kimmy

This sounds tremendously fascinating. I assume I'm in for a list of examples borrowed from "Men's Rights Advocates" and "Involuntary Celibates". -k

So from what you're saying, I gather that Trump Nation is entirely ok with Newt saying they'll just ignore anti-corruption laws and pardon themselves later on. That's what Trump Nation was talking about when they said "#DrainTheSwamp"? -k

What's in the syllabus, professor? -k

Trump team's new strategy on conflict of interest and ethics: do whatever they feel like, pardon everybody. #DrainTheSwamp -k

Of course not. And I'd also think that most North American Muslims aren't impressed by how some of the dumb-ass Saudi imams talk, either. People are completely willing to accept that even though Christians believe the same basic tenets, they have a wide range of social and political views. And yet many seem incapable of accepting that Muslims might also have a wide range of social and political views. -k

Christians believe in the Bible and are supposed to spread The Good News, but we see a vast difference among them in how they interpret the Bible and how they share their religious testimony. Why would people assume that there isn't similar variation among Muslims? I have, in the past, worked with numerous Muslims who never spoke a word about their religious views, aside from the time our employer bought Ham and Pineapple Pizza and Hotdogs for "employee appreciation day." -k

I haven't watched it myself, but now that I apparently get Amazon Prime video, I might give it a look. -k

I watched Rogue One, A Star Wars Story this week, and I enjoyed it tremendously! This is a one-shot story that stands on its own, but also ties in closely with the Star Wars saga-- the events at the very end of Rogue One immediately precede the events at the very beginning of the original Star Wars film of 1977. In Star Wars, Princess Leia says "A lot of good people died to get these plans... it had better be worth it." In Rogue One, you get to watch how it happened. This movie has a completely new group of characters and is free of Jedi and Skywalkers. However, there are also some Easter Eggs and cameo appearances that will delight fans of the original saga as well. I highly recommend Rogue One to fans of the Star Wars movies, and to fans of sci-fi adventure in general. -k

I liked the after-the-credits scene with Armistice. The sneer on her face as the guard frantically screams "CEASE ALL MOTOR FUNCTIONS! CEASE ALL MOTOR FUNCTIONS!" was priceless. I'm not sure you're supposed to cheer for any particular outcome... you just watch it unfold. We build attachments to some of the characters-- Delores, Bernard, young William, and others perhaps, and follow their journey for better or worse. As for hating sci-fi... I think Westworld is an example of why you shouldn't reject a genre out of hand. Some people might read the premise and think "this is just a bunch of nonsense with no bearing on real life". But the fantastical premise gives the writer a framework for exploring an interesting topic in a way that just wouldn't be possible in one of those movies where two people smoke cigarettes in a crappy apartment in Paris for the whole film. -k

It is always sad when someone dies so young. It seems very common among celebrities, unfortunately. -k

