to be that two students were playing a gay couple one a few parents complained.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf ๐Ÿšซ

@ystokes

There's an awful lot of that going on right now. Often, when they look at the results, it's a handful of people protesting the books. Many schools either can't fight it or don't have the resources to do so. Many smaller libraries can't, either.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Anthony Horowitz claims he was forced to change a passage in his last murder mystery in which a Native American attacked with a scalpel. His publisher's sensitivity editor thought that 'scalpel' might make readers think of 'scalping', even though they have different etymology. He had to change 'lancet' to 'surgical instrument'.

Heaven forbid he'd written about a Native American doctor reading the Lancet.

AJ

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

His publisher's sensitivity editor

I never heard of a sensitivity editor, but according to "Writer's Digest" it pre-dates woke-ism:

Long before woke-ism became a word, a sensitivity reading was deemed a serious need, and sensitivity readers established their niche. Publishers and authors hire them to basically cancel-proof their books before they hit the street, hoping to head off any misspoken messages . . . hoping to depict peoples in an accurate light when it comes to genre, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and more.

Sensitivity edits are a publisher's or editor's insurance to protect reputation and ward off profit loss, just in case, and an author's attempt to depict characters in an accurate light. Entities purchase a sensitivity read when the writing is outside of their expertise or experience, or they are uncertain they depicted details properly.

However, I doubt your example would have occurred before woke-ism.

Catman ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

Actually, it's more of a Whop, Whop, Whop, sound.

DBActive ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

To get back to the original post: in the 1960s visiting New Orleans, we were surprised that every restaurant menu called a salad with oil and vinegar "Wop Salad."

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

Actually I drink Shasta Cola. "It hasta be Shasta".

I'm a pepper.

Back to Top

Close
 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.