Only the violent belong in cages. Nice ones too.
We are a wealth society. Only violent people go to prison and even then the cages should be nice.
This is the same as any NLP crowd-sourcing tool; it's simply designed with a focus on correlating vocabulary with prejudicial sentiment.
In case some of you were wondering about the acronym. That becomes:
This is the same as any natural language processing crowd-sourcing tool; it's simply designed with a focus on correlating vocabulary with prejudicial sentiment.
To take the conjugation one step further it becomes:
This shit be the same shit as any goddamn shit where we get other motherfuckers to do the fucking dirty work of working out when shit-talkers, shit-talking in some other fucking language, be talking shit is a way that means that those fuckwits mean to start some shit.
Of course, sometimes you can take conjugation a bit too far.
No, they do not believe in the true concept of FREE speech - their only aim is to force everyone in using political correct speeches
With the FTFY conjugation which takes ownership of all aspects of society by turning all third person plural forms into first person plural forms that quote becomes:
No, we do not believe in the true concept of FREE speech - our only aim is to force everyone in using political correct speeches (sic)
My point is that "they" are not the problem. My point is that "we" are the problem. Every last fallible one of us can be a problem or a solution. The difference is often a matter of how compassionate we are combined with how much we are able to take personal responsibility for problems. Even (maybe especially?) the problems which seem to be caused by other people.
While I may be liberal and you may be conservative, the reality is that our society is comprised of both of us and we are both liberal and conservative. We are all the things we which are. By treating the problem as "our" problem instead of "their" problem we can approach the solution with realism and healing, instead of idealism and revenge.
Of course we could, instead, go on blaming other people, but look where that has gotten us so far . . .
I once felt as you do: That my brain had some kind of privileged direct access to reality.
You're a snarky one, aren't you? I never said that, nothing even close to that. You seem to be both snarky and fond of the straw man argument. I will not defend a point you have imagined I have made when I have not actually made it. Nothing I wrote stated or implied privileged or superior access to reality. I hope it is clear to you now that I don't even believe that "reality" is "real".
My personal view is that if it were real it would be absolutely trivial to demonstrate its reality to just about everyone. Like magnetism.
Now, there is a comment worth expanding upon.
Imagine the following scenario: We are living in the stone age. I tell you I have seen stones that can pull pieces of iron to them with an invisible force of attraction. I claim to have seen these stones with my own eyes and I tell you they are real.
Now, as someone that had never seen a magnet with your own eyes, you would be a fool to believe such an outrageous claim. On the other hand, if I had seen a magnet with my own eyes, touched one and been able to experiment with one, I would know with absolute certainty that they are real things.
Both of us would believe the other person to be mistaken. Both of us would be totally correct to hold the beliefs that we did if using logic and experience as a basis for our beliefs is what we mean when we say "correct".
It is my belief that the impasse you and I are having is perfectly analogous to the scenario of two stone age people talking about magnets. You know the impossible thing I suggest is absurd and you attack the claim with passion. I know my claim is true because I have had direct experience with the truth in question.
Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning