kimmy

(is it because I'm not on Team Hillary?) Right now I'm advocating for the young women who are working in the same sort of work that I used to enjoy and sticking up for their opportunity to make good money at it. -k

Another Deep South landslide win for Hillary tonight, as she clobbered Sanders in Mississippi. Sanders won Michigan by a couple of percentage points, which is quite remarkable because polls had him trailing by over 20 points. Polls guru Nate Silver calls it "among the greatest errors in primaries polling history." The bad news for Bernie is that Hillary's huge win in Mississippi and near-tie in Michigan only increases her delegate lead. The good news for Bernie is that there are only a couple more Deep South states to go. Outside the Deep South, he has more than held his own, and his supporters believe that as western and northern states have their primaries, they will close the gap. They feel that the huge upset in Michigan shows there's a momentum shift happening. -k

Apparently some of Rubio's advisors are now trying to persuade him to drop out before the Florida primary. They believe that he could lose in Florida, and that losing his home state could do long-term damage to his political brand. -k

I don't often have an opportunity to say this, but I agree with Hal. Before I got a regular 40 hour a week day job, I worked at a bar wearing a little black tank-top. After I got a regular 40 hour a week day job, I continued to do so. I enjoyed my co-workers, the environment, and the extra money. I never felt "oppressed" or "exploited". I was there of my own volition, and while I once in a while had unpleasant experiences, I think that every job offers unpleasant experiences of one kind or another. Given the choice between reliving my worst day working in a bar, or my worst day working at a tech support line, or my worst day working at the recycling sorting facility, I would definitely choose my worst day working in a bar. And I think the people who work at the upscale restaurants probably have it easier due to the lesser amount of drunk young adults. I A restaurant isn't just providing food, they're providing an atmosphere, and an experience. Mandating what's acceptable for the wait-staff to wear is an unwarranted interference with the business's ability to provide the atmosphere and experience they want to provide their customers. It's not like Earl's and the Cactus Club are the only restaurants in town. There are lots of other restaurants where you aren't expected to wear a Little Black Dress. It's not like there's an anti-trust case to be made here. -k

I think that healthy young men have high-paying low-skill options of their own available to them. The number of brand-new $75000 one-ton pickups driving around town plastered with "Metal Mulisha" stickers seems to suggest so, anyway. -k

Obviously the examples you mentioned are cut and dried, and degrade the quality of the forum. That's not the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Some of the reports that come in are so frivolous that they make me feel quite embarrassed for the people who send them in. To protect the identity of those involved I won't name any specific examples, but when I look over some of the reports I wonder "what is this? Is this a cry for attention? a cry for help? does this person have some sort of mental health problem that causes them to believe this is a real issue? Does this person need medical help? should I be trying to contact the law enforcement authorities in their area? Are they a danger to themselves or others?" I am becoming quite concerned about some of our members. This is really quite stressful. I believe I now understand why Charles has gone mental. -k

Uh, no. Homosexuality was never punished by execution in Canada. There's a very short list of things that could get you executed by the government in Canada, and homosexuality was never on that list. Calling for government execution of large groups of people is certainly Nazi-like, and if Swanson wants to pursue legal action against the people who've pointed out, he's going to have a tough time. In a world where we have Grammar Nazis, FemiNazis, Soup Nazis, Fitness Nazis, and probably many other kinds of Nazis as well, I think it's a little late to try and preserve that word for the exclusive use of the victims of the Holocaust. It's in the public lexicon and it's not coming out. Your complaint reminds me of a Jon Stewart bit in which Stewart shows the lady from Fox And Friends complaining that the phrase "the War on Women" is offensive to people who have fought in actual wars. Stewart's response to that was to play long series of Fox personalities, including the lady herself, saying "the War on Christmas", "the War on Religion", "the War on Obesity", "the War on Salt", "the War on Cellulite", "the War on Cholesterol", and many others. Is it intellectually lazy to call Swanson, Bickle, and their ilk Nazis? Is it intellectually lazy to deflect the point by griping about semantics and complaining that it's offensive to Jews? I dunno. The point is that Cruz has publicly aligned himself with hate-mongers. Bryan Fischer is now on Team Cruz as well; I won't call Fischer a Nazi as he's never advocated for mass executions as far as I know. And if those are the kind of people Ted Cruz is proud to rub elbows with, he should wear the consequences. -k

Nobody goes to a hockey game to watch the referees. And I don't think people come to the forum to see which messages get removed or edited either. The more of you and the less of us, the better. But at this point it is starting to feel like this has become a game where opposing teams are trying to score points by calling for moderator action trying to get the other team's posts removed. People are complaining about posts not because they believe any actual harm has been done, because they want to score points in this ridiculous game. I don't think the moderators should play that game anymore. If you're complaining about a post because it's actually offensive, that's one thing. If you're complaining about a post because you think it's an opportunity to score "points" for your "team", that's a different thing. Looking at some of the reports that are coming in, I can only conclude that some of you are looking very hard for reasons to cry foul so that you can complain to the moderators, because we're now seeing people cry foul over issues that nobody over the emotional age of 6 should be upset by. I think the moderating staff should be less indulgent of frivolous complaints. -k

I don't think Godwin's Law applies when you're talking about real Nazis, and Kevin Swanson is as close as you can get to the genuine article without a time machine. Also on the Godwin's Law front, another of Cruz's evangelical endorsements is from Mike Bickle, who believes that Hitler was a "hunter" sent by God to make Jews convert to Christianity. Bickle is a big name in evangelical circles because he's the leader of IHOP (not the pancake restaurant, the International House of Prayer.) IHOP members are among the American evangelicals (along with Scott Lively) who were involved in promoting the (still on the Godwin's Law front...) "Death to Gays" law in Uganda. Ted has interesting fans. -k

