Speed skate blades have never been banned for Carry-on air travel.
[At least as far as I know - they were legal before this change.]

And if you know anything about speed-skate blades, you know they're literally RAZOR sharp 17 inch mini-swords.
They might not be as dangerous as a full-on machete, but pretty damn close.

When I heard about ice blades being fine for carry-on - I was astonished. You can't bring a razor-blade or a small knife, but 17" clap blades you could shave with? Just peachy!

The whole BS around airline security is insane.

Can you point to any statement I made that showed I supported "censor[ing]" them?

Can you point to any case I made that said we ought to force people to behave a certain way?

Perhaps I missed it somewhere?

-Greg

With strong implication that it was sound, reasonable fact.

"If you eat cyanide, it will decrease your appetite won't it?"
Yes, perhaps it will. It also has substantial, nay catastrophic side effects.

Your statement, while not as inane, uses the same veneer of "question" to imply benefit.

If you can't or won't see that, I guess I can't help you.

So the whole country, including all it's people are "outright evil?"

When I say I love my country - I mostly mean many of the good people I meet who are my fellow citizens. But you have to narrow that down, like much of your other postings, to vary narrow black-and-white caricatures.

Further, there *are* good things this country has done, along with it's evil. I'm not sure our place in the standings of good/bad world forces is particularly higher or lower than any other. But as in much the rest of life - you applaud the good and work hard to mitigate or change the bad.

But go ahead - take the most absurd and narrow view and expand it to truly inane proportions.

Hopefully you'll come back and read this.

Thanks for the effort at reconciling our divergent views. [Not that you care what I think, but I say - "Good work."]

I've actually watched substantial parts of VB's presentation she linked to in her response to this episode, and I have to say - I'm not sure the two sets of content are the same. The title of the presentation would seem to indicate different, but perhaps the title is intended to be edgy and mysterious.

I have to say, I tend to fall, reflexively, on VBlue's side. I've read some of her writings and come across her in the past and tend to view what she's done with no prejudice. So, given all that - if the two talks were similar - I'd again have to say that I think someone over reacted.

But that often happens. I wish it wouldn't and I'd say a vigorous apology to VBlue would be a minimal level of effort that should be required.

I'd probably tend to asses the blame as 80/20 or 70/30 - but again I don't consider myself adequately in possession of the facts to really judge.

Better pre-talk clarification on what the content is would be helpful. At least this way, everyone knows what's coming and can adjust accordingly.

The unspoken assumption is that avoiding these "triggers" helps the PTSD victim manage. I would suspect that exposing the individual to these triggers in a safe environment would serve to decondition their adverse response.

After all, isn't desensitization effective for phobias? Wouldn't it be reasonable to hypothesize that it would work for PTSD too? What does the actual data say?

Citation needed. +1000

I'll try not to be contemptuous, but it amazes me that you make such sweeping statements and apparently have taken no steps to actually do some research to back up such ideas.

Even if we just assume that "aversion" therapy is the one and best approach to solving someone's phobia [it's probably not the best approach for PTSD] - treatment would be a "with consent" kind of thing.

That you'd suggest/imply that we subject victims of any kind of abuse or trauma to repeat said trauma without their consent in an effort to HELP them, seems beyond the pale.

Clearly the argument was - whether you agree with it or not - that victims of sexual trauma/violence would be, without their consent, subjected to re-injury. And you're going to actually make the point that we should not avoid it, because it *might* conceivably help them? [And I can anticipate you're going to throw in the "in a safe environment" as your escape. And in a crowded room of males who seem to often have boundaries issues with sex and women - that's a safe environment, and with consent? Sheesh.]

Perhaps that's not what you're claiming, but seriously, If it's not, then this discussion has veered way off the topic of either the initial thread, or even the subthread here about treating people with dignity, respect and empathy.

A safe environment isn't in a room full of men, many of whom seem incapable of anything other than "that effing bitch just needs to get the f out of there." - referring to either Violet Blue or the hypothetical women who would might have been wounded by the talk [depending on which half of seemingly 40% of the responses here have been.]

You're far from the worst, so perhaps you deserve a break, but damn - I really can't believe many of the offensive, uneducated, unknowledgeable and uncaring and frankly offensive posts I've seen on this thread - from the top down.

Do you really want a discussion, or is this just a mindless troll attempt?

Perhaps you'd like to ponder what those words mean, and consider that they have some significance other than the facile way you apparently are interpreting them.