And I have my own crosses to bear of which the Afro-Cultural Academic Sciences Community may also be largely unaware. And? People from other countries come to Canada knowing that they're entering a different culture, often with different language, different religion, and one where they'll be a "visible minority" to use the official government description I don't feel that I bear any guilt if they find any of those things upsetting, and I don't know what I could do to change any of those things even if I did. I have been in environments where white people and english speakers were an extreme minority, and I can relate. Then again, I've much more often found myself in an environment where women are an extreme minority. I've had a number of jobs where I'm the only woman present. The fact that most of my coworkers have white skin has been of little reassurance to me in those situations. I do live in a smaller center where a large majority of the population is white. From listening to the way these academics speak you'd think Kim City would be just one big happy family. I don't an issue of race working against me, so what could I possibly have to worry about, right? "my kind" and "sameness" being defined only by a European ancestry? What value is there in that? Does it make me safer? no. Does it put money in my pocket? no. Does it get me past the lineup? no. I know that for minority groups, a shared identity can be a bonding experience-- I have some neighbors who are Korean exchange students, and they often have parties attended by other Korean exchange students. There aren't a lot of Koreans in my town, but they've formed a community based around their shared experience. For them, the shared language, culture, and challenge of living in a foreign country is a bonding experience. There's no similar experience among people with a general European ancestry. It isn't a bonding experience. White people in my town build their own communities based on other factors-- their work, their church, the connections they made growing up, hobbies and activities, or something else. Without race to divide us, we have to find other ways to divide ourselves. In my community, it's primarily class, age, political views, and religious views... and I am pretty sure those factors are significant coast to coast. Being a moderately attractive blonde has been helpful in getting me jobs... in waitressing. That's one thing I can agree with you on. Someone who looks like me has an advantage in getting a job serving drinks while dressed in a small dress or tank-top. When it comes to applying fpr jobs where I'd get to wear grown-up clothes, I started coloring my hair, because I know from experience that it changes the way people interact with me. The wonderful service I get when I go shopping usually consists of sales-people coming over and assuming I'm dumb or gullible or both. I don't have salespeople watching me to make sure I don't steal stuff, I get them talking down to me like I'm an easy mark. I don't think my overall appearance encourages people to trust me, I think it encourages them to think I'm a mark, a prize, or possibly a target. And when I travel by air, I get selected for "enhanced screening" just as often as any bearded brown-skinned man. hmmm. I get accosted the street for reasons other than skin tone. If Canada elects its own Trump, I've got my own worries despite being white. I have my own reasons to fear fanatical right-wing nuts, and there are probably a lot more of those in Kim City than there are in Metro Vancouver. -k

So basically you've disregarded the view of the large majority of scientists working in this field, but you've picked this one to agree with... because you prefer the conclusion he has arrived at? -k

I think, as Betsy suggested, that if the university had a course named that, there would be an angry mob threatening to tear the university down if something wasn't done about it. The course would be cancelled long before it got to the point of a legislator getting involved. While I think the course as described has merit, I'm sure there is academic merit in examining the ongoing effects of racism. But I think the idea of conflating class and gender equality as a a problem with whiteness is nonsensical. Class and gender inequality has been a fact in most cultures around the world, white or not. Cultures in the Middle East and Asia had institutionalized class and gender inequality when "white culture" consisted of living in caves and trying to figure out whether rocks are edible. If you want to talk class inequality, let's talk class inequality. If you want to talk gender inequality, let's talk gender inequality. But don't try and justify the value of your course by suggesting that these near-universal human traits are actually rooted in modern European culture. From the syllabus: I honestly just don't feel like it. I don't get that I'm living a "white identity". My circumstances are different from everybody else around me regardless of skin color. Skin color is pretty much the only thing I have in common with most of the people around me, I would subscribe to that as the defining factor in my identity. I don't care to live "an ethical white identity". I strive to live "an ethical identity" as best I can. -k

I do think it's cute that the Republicans who envision Trump as their new Reagan have embraced a leader whose stance against Russian militarism is so opposite to Reagan's. -k

Reminder: if Happy Holidays was good enough for Bing Crosby, a King among men, it's good enough for you. -k

The Democrats are, undoubtedly in disarray right now. At present it seems as if Bernie Sanders is the remaining spokesman for the party. Hillary Clinton seems to have gotten the message and removed herself from public discourse. Retiring Senator Harry Reid, one of the most cantankerous Democrats, has filled a paper bag with dog-poop, set it on fire, and set it on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's doorstep. Wasserman-Schultz was a contentious figure during the primaries, due to the widespread (and probably accurate) perception that she was in the tank for Hillary and did her level best to undermine Bernie Sanders. Harry Reid goes one step further-- he contends that "that congresswoman from Florida" was "worthless" as the chair of the DNC. DWS already resigned as the DNC Chairperson prior at the DNC convention, when she was booed off the stage by people who were disgusted by what leaked emails revealed about what she and her staff thought of Bernie Sanders. Harry Reid's criticism isn't in regard to the Democratic primaries, it's in regard to her failure to make the DNC a winning organization at the state level. Under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the Democrats got whipped in every election except for the 2012 Presidential election, which Barack won in spite of DWS, not thanks to her. She sucks, she's an awful person, and if a comet fell out of the sky and hit her, it would be the best thing that happened to the Democrats in years. -k

