Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So cool (Score 1) 33

by PopeRatzo (#49756417) Attached to: A Conversation with Druva Co-Founder Jaspreet Singh (Video)

Then become a Sikh, and stop boring us with this nonsense.

I happen to think dogs are great too, but that doesn't mean I should want to become a dog.

MechaStreisand, you are an unpleasant person. Your comments almost always refer to other people as "retards", "idiots" or "morons". It's a little bit unseemly for such a stupid sonofabitch to be doing that. It's really no way to go through life.

Comment: Re:So cool (Score 1) 33

by PopeRatzo (#49755771) Attached to: A Conversation with Druva Co-Founder Jaspreet Singh (Video)

Would you be more worried about what atheists thought, or what Sikhs would think if they knew you didn't belong to their religion?

Atheists think a lot of different things, and I'd like to think that most atheists aren't actually offended by the fact that religious people exist. That would be a pretty horrible way to go through life.

If there is a specific religious significance to the headwear, I wouldn't want believers to think I was denigrating their beliefs.

I'm old school in that I don't believe in being offensive without good reason.

Comment: Re:Not the Issue (Score 1) 125

by PopeRatzo (#49755071) Attached to: 'Prisonized' Neighborhoods Make Recidivism More Likely

American Justice is about having a penalty so severe that the risk/reward ratio makes doing the crime a bad idea. Unfortunately, many, many people today have a problem with thinking very far in the future.

No, American Justice is about keeping enough poor people incarcerated that revolution can be avoided.

The ridiculous percentage of Americans that are incarcerated has more to do with politics than it does crime.

Comment: Re:So cool (Score 1) 33

by PopeRatzo (#49755037) Attached to: A Conversation with Druva Co-Founder Jaspreet Singh (Video)

He's a Sikh not a Muslim you idiot

The Sikh people I've met are some of the best people on the planet. They're the opposite of whatever Fox News muslim stereotype that AC was talking about.

Plus, as musicians, they rock:

Comment: Re:So cool (Score 1) 33

by PopeRatzo (#49754979) Attached to: A Conversation with Druva Co-Founder Jaspreet Singh (Video)

Or are you suggesting that turbans are only for "brown" people?

Nah, I'm just concerned that there is a religious significance to the turban that would offend people if I wore one. Like the time grew payot and wore a shtreimel while I was front man for a Christian death metal band, The Fifth Horseman.

Comment: So cool (Score 1) 33

by PopeRatzo (#49754537) Attached to: A Conversation with Druva Co-Founder Jaspreet Singh (Video)

I hope this isn't taken the wrong way or offends anyone, but I think turbans are extremely cool. I play music with a Sikh dude and always envy his headgear. If you think about all the cultural & religious headwear for men in the world, why are white American men so badly shortchanged? I can either wear a Carhartt mesh back trucker cap and look like someone who pimps out his little sister for meth or a flat-brim baseball cap and look like a gangbanger. Or, I can wear a fedora and look like some skeevy YouTube PUA or a knit skully and look like a hipster. Bowler hats or top hats are not really me, you know? What's left? A North African kufi hat is kind of slick, but what I really want to wear is a turban. I've dug them since I was a kid and saw stuff like this:

or this...

or this...

There's a rich history of cool musicians wearing turbans. Dr Lonnie Smith, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, even Professor Longhair was known to show up in a turban. I once saw the Fabulous Thunderbirds live and harmonica player extraordinaire Kim Wilson came out in a pair of RayBans and an electric blue turban. Dammit, I want to wear a turban too.

[I hope I didn't offend anyone with this comment, because I sincerely didn't mean to. If someone can offer better headwear alternatives for a white American guy, please do. ]

Comment: Re:This is why adultery is wrong (Score 2) 167

This is why people with substantial power — such as, first of all, government officials — must not engage in adultery or anything similarly reprehensible even if it is not illegal for the rest of us. Not because of some wicked "puritanism", but because it opens them up to blackmail, that corrupts government thus affecting all of us.

And if I do it, it opens me up to getting my throat slit in my sleep.

Comment: Re:Yeah, disappointing (Score 1) 769

There are plenty of men who are killed by their wives too. Here is a handy list of domestic abuse studies

It's still over three to one, with three times as many men killing their female spouses as women killing their male spouses.

So, when you say, "plenty", you are definitely not speaking relatively. For example, last year we had 1500 women killed by intimate men and 400 men killed by intimate women (and yes, that includes women who had a second man kill the husband).

Now, if you want to look at the ratios of non-fatal abuse, it's even more stark. Despite what you will see on PUA websites, men are far more likely to abuse their female spouses.

Comment: Re:why is that the question? (Score 5, Insightful) 345

by grcumb (#49748461) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the lack of action is your fault, not Rand Paul's. He's more than done his part. He's offered a rallying point for anyone who cares about the issue, and he's elucidated in the most detailed way possible just what the hazards are. He's actually stopped the machine for a moment, and all you can manage is to diss him for too little, too late?

Look, I don't even like the guy. He stands for a lot of things that I fundamentally oppose. But I respect him. At least he is willing to do politics using the machine the way it was designed, rather than breaking it further—which is what the rest of the right-wing establishment seems to want to do.

Rand Paul is someone I feel I could reason with on most matters. I can't say that of most other politicians. And the fact that you're damning him with faint praise is actually enabling the others and contributing to the sense of futility that pervades so much of modern political discourse today.

Comment: Re:More than PR (Score 3, Insightful) 345

by PopeRatzo (#49748355) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

How exactly would raising funds for his political campaign help him personally?

He can donate the money to his Rand PAC ( or just let it sit there for future elections. He becomes more influential by virtue of that money. He can use it to generate support for a bid for certain Senate committee positions. When you have money to distribute to other political purposes, you have the juice that creates power. Most important, he can do what his father did and just make personal money by selling his campaign donor mailing list.

Did you know even retired politicians can keep their campaign fundraising going? They can keep fundraising even after retired and can use that money for other politicians political purposes.

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.