JASKN
-
Posts
2624 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Posts posted by JASKN
-
-
1 hour ago, Grames said:
"But Grames you don't know that they are trespassers and saboteurs". Yes I do because evading this country's means of lawfully admitting immigrants makes them criminals trespassers and deliberately dodging the naturalization process and the oath of allegiance makes them presumed not-loyal to the present government/the Constitution. No one knows if they are loyal to any government at all (e.g. MS-13 gang members) but they aren't loyal to this one.
This makes me want to cry. So much for Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. We're talking about hardworking, honest people, more respectable than many Americans, who, with our "lawful" faucet drip of an immigration process, have no better hope of making a better life for themselves than bypassing the "process" altogether.
And who the hell cares about country "loyalty"?
-
One of the few email reminders I like to get led to this person, to whom I sent Atlas Shrugged:
QuoteAza Tetelman wants Atlas Shrugged
Studying Clinical Psychology at Alliant International University in USA"As a lover of literature and a current doctoral student of clinical psychology, I consider it my duty to understand the philosophies that underpin the human psyche before I can even consider what it might mean to truly understand and heal others in a morally considered and ethical way. We learn what behaviors to avoid, and what actions to take if we see others doing these, but we spend so little time really examining morality itself. I have never read any Ayn Rand and have been encouraged to do so, when I felt emotionally prepared. The best way to prepare is to start with a book in hand."
LinkThis was a few clicks and $10 - the site sends the book for you, if you choose that option - with all of the information I needed to know right there.
On 10/16/2015 at 9:52 PM, softwareNerd said:Though I got this suggestion from the FAQ on the site, I can;t see how this can be done. I just tried all sorts of options, and did not see any way to message the donee. I went all the way through a donation sequence and couldn;t find anything
Looks like a message function has been added at the end of the donation process.
-
3 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
He took it as if she was a conquest, or the silly idea that men and women sexual relations is about penetrator/penetrated so we need to give men leeway - lest they never have sex again. I think that is implicit in the "not rape" answers, even if you don't intend it.
Projecting.
4 minutes ago, Eiuol said:With sex, there's a pretty good chance it will be rape if there's an "accident".
Does this come across to you as absurd as it does to me when rephrased, "Whooooops! I raped..."
-
28 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:
Do you also believe that leaving your door unlocked is an invitation to your house?
More analogous would be an unlocked door of the home hosting a party to which I was invited at 7:00pm but arrived early, then opening the door myself and yelling a hello to the face of a surprised host who then jerks her head at me toward the kitchen.
-
33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
I think Don and I are fine with non-verbal consent in principle - but see no actual consent at any point in the story.
As has been pointed out, un-clothing the previously off-limits area and then not protesting in the middle of hot-and-heavy is consent.
-
7 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
Lucky for them you didn't mind.
Does this affirm that you believe Nicky was raped? If so, would you care to guess the percentage of sexual encounters that are recategorized as rape by this standard?
Using a verbal-only standard when determining rapes or anything else is ridiculous. Humans aren't robots marching around uttering, "Yes, I confirm your request to penetrate my anus, engage now."
-
Is this Bizarro Land? Since when is verbal communication some kind of golden razor? People are ambiguous, change their minds, lie, say only a portion of what they mean, use inflections unfamiliar to others, shade with personality, etc.... especially with sex.
Methinks some triggering is afoot.
-
1 minute ago, Eiuol said:
Nah, that just means he ignored her obvious wishes. If he was inclined to think that, he can ask to see if she changed her mind.
Maybe 30% of all communication is verbal.
-
Just now, SpookyKitty said:
Bravo.
*slow clap*
-
Mostly clothed + enter without warning = crotch area intentionally exposed by Sally, which Chris naturally interprets as consent. Ensuing sex is awkward and undesirable to Chris thanks to Sally, and thinking this is what's normal for Sally he quickly loses interest. Chris sticks it out to the end so as to not hurt Sally's feelings, who is obviously socially stunted. Chris later decides the kindest thing to do is cut off communication quickly and totally.
No rape.
-
1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:
I think you're saying that I can't get that million dollar bonus by joining Google and saying I'm a woman. At the very least, I need to wear a skirt, roll my eyes, and use the ladies room
It occurred to me that there's a parallel with church communities. "All sinners welcome" at church, but it's really only those who accept the religious premises on some level. There's an unspoken line that is crossed if the ideology is threatened, and you will soon find yourself slowly shown the door via private "counseling" sessions, social shunning, etc. I've wondered how long a church would actually let me attend, openly as myself.
28 minutes ago, Nicky said:Maybe not at Google, because they seem especially fanatical about this (they have a PC police set up and everything, that patrols the hallways and email lists to stomp out any dissent), but smaller companies will be happy to fake their diversity.
Tech companies can worry about silly things because they can afford to!
-
The general populace validates transgenderism using the same gender constructs that feed the disorder. The transgendered have an idea of "man" and "woman" that they use to satiate whatever mental issue is confounding them, and the populace judges the result by the same gender standards. The goal is to conform to and enforce the standard gender stereotypes. Running culturally parallel is the opposite: Straights and gays who identify physiologically as "man" or "woman," but not necessarily in line with the gender stereotypes. Their goal is to normalize in their own minds a version of their physiological gender that does not enforce the stereotypes. Right now, these opposite goals are conflated culturally.
A company would need to decide which standard they will use to identify "woman": how a person feels, or a person's physiology. Maybe some companies would be brave enough to use physiology, but I think people would try to appease social equalitists and default to using gender norms. If a stereotypical man called himself a woman but put forth no effort to look like a stereotypical woman, or worse still flagrantly so, everyone would think about how a transgendered person would feel about it, and then they would make judgements using the transgendered gender standards which also exist in their own minds. There would be some awkward, accusatory, defensive, "This man is disgusting for disrespecting the transgendered like this!" with an implicit, "He isn't even trying to adhere to women-gender stereotypes!"