That sort of intimidation/isolation of deserters or apostates isn't uncommon among some religious groups. Islam, it goes without saying... but the Mormons as well, and I recall reading about the Mars Hill evangelical church under Mark Driscoll being particularly vindictive against people who left. But with Scientology, it's once step beyond, though... I recall seeing videos posted by somebody who left the Scientologists... Scientology goon-squad in action: "the Squirrel Busters" There's lots more like this. You can google for "squirrel busters" or "Scientology harassment" and find lots more. Here's another video filmed by the same guy, Marty Rathbun. What I found striking about this is how closely the stuff the woman is saying mirrors the self-talk that people struggling with clinical depression deal with. I have probably mentioned that I have dealt with clinical depression during my life, and the stuff the woman is saying-- "you're a failure", "you're an embarrassment", "nothing you do matters", etc, is exactly the kind of stuff I told myself at my lowest points. I don't know if this is just a bully who knows how to hit someone where it hurts, or if it's a calculated attack, but whatever it is I personally found this pretty upsetting. "You're an embarrassment" Personally I've never been interested in anything Leah Remini has done before in her career, but I think that what she's doing right now is epic and awesome. -k

If you guys want to talk about roadkill, go to the Travel, Leisure, and Cuisine section and start a roadkill thread. And have the decency to include recipes and hopefully dashcam videos. -k

We are not having a discussion about geopolitics in this section of the board. The support forum is for comments and questions regarding the forum. Period. I think Betsy makes a fair point. I would encourage members to give a heads-up if they are posting links to violent material, simply as a courtesy. Try to be considerate to each other. That's a suggestion, not a rule, but try to respect each other. Depending on the circumstances, it's possible that the moderating staff may edit messages to include warnings, or delete links entirely if the content is really inappropriate. -k

Personally I agree with betsy... I think that as a courtesy to others, it would be polite to mention that your video link contains potentially upsetting content. While the concept of "trigger warnings" has been a subject of mockery of late, most news sources have been warning viewers of potentially disturbing content for a long time. It turns out that watching people being shot, beheaded, beaten, mauled, maimed, mutilated, or murdered are actually quite upsetting to a lot of people, and I think all of us probably heard the "caution, this video may be disturbing to some of our viewers" warning from a news person before we ever got on the internet, let alone heard of "trigger warnings" or "snowflakes". And of course, long-standing tradition holds that it's courteous to warn people that your link contains sexual content as well. -k