Do you love your parents? For most, the answer is yes.
Do you agree with everything they do?
Do you disagree with everything they do? ...Probably somewhere in the middle.
Do they make bad decisions sometimes? Harm people sometimes?

Again, for most, they aren't angelic beings or absolute devils.

And yet you still love them.
And yet you still help them.
And yet you still try to help them do better.

[sarcasm] But they do horrible things! Then why do you love and support [them]? [/sarcasm]

Clear enough?

I appreciate that you've posted non-anon. It seems few are willing to actually stand behind their beliefs.

---
As far as the source of the article. I am confused about the actual content of the talk. But, provided I understand what occurred, I think I disagree with the decision. [To cancel. Yes, that's right: disagree.]

But my points here are not about agreement [or not] of the actual decision. It's more about: How much should I be understanding and accommodating to needs I don't much understand - even if I feel they're excessive.

Because, perhaps even often, we feel someone else's needs are excessive when in reality - if the roles were reversed - we'd have the same position as the person we're opposing.

Because, far too often, we lack empathy for those around us, for those we don't identify as "like us."

Do you seriously think that was a reasonable accommodation, like helping a blind person cross the street?

...since I'm unclear of the actual facts of the case - because I'm unsure what happened, and because I was responding to a poster who seemed to feel his "problem" should be his alone, and because I see this lack of care and empathy in so many ways in peoples lives. ...because I think it's at epidemic levels here in the United States. [Lack of empathy for those not "like us."] ...for all those reasons - I thought it was incredibly important to highlight that lack of civility, honor, and empathy. I thought if one were to err on one side vs another - that in that case, I'd err on the side of being "too" accommodating, "too" empathetic, rather than not enough.

Was the harm from not having the talk greater than the harm that might have been done by glossing over victims of sexual violence? I really don't know. But I do know that by reading a lot of what is up-thread - that really caring about the sensitivities of the victims of sexual violence isn't, by any standard, universally in evidence here. [Along with respect for Women etc.]

Ergo, perhaps a good reason to push hard on the boundaries the other way.

-Greg

I was also against the wars - perhaps not for the exact same set of reasons you are, but very against in any case.

However, without speaking for you - I *do* consider myself responsible for the acts of my country - at least in part.

I pay taxes, I vote, I remain a citizen of my country.
I don't believe I am responsible for all the blame, but I'm not free of it either.

It's too bad you chose to post anon - I think a good discussion could occur.

But in summary - yes, the country I love and support did [and does] horrible things. I almost certainly could do more to stop it.
[For example, one could lead a armed insurrection. It's not something I think would be beneficial or even justified - but the point is that virtually no-one has done everything possible to stop the bad actions this country has taken. Even you, even me.]

Thus, I share some of the guilt and blame.

It may be "your" problem. [Negating the fact that *we* sent you to war and you were doing your job in service for all of us - at least those in the USA. (I'm assuming you're a US combat veteran.)] ...As a start, I hope I've widened your thinking in how it's NOT really just _your_ problem. Lots of us contributed to _your_ problem, and you ought to be reasonable in letting some of the blame flow to others too.

---
But, for discussion sake - lets just *assume* it really *is* all your problem.

Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage? I mean really - sure it's all a blind person's problem for being blind. Or an elderly person's problem for being elderly. But still, we make allowances for these "problems" and treat such people with dignity and respect. We make changes to how we'd interact with the world to accommodate them, and make them feel as comfortable as possible.

That's not to say that one can't go overboard on accommodation - because you certainly can. But, in general, in the world, we rarely do TOO MUCH for those who need our help and consideration. If there's an error, IMO, in the world, it is that we have _too little_ empathy and care for the perspectives of those outside our gender/race/ethnicity/social-group/family etc. The number of times we have too much empathy? Pretty damn insignificant IMO.

---
So, while I recognize your desire to stand up on your own two feet and I know that you want to succeed on your own - please realize that you need care and love from those around you too. It's not too much to want others to help, and while you can't *make* them do so, they ought to.

I wish you the best in your recovery. IMO, care and love from those around you and being realistic in viewing your responsibility in your "problem" is key in finding the best resolution you can.

-Greg

Oh, so stupid contracts that disadvantage a huge business over the customer need criminal protections for said huge business? Sheesh

[And that's even assuming such a "disadvantage exists - which it doesn't.]

But lets just assume it does.
So, if I'm "too large to fail" I'll get the government to enact criminal penalties to help me enforce a stupid contract I made, outside of the civil court system? This is no different than getting "Vinny," with his bat, to break the knees of anyone who renegs on a deal nad cuts into your profits. Spare me.

