Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ContraBardus last won the day on January 11

ContraBardus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,339 Holy Cow!

1 Follower

About ContraBardus

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Gainesville, Fla.
  • Interests
    At the moment, not dying, video games, books, movies, and getting well enough to get another job so I'm not stuck at home all day.
  • More About Me
    I don't like stuff that sucks.

    My dog is awesome.

    Sometimes I cook stuff.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Shilling, someone I know can lift a curse

Recent Profile Visitors

4,180 profile views
  1. So this randomly showed up in my Youtube feed today...
  2. I think there's a difference between being culturally Christian and actually being Christian. Though, they are not mutually exclusive. Christians don't like to admit that. Though, they play into that themselves when they claim that people who commit horrible acts are "not true Christians". I'm culturally Christian. I grew up in a country that has its basis in Christian culture and it still has an influence on my thought process and moral standards. Yes, America was founded as secular, but the basis of its culture was settlements founded by religious Christian immigrants. The system of laws was based on the systems from Christian Europe where the church had a much more active hand in government and lawmaking at the time. We celebrate Christian holidays as national events and the vast majority of our citizenship is some form of Christian. Even those who identify as non-religious but not Atheistic usually lean more towards Christian spiritual beliefs than say Buddhist or Hindu beliefs in general. America is technically secular, but culturally Christian. A lot of these far right groups are the same way. They aren't technically Christian groups, but are the result of cultural Christianity. The Republican party and the idea of "Republican Jesus" is another example of something that is the result of cultural Christianity more than actual Christianity. Jesus was a straight up socialist leftist extremist, but the culture of Christianity in America is the foundation of the right.
  3. Television star Jan-Michael Vincent, probably most famous for starring in 80s action TV show Airwolf.
  4. Been a few notable deaths since the last post... Kieth Flint of the band Prodigy Luke Perry, actor famous for Riverdale and Beverly Hills 90210. Wrestler King Kong Bundy
  5. It's stupid, but no. I don't have a problem with it so long as it is optional. Does anyone seriously think it's binding? It's actually pretty Unamerican and nationalistic, but otherwise is just a stupid poem they want you to recite about how great America is. Pretty much propaganda, but of a rather benign sort. The National Anthem is better and much more in line with American sensibilities. However, the way we act towards the National Anthem is kind of stupid. Standing solemnly and at attention with our hands over our hearts, looking at the flag in some sort of stupefied awe? It's supposed to be respectful, but it really goes against the spirit of the song and what it is about. Our National Anthem is literally the 1900s equivalent of a raunchy gangster rap song. I am not exaggerating in the slightest. It stole the tune of a popular raunchy bar song called "To Anacreon in Heaven" that is literally about pussy and beer, then reworked it into a diss track directed at the British Royal Navy about how they couldn't even knock over our flag, and repeatedly humble brags about how awesome we are. It's literally saying: "fuck the police, pussy is awesome, chicks dig how great we are, Party!!! Wooo!!!" The British were still the "world police" at the time, everyone would have known the context of the song, and we were bragging about how much better we are than everyone else. It's a song you're meant to sing while holding up a beer, not standing reverently and seriously in rigid conformity. The US National Anthem is a fucking party song, but everyone has forgotten it. It's like if someone demanded that you solemnly stand at attention and salute when they played "Fight for your Right to Party" by the Beastie Boys a hundred years from now. That's not an exaggeration either. That is literally what we do when we stand at attention and treat the National Anthem seriously and with reverence. I think more Americans should understand this, and we should start treating our National Anthem with the respect and attitude it wants us to. It's a party song, so party on.
  6. Sounds like it was handled. Not sure why this was considered newsworthy in the first place. Outside of the clickbait title that is. Just another case of "The situation isn't what we want it to be, so we'll just make it sound like it is what we want it to be, so people can be properly outraged and we can use the old 'to create discussion' excuse to justify it."
  7. This guy is an inexperienced rube. Any experienced Leo knows that you come up with another excuse when you stop someone for speaking a foreign language. People get stopped for speaking foreign languages all the time in my state, hell, they'll stop you for just having an accent here, but most officers wouldn't be dumb enough to say it out loud, much less to a potential suspect's face. Mexico is the only problem? Whatever happened to Cuba and Haiti? Speaking Creole will get you stopped just as fast around here as Spanish will, and officers aren't picky about what type of Spanish it is.
  8. I'm totally a sinner. I sin all the time. I enjoy it quite a bit actually, some more than others. There's a few I haven't tried, but for the most part I enjoy the sins I do commit.
  9. Problems with this article... Biased source. Duh. This is obvious propaganda. Straw man. "Advocates for open borders" isn't an actual thing. No one relevant in this discussion advocates open borders. One of the major ear marks that this is a propaganda piece is statements like this one. Cherry Picking Data/moving the goal posts: Several instances of this. Deliberately picking out the worst examples possible and acting as if they were the norm, failing to address how much violence as a factor in the data, but trying to imply that it is the main factor without details to back it up. Remember, this is about "rapists and murderers" not people getting illegal documentation or smoking weed. Yes, those are crimes, but the issue under discussion is "violent crime" and "property crime" not all crime. It's about immigrants creating masses of victims, stealing and doing harm in their wake, not getting grabbed for violating drug prohibition or having a fake ID. Focuses on "incarceration" rather than specific crimes. No, I am not saying people who commit minor crimes should not face consequences. However, incarceration rates does not necessarily reflect the number of violent/property crimes committed, again, this is about the victims, the supposed masses of people who are directly hurt by these supposed waves of illegals. "Waves" that current immigration statistics don't back up as even existing. Illegal immigration is the lowest it's been in decades, and continuing to trend downward. We're losing illegal immigrants, not gaining them, and it was happening long before Trump was ever a factor. The situation it details as "unlikely" is actually quite common for more migratory people, as illegal immigrants often are because they often take seasonal work. Multiple crimes committed in more than one jurisdiction that are picked up after an individual is arrested. One person can indeed count for multiple instances of the incarcerations. The article saw a problem with the numbers it wants us to believe it is accurately reporting, and then tried to downplay the problem and pretend it wasn't a factor. This article blatantly seeks to inflate the numbers as much as possible in favor of it's argument, and misrepresents them deliberately. I need an unbiased source for this before I can accept it as valid. I also need more than one source, this is why we aggregate data and peer review. So far this one source isn't enough to "disprove" the multiple sources that suggest it is incorrect. Will await further input, and ignore any attempts at ad-hom trolling nonsense. Give me the data that supports and verifies this conclusion, specifies exactly what it