There's been a lot of debate on how much impact "fake news" had on the election. But let's leave that issue aside for the moment. As I said before, I've been concerned about this for a while. Before it was a partisan political issue, and before anybody used the term "fake news" to describe it. I thought the 9/11 truthies were mostly harmless, and pretty funny. The Obama "birther" crowd, likewise. But with the arrival of the Sandy Hook conspiracy believers, things took a really sinister turn. Not only are these nutjobs convinced that the entire thing was a hoax, but they're also harassing and threatening parents whose children were murdered. How disgusting is that? Even now, 4 years later, these psychopaths are still harassing the parents. Just last week a woman was arrested for sending death threats to a Sandy Hook parent. Concurrent with that, we've had numerous outbreaks of disease linked directly to people refusing to vaccinate their kids. The anti-vaxx movement has spread, in large measure, thanks to gullible idiots sharing "news" on social media. Once again we have real people being harmed because of fake news. I recall some time ago you were quite agitated because a company was facing a boycott because its CEO was seen kicking a puppy on security video, and the news spread via social media. Later on you were agitated because the dentist who illegally poached a lion was being harassed on social media. You felt that was extremely unfair... but that wasn't even "fake news"... that CEO really did kick the puppy, that dentist really did poach the lion and he had a history of illegal poaching as well. How do you feel sorry for guys like that, and not feel equally upset for the Sandy Hook parents, or for the owners of Comet Pizza and the neighboring businesses, who are all receiving hundreds of death threats every day, thanks to fiction being spread by deranged individuals? You can question the reach of this sort of thing, but I know people in real life who believe the anti-vaxx nonsense they've been reading on Facebook. There are at least 2 people on this forum who I would bet real money are #PizzaGate true believers. What's more worrying long term is that this sort of phenomenon will be (if it's not already being) exploited by people who are malicious rather than merely stupid. Combine the wisdom of P.T. Barnum and H.L. Menken with the propaganda genius of Jozef Goebbels, and you come up with a terrifying new possibility: weaponized stupidity. Consider the potential of peoples' gullibility and willingness to believe anything they read, with the ease with which social media can be exploited to spread misinformation, and the potential benefits to some malicious actor of inflicting damage in one form or another, and it's an obvious conclusion that it's only a matter of time. That might take the form of undermining a political candidate, as was allegedly the case in this election. It might take the form of undermining a war effort or destroying the reputation of some company to the benefit of a competitor. At present, "the right" seem unconcerned, because it seems to have worked out in their favor this time. Next time, "their guy" might be the target. Or maybe Monsanto or Exxon or some other corporation. Who knows where the wheel will stop next? But clearly, since this seems to be a winning strategy, "the other team" is going to learn to play the game too. And so will everybody else who thinks they can use this as a way of promoting their own agenda or attacking their enemies. Today it might be the Democrats who are angry and crying foul. That might not be the case next time. Before long, I think we're all going to regret that (as Scottie Nell Hughes and Newt Gingrich explained) facts don't matter anymore. -k

So, first off, I check what's up on Breitbart fairly regularly, just to see what "those people" are on about now. And while I do feel that it's the most slanted news source in the United States, and on the brink of becoming just a press-organ of the Trump Administration, I don't think I have seen anything there that I would describe as "fake news". Their decisions about what to cover seem to be extremely biased. Their decisions about what not to cover seem extremely biased. Their editorial pieces are all heavily slanted in the same direction. But I can't recall seeing anything that I would describe as out-and-out "fake". They publish stuff that I would describe as "that's true but they're leaving out important information", as opposed to stuff that's outright fiction. (I am not a reader of The Tyee, but I imagine you'd describe them in the same way.) That's altogether different from "fake news". #PizzaGate... or Alex Jones getting on his microphone and literally claiming that Hillary Clinton personally chops children into pieces. People have been concerned for a long time... from the 9/11 Truthies to the Sandy Hook truthies, to the anti-vax movement, people from all over the political spectrum have been concerned and annoyed about the increasing ability of bullshit to cause real-world harm. The concern isn't new, but if the role of fake news in electing that guy President has caused people to become concerned enough to do something about it, then it's about time. Facts don't matter anymore. Newt Gingrich explains. We now live in a world where people apparently feel justified in discarding information they disagree with and inventing their own facts instead.The flat earthers, the anti-vax movement, Sheriff Joe and the "birthers", the Sandy Hook truthers, the 9/11 truthers, the #PizzaGate imbeciles, it's all part of the same phenomenon. -k

Consider also that the actual location of Obama's birth is unimportant, for the same reason that the location of Ted Cruz's or John McCain's birth was not a barrier to their legal right to be president. -k

I agree with this much... I don't see an answer either. Putting a "disputed content advisory label" on fake news stories won't help, because the consumers of fake news stories don't have any trust in the people who'd be issuing that label no matter who that might be. A Donald Trump surrogate, Scottie Nell Hughes, said a couple of weeks ago that "There's no such thing anymore as facts." It sounds like a ridiculous comment, but after she elaborated, what she was talking about is hard to disagree with: “And so Mr. Trump’s tweet amongst a certain crowd, a large — a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some — in his — amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up. Those that do not like Mr. Trump, they say that those are lies, and there’s no facts to back it up. So … ” In other words, people are picking and choosing what information they want to listen to, based on their preconceptions: “One thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts, they’re not really facts. Everybody has a way, it’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true.” -k