Hey, mobile-telco boffo's - take it up in civil court like everyone else. Your contractual stupidity shouldn't be enforced by draconian criminal punishments from a government who should have no interest in any contract you make.

Free market my ass.

-Greg

You seem, again, to confuse *ideal world approaches* with how it often goes.

No, I wouldn't buy a car at most car dealerships - they're out to sack as much money from me as they can.

And while I can't prevent others from buying from the dealership and getting more of their money taken than is required - we can [and should] keep the dealership from committing fraud in doing so.

I do my homework too - but there's almost always some portion of the world we don't do as well as others. And in those cases, we'll be relying on the skills of someone else to assist us. In those cases, it's the moral, or not legal, responsibility of those doing that work to do it well.

Perhaps I can't take them to court and extract what they ought to cough up - but if it's at all a just world, they'll be paying back in some cosmic sense for a long time.

But let's not confuse - what one "ought" to do and lay all the blame on the person who was trusting the person they paid to do job X to have actually done job X. It may have been dumb, but the guy who was supposed to do job X is 90% liable and the guy who trusted him is 10% guilty.

I'll note that you appear to have ignored mysummary.

I think both are to blame. It certainly would be best if consumers would know what they're doing - but it's really not that many people who even *can* do what we do routinely - at least that appears to be what I see when I interact with lots of "common" people.

But "should" do - doesn't give any remote pass to those that simply *had* to know what they were doing was at least morally bankrupt - and eventually bankrupt in the real world too.

Blame does belong on both sides. But blame shouldn't be placed equally, IMO. The guilt from the mortgage lenders all the way upward to those rating them and the CDO's and default-swaps etc - they have vastly more blame than the unsophisticated consumer of these loans.

If I rob a single store for a TV, I ought to do time. I'm not blameless.

But if I setup a cartel, a system designed to rob and move the goods for thousands, perhaps millions, of such instances ... Well the law, if it's fair, ought to treat that in a vastly different way. We as a society, if we're moral, should also recognize there's a vast difference.

Some people on the borrowing side did play the game, though not anywhere close to the banks level. A larger number should [and probably did to some extent] have known they were farther out than was wise. More than few, almost certainly were unaware of the risk and unwise direction they had been steered.

But none of these come *remotely* close to the amoral, venal and bankrupt moral compasses that ran the banks.

This ^^ +1000

And tell me, who is likely to *know* who is able to afford the loan better?

A) The bank who has collective experience in the thousands of man-years in making loans and seeing the trends of who pays and who doesn't and what kind of debt load is reasonable. An institution who has NO OTHER job than to manage money, cash-flow and manage risk from loans and investment?

or

B) Sammy Homeowner who simply wants a house. He's not very sophisticated - he couldn't even calculate how his loan should work out in interest and principle. He works hard, but also wants all the good stuff, and his loan officer is telling him - "This is a great deal! You'll love it. It will be great. Here, just sign right here."

If you pick B, can I have what you're smoking - it's really incredible stuff.

The banks knew who was likely to not repay - they are vastly more sophisticated than virtually *ANY* home-owner getting a loan.

I'd agree the person taking the loan should have used more diligence - but the disparity is staggering. Blame ought to be apportioned 10:1 to the Bank.

Even in the *best* case, if true - it indicates a *HUGE* issue.

The FBI should be professional no matter if you cooperate or not. Sure, they *can* be a dick if they want, but it's bad all the way around if they are.
It is, essentially, a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused - in that they are treated differently under the law. [Some nicely, some not.] Proving it in court is a far more difficult matter, however.

That law enforcement doesn't see it as a problem, indicates a serious flaw in their understanding of their responsibilities and have thrown away their honor.

It is, IMO, because of this kind of mind-set that the public starts to lose their respect for law-enforcement and see them as opportunistic thugs. Then the system breaks down - people feel they'll just do whatever they can, if they can get away with it. When people start shooting cops, they don't care much because the cops only care for their "friends" ... and since the cops aren't their friends, whatever bad things happen are just too bad - they're getting back what they did to the public.

It's not right for the public to feel that way - any more than the cops are right to do what they do - but it certainly makes the breakdown of respect more understandable.

So, being thugs and treating some defendants nicely and others like crap really, ultimately costs law enforcement a lot. It also costs society a lot too.

But I really, really hate "explanations" like the parent, because they seem to justify that kind of behavior. IMO, if you can't treat all your "customers" with respect you need to find another job. That doesn't mean you have to love them all - that's pretty hard - but you can at least do your job well and with respect for those you work around/ or with, and interact with.