Not to worry, Poochy! They weren't calling me a Muppet, they were wondering when I was going to get a Muppets-themed avatar like Michael and Charles. It's actually been something we've been discussing since I joined the staff. It would be hard to part with my long-time Roza Shanina avatar, of course. If I do go with a Muppet, it'll probably be Janice from the Muppet Show band. Of course there's also Miss Piggy... -k

First off, as you were among those dumping on Ted Kennedy's grave, I don't expect that will actually be much of a change for you. Second, I don't think the forum has ever had a rule against speaking ill of the dead. So nothing has changed, actually. Third, you're welcome to say whatever you wish about Jimmy Carter, before he dies or after, as long as it's done within forum rules. -k

No institution, including religion, can be exempt from criticism (including mockery.) Whether it be concerted efforts to conceal sex abuse within the Catholic church, or the treatment of women in Islam, or any number of other topics, there is a lot that needs to be challenged. If people stopped challenging ideas because they didn't want to hurt religious peoples' feelings, we'd still be in the middle ages. -k

Again, it's not that she's supporting Republicans, it's that she's offering to act as an "LGBT ambassador" to the most virulently anti-LGBT candidate since ... Michele Bachmann at the very least. Offering to be Ted Cruz's LGBT ambassador is conceptually similar to offering to be Adolf Hitler's Jewish Outreach ambassador. "The gas chamber policy turns a lot of people off, but his economic policies make a lot of sense!" -k

I'm in favor of encouraging abstinence for young people, be it drugs or sex. But I'm opposed to the idea of abstinence-only education. Abstinence-only education is a proven failure. I don't think there's a single more powerful lure to get young people interested in something that for old-people to say "Don't do it! I can't tell you why, but trust me, don't do it!" Well, I agree with you on that much. Tipper Gore and the PMRC are worse than Ebola. -k

The point is that people were able to discuss a guy who just died, warts and all, without all the feigned outrage we saw today. Discussing the flaws of the recently departed can still be done in "polite discourse". -k

What Trump said about Stewart makes him a hypocrite, because sometime in either the 1600s or 1800s depending on your source, Trump's ancestors also changed their name? I'm not sure that adds up. Trump's definitely a hypocrite, if not about this then about other things. He's all over the map, and he doesn't seem to care or even notice. There's lots of worse things that can be said about him too. But "Drumpf" isn't a legitimate or accurate name for Trump. As for the Trudeau Jr stuff, I've change my view... I do think juvenile people are using it deliberately to get a rise out of people who are easily offended. I no longer believe that people are using it in good faith, and I wish they would stop doing it. However, I also wish people would grow up and stop getting riled up over such triviality. -k

No. Look back at the previous thread and note that people were discussing Ted Kennedy warts and all, without people having a tantrum and crying that it's mean to speak ill of the dead. And note that more than one of the people taking dumps on Ted Kennedy's grave were among those offended by BC-Chick calling "Just Say No" a joke. Note that the guy who went apeshit today because people were "disrespecting someone who just died" was the guy who took the biggest crap of all on Ted Kennedy's grave. -k

YEP this is going well. -k

I watched the full 22 minutes as well. And if you fast-forward to final 2-3 minutes you can watch Oliver explain in his own words that he's trying to start a meme to ridicule Trump. Any other response? Any comment on whether you think it would be reasonable to address Mohammad Ali as "Cassius"? -k

Thanks to Bubber Miley's suggestion here we can revisit the Ted Kennedy obituary thread to examine this notion that people ought not to be spoken ill of after they die. Spoiler: people don't mind speaking ill of the dead when it's somebody they don't like. -k

As Nancy Reagan was virtually synonymous with the phrase "Just Say No", I think discussion of the merit (or lack thereof) of that policy is an entirely reasonable topic for a thread on her passing. Likewise her contribution (or lack thereof) to the AIDS crisis of the early 1980s. I also gather she was into astrology bigtime? -k

What facepalm? Nothing Dialamah mentioned disputes what I've written by one iota. Having now watched the clip, I can assure you that it Oliver was not responding to comments Trump made about Stewart in 2013. Oliver's goal, and Oliver himself is very up front about this-- is to create a meme to ridicule Trump. (John Oliver himself explains it much better than I could, so I encourage you to watch the clip-- it's very funny.) And I again have to marvel at the extraordinary hypocrisy of this meme being propagated throughout the internet by the same kind of well-meaning progressives who'd go into a tizzy of indignation if they heard someone refer to Caitlyn Jenner as "Bruce". -k

I have to point out that nobody insulted Nancy Reagan in that thread. They insulted her policies. And until Shady showed up and threw a tantrum, people were discussing it in those terms. -k

One important distinction that I think people lost sight of in the last thread is that attacking someone's policies or beliefs is not the same as attacking the person. It is possible to feel sad that an iconic figure has died while at the same time still feeling that their views were wrong. For me, Nancy Reagan was out of the public eye by the time I was old enough to pay attention to such things, and I don't have any particular feelings on her passing. -k

It's not a question of a woman supporting the Republicans... many do. BC Chick was pointing out the absurdity of Jenner supporting a candidate who was a featured speaker at Kevin Swanson's conference a few months back... Kevin Swanson being the "preacher" famous for advocating the death penalty for LGBT Americans. Cruz has vowed to do his darndest to do whatever it takes to undo every legal protection that LGBT people have gained over the years. -k