-
The software developers changed the Like function to add reactions, but didn't add a default icon for the old, basic "Like." So, it was invisible. :|
Also, significant changes in the update otherwise messed up the custom theme, so we're stuck with this blue thing for a while until the other theme can be fixed (or abandoned forever...).
-
Hey Zach, thanks for introducing yourself, and good luck in your interviews!
-
Google tells me that Rand used this phrase often throughout her life, and you can watch her say it in one of the old interviews where she's wearing blue. So, use Google. But, it's outrageous to think she was acknowledging a supernatural existence. It would be like believing one of those spliced clip videos that has Obama "saying" random nonsense. Rand probably liked the phrase *because* it seemed to go against her views at first. It got people thinking.
-
18 hours ago, epistemologue said:
Can a button be added to the top banner like it used to be?
The closest we can get with our version of the forum software is to have the chat show up in something else that already has its own page, such as the Portal area.
-
Thanks to SoftwareNerd for figuring out how to get our usernames to show up in the chat automatically!
The chat can be found on the main Forums page to the right, and on the Portal page. It's easy to move it around, so if it's annoying or could be in a better spot, just let us know.
-
5 hours ago, softwareNerd said:
The key issue is the integration of login IDs, and then a "single login" that gets you into Chat once you're logged into the forum. If we relax that requirement, there may be some easy options.
tlk.io was initially a 5 minute integration using the Portal software add-on, currently visible on the righthand side of the main OO.com Forums page. If we relied on Facebook authentication, it would end there. And for now, I've set it to require Facebook or Twitter logins, though it has the public/anonymous option. But, this language:
...seems to suggest forum usernames can be pulled. 30 minutes after that 5 minute setup, I still can't figure out how, maybe I'll try again later. I'm not sure if the embed code they use can do it easily, or if a more involved workaround is required:
<div id="tlkio" data-channel="objectivismonlinechat" data-theme="theme--minimal" style="width:100%;height:800px;"></div><script async src="http://tlk.io/embed.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
I'm pretty sure php-something-or-another needs to be used...
-
Unfortunately, after a lot of finagling it looks like the old framework that ran PHPFreeChat on the forum doesn't translate directly to the updated forum software, and it's not working now.
RocketChat and Chatwee both require money, not to mention time. So, if you can find an option that fixes both of those problems, we can take a look at integration!
-
20 hours ago, Nerian said:
And I believe [Objectivism] can cause suffering and emotional distress amongst believers. Rand's issues in her life initially surprised me, back when I read her biographies, but not anymore. They follow logically. Living in contradiction with reality is often painful.
Rand's style of issues can probably be attributed to her genius. But, she was a person like anyone else, who dealt with people. Interpersonal issues are inherent with everyone. I've done plenty of lousy things and dealt with plenty of lousy people. If I or they had backed up decisions with lines of condemning logical reasoning that went against commonspeak of the time, it might also seem like something different than plain old interpersonal issues.
What is an issue of Rand's in particular that you're thinking about? Then, we can pick it apart and try to analyze the possible differences between her and a typical person.
-
15 hours ago, Nicky said:
I'm not denying that 10-15 years ago Hollywood movies were still the height of American entertainment. But that changed in the past few years. These days, tv shows have mostly surpassed them.
The best serious Hollywood actors consistently refer to current television as where to find the highest quality acting work. They say TV and movies have kind of swapped places, where movies are now frothy events. Sometimes I like event movies, but I happily embrace 8 to 12 hour serious character and narrative TV in place of 2 hour serious movies - especially when viewed from the comfort of home.
-
15 hours ago, Nicky said:
Me too. Interstellar and Arrival are my two favorite movies of the past few years. Do watch Arrival, if you haven't seen it. It's just as good.
I just watched Arrival a couple of weeks ago. I almost skipped it, because an Objectivist on Facebook dismissed it as "greater good" propaganda. But it was the best option in a crop of afternoon cable pay-per-view movies, so I watched. I'm glad I did. To that Objectivist, you see what you want to see? I thought the movie was original and great, from premise to presentation.
-
4 hours ago, dadmonson said:
But that is not convincing at all. I'm interested to see what any of you guys have to say about this post... and how would you respond?
Some people can't or won't be convinced, and almost certainly not in the moment. The post has a lot of bad ideas, and the particular grouping of ideas, along with the tone, suggests a tight knot that isn't going to be loosened easily. If I saw that on social media, I would unfollow if it's from a source I don't care about - as I don't gain anything from reading summations like that - or I *might* provide a very broad and (hopefully) friendly retort focusing on the most offending idea to me, but only if it was for a source I cared about.
It can also be valuable to respond with no expectations from the source in return, with your main goal being to observe their replies. You can try different argument methods - friendly, direct, vague, sarcastic - and gauge how they respond, keeping their personal profile in mind if possible. Various things can be learned by doing this over time.
-
PHPFreeChat is probably still an option (googling actually brings up David V.'s 10-year-old implementation), but the exact setup was lost (read: I didn't save it) when we switched to the IPS Chat, which I figured was permanent. :| I'll give it a look as soon as I get a chance.
Immigration as related to loyalty
in Political Philosophy
Posted
...If I think it's in my interest to support a tribalist immigration system, and if I think the quality of people entering the country anyway make my life worse.
Before the state come the principles which enable its value. Given your proud support of the racist tiny captain, I assumed your use of "loyalty" suggested the opposite. In principle, I am proudly a citizen of the world.