The problem starts when you bully other, less educated people than yourself into bowing to your preferences as superior for spurious reasons--which is what actually happens in practice.
Are you criticizing my views here, or someone else's? I've plainly said that I don't think that my preferred form of English is a more efficient form of communication than, to use your example, AAVE, and I agree that it's ridiculous to claim otherwise without some pretty compelling evidence, of which there appears to be none. I dislike the implication, however, that I'm wrong to have negative feelings towards another form of English because its users are currently disadvantaged. Regardless of relative power relationships, I absolutely reserve the right to disapprove of cultural traditions or elements thereof I consider harmful. To continue with AAVE, I think that the cultural tradition with which I identify is superior in a number of ways to that usually associated with urban African-Americans. This does not mean I am myself necessarily better than any individual who does identify with that culture, or that African-Americans are somehow inherently inferior - all it means is that I think my culture is better. As such, I would prefer it if those currently identifying with urban African-American culture changed their behavioral and linguistic choices to something more compatible with my own. I don't think that constitutes bullying - I don't plan to use physical force or intimidation to make others conform to my preferences. However, there's a difference between tolerance and respect. I believe in the former, where it doesn't involve risk of physical or serious mental harm. I'll give the latter where I think it's deserved.
But you see, "cuz I say so" is a pretty bad reason to demand that other people talk and write in the way you say they should.
That may be so, but it's all we've got once mutual intelligibility is satisfied. And I wouldn't say I "demand" it - I might prefer it, and I might tell them so, but it's not as though I'm going to beat people up who fail to conform to my grammatical preferences. I just won't like them as much. Which isn't even to say I won't like them - it's just to say it will be an irritation.
Because you realize that, almost without exception, prescriptivists are full of shit, and trying to solve "problems" that don't exist with solutions that make no damn sense . . . Then you study some sociolinguistics, and you realize that it's just some folks trying to construct a style to distinguish themselves socially from other folks they look down on.
Um...so? I think I may be using "linguistic prescriptivism" in a slightly different, more general sense than you have in mind. People always try to distinguish themselves as social superiors, it's what we (including linguistically-educated people quick to jump in with cries of "there's no so thing as "correct" English usage! Language is fluid!") do. People also try to get others to share their views about art, music, and morality, and tend to like more those who do so. I fail to see what the problem with that is. The only difference is that the issue of morality has tended to get wrapped up with the power of the state, so views on that one have more consequences (not to say that issues of language and culture don't have significant sociological implications). In any case, if I find one form of the English language more aesthetically pleasing than another, why shouldn't I prefer that it become dominant?
Are you really ready to back up your prescriptive statements about English usage, using modern linguistics?
For the most part, no, because I am not a linguist by trade, and am only superficially familiar with the details of the science behind it. However, the gap between is and ought remains as wide as it ever was, and my reasons for preferring certain forms of English are mainly based on aesthetics and tribalism, not some imagined sense of the practical superiority of one form over another (with the vehement exception of the Oxford comma).
No offence but TFA is right. "New Atheists" are the worse bunch of dicks I've ever come across, and the worst kind of religious fanatics, and I should know because shortly after I became atheist I joined the "let's blame every war on religion, pretend like theists are all incredibly stupid and wish all the theists in the world would suddenly drop dead so we could live among nothing but the superior people that we believe we are" club for a year or two.
And if all the people who have been lumped in under the term "New Atheist" thought like you claim to have soon after becoming an atheist I'd agree with you. However, that's completely false. If you read the books, it's pretty clear that while Dawkins and the like do blame religion for a variety of things, including wars, they aren't going off into fantasies of lynching the ignorant.
No wonder atheists are hardly the most popular "religious group" out there, and yet it's not even like the others despise and hate us as much as we do to them.
It's been like that for atheists for a long, long time - it's not as though the world pre-Dawkins was exactly trusting and friendly toward atheists. And maybe you hate the religious that much, but I don't. I can understand how people come to believe in God, and while I think they're mistaken, I don't really blame most of them for it. I do hate those who try to limit my and others' freedom on the basis of their unsubstantiated beliefs, but frankly, I think that one's justified.
How often has yelling at somebody convinced them of anything?
Other than by emotionally beating them into submission, not often. But that's my point - other than Sam Harris (who really does come off as a bit nuts sometimes) and occasionally Hitchens (who isn't a scientist), the atheist books that came out recently were fairly reasonable and calm. The fact that everyone interpreted them as these abusive tracts is exactly my point - most people in this country have such a skewed notion of what politeness to the religious entails that any explicit criticism is seen as angry ranting.
Part of the problem is that the whole theist/atheist "debate" is irrelevant. Science does not say that there is no God. It doesn't give a damn.
Actually, no, it is relevant. If your notion of God is a very abstract, deist sort of almighty, then sure, but in case you haven't noticed, a lot of people who believe in God believe all sorts of other things, many of which are either directly contradicted or made highly improbable by modern science. When those people choose to believe in their faith rather than science, that's a problem for this country, and for the people who want to do science in it.
I'd like to see laws allowing citizens to carry tazers and use them against anyone presenting a life-threat, including police officers.
Uh...citizens are allowed to carry tasers. It's regulated, just like the carrying of any weapon is, but it's not like only police officers can have them. And as it turns out, the law does allow you to use them against someone illegally threatening you, including police officers. You'll have a heck of a time proving that attacking a cop was justified, but that's true of any assault on a police officer. If you're trying to say that police officers can never justifiably threaten your life, have fun explaining that to the next armed mugger you meet. I'm not saying that there haven't been abuses by police officers, but come on - grow up.
Less Lethal...Just like a club is less lethal than a sword... but it still does 1d6.
Yep - that's why they started calling them "less-lethal" weapons rather than "non-lethal" weapons...though if we're doing dnd references, I'd argue that many of them do subdural damage and something more like a 1d2 with a 5% chance of causing death.
What exactly is the intended non-lethal purpose of such a thing?
What lethal uses did you have in mind, exactly? It doesn't sound very effective at killing people. As a less-lethal weapon, however, it sounds useful for crowd control, remote perimeters where you'd rather capture than kill, ambushs where you'd rather capture than kill...any number of things.
Where there's a will, there's a relative.