you're missing the point, it's not the way that they died, it's the glorification of their death. you list two cases as "atrocities" which is an arguable descriptor of police shootings... but at the very least, nobody is trumpeting them as the just and correct way that society should behave.
People are, at least I am, more appalled by the fact that a revenge execution is glorified.
i think what you were trying to find was this picture
... you really invoke something that happened pre-WW2? why not just invoke gas chambers? it's more timely. we've also got you know
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
racially motivated killings in the proximal part of the 20th century... but you had to go more than a century ago...
i think a lot of people understand that... on the other hand it appears that a lot of the people on here can't imagine what kind of person would want a 10k phone-watch.
into tech? probably go with something that's got more utility than an overpriced, miniaturized extension for your phone...
into flaunting your wealth and fashion? buy a really nice car or a yacht... or a really nice watch, not some ugly as sin inbred monstrosity.
think about it this way, what would your thoughts be if you saw someone, dressed sharply mind you, with one of these on his wrist, versus the same gentleman with a nice looking gold or silver wristwatch? Personally, i think my first reaction to the wristwatch would be, hey, nice watch/nicely dressed. my first reaction to apple-watch guy would be huh?really?/"bet he's a dick"
not coincidence... the ratio falls between 1.58-1.64
this is what they call, imposing a narrative.
pick and choose. you seem to get selection bias up the wazzooo. this particular example, they list the ratio as falling... between 1.58 and 1.64... so yeah, apparently that's "close enough" these days. everything is apparently "close enough"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
from if you take the total number of jews killed, and the death totals for everybody else not including soviet pows and ethnic poles. you come out to 6404500
which, makes a perfect golden ratio 1.6 with the number of soviets and poles... if you assume they add up to 4.
OMG you guys, hitler killed people according to math. burn the math.
that's what all the expired gas and punctured tires are for. keep that zombie moat low on zombies
i'd imagine that he thought "investing into electronics" was enough of a giveaway that there was no goal of financial gain... or the "spending premium money" which implies that it is over top of what is normally spent.
but i don't care, i'm not terribly invested in this argument, i don't imagine investing more time will change your mind. i'll invest in a good set of earplugs instead.
"you'd have a hard time proving that the iWatch produced inferior returns." - you
"massively overpriced electronics that go obsolete within only a few years."- him
obsolescence is a pretty good indication of what kind of "investing" he was talking about.
hey, i was giving you the benefit of the doubt, i'd rate foreign over ignorant. but ignorant it is i guess.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"
or any public for that matter.
not sure if you're a native english speaker.
investing is often used less formally to describe sinking resources into. In this sense it doesn't require any desire for financial return. You invest your time heavily into your hobby for example. The return can often be in enjoyment and value of a non-financial nature.
i believe that the parent was saying that a techie wouldn't blow their money on such crap tech, they'd blow their money on higher quality crap tech. Even though neither the home system nor the watch will have any foreseeable financial returns, the watch won't even have that many non-financial returns, whereas the home entertainment system potentially could.
If i had to blow 10k, i'd probably just blow it on upgrading my PC and like... i don't know, gardening supplies? that's a lot of disposable cash... but also not enough.
"Part of that mob was the people that worked for him. We always have to remember that while we have free speech, everyone does. You cannot stop the reactions."
i am acutely aware that it is people exercising their own right to free speech that i am frightened of. I am not actually for regulation of the mob... i just wish the mob were more tempered. I have no solution, i'm just particularly frightened of the direction we seem to be going. I don't want to live in a society where the brendan eichs of the world can be forced out because they put money behind an unpopular opinion... that they are engaged in the legislative process the way we always say we want every good voter to. I don't want people to muzzle themselves on the internet from making jokes with friends or trying to be funny.
Sacco had like 500 followers max, it was basically people familiar with her and presumably familiar with her style of humor. Apparently the journalist who first propogated her tweet, was himself castigated and roasted a year later for making a tweet "making light" of bullying. He told a shitty joke, and they crucified him for it.
The speed of social media, combined with the radical shift to political correctness that we seem to have come across spells the death of humor and criticism. I don't want to live in that world, but i'm afraid it's the world we're in.
I agree that people shouldn't make that threats, like threats threats, against others on the internet. It's in poor taste. What i disagree with is taking as seriously as all that, and the appropriate response.
also,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02...
on your last sentence...
apparently a while back dan savage got in trouble for using the word "tranny" while in the midst of a discussion of why he considered it no longer okay to use the word "tranny." which, apparently makes sense to someone somewhere.
The Left is eating its own, and no amount of PC can cover you these days if someone is on the prowl looking to be offended.
My point overall is, we live in the kind of environment where the public reaction is in some circumstances worse by an order of magnitude than what a judge would deem appropriate, and i really really wish it were different.
i think the exceptions for incitement to imminent violence and you know threatennig speech are enough restraints. I was speaking generally, in this particular circumstance, i'd say the "credible threat" test would need to be met. How credible are these threats to his daughter? are they local, are they classmates? are they just dicks being dicks? If i threaten to harm someone from 1000 miles away, my alibi is, i was 1000 miles away.
My examples were brendan eich, losing his job over 1000 dollars to a political campaign, and justine sacco losing her job, and probably 3-4 years of her life over 1 tweet. It wasn't the employer, it was the mob that forced their hand.
The problem with taking threats seriously on the internet, is that probably a fraction of a percent could possibly be credible. I really do mean I believe
I'd be more afraid of someone on the internet that threatened to steal my hypothetical daughter's identity than someone who threatened to rape her... one involves literally tracking her down, the other can be done from anywhere.
what i got, is that
http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp...
from what i understand, they've been condemning israel for like, 2 decades with very little to show for it, and their human rights council is partially composed of hypocrisy.
as someone else said above... the phone you brought with you, on this trip, that's charged and you were fiddling with like... 30 seconds ago, that phone. you forgot your password to that phone in the span of, like an hour. yes, that seems very likely and not at all like you're the boldest liar in the history of lying.
yes, because it's in something the UN puts out, it's obviously legal and enforced in all member nations. The UN is not feckless at all.
who decides proper manners? a century ago it probably wasn't "proper manners" for a woman to you know... speak. or wear pants. but that's off-topic.
i'm a bit more liberal than the average american, but i'm of the firm belief that all speech, all expression no matter how offensive should be protected from and by the law. It scares me that if i speak the wrong words, i might ruin my life, that if i contribute to the wrong political philosophy or campaign, i could ruin my life. I could ruin my life with a single tweet.
And the thing ruining my life is the judgmental, vicious and gleeful masses.
I like to think that i try to be excellent to others... but that in some very small part entails being excellent to those that are not excellent to me.
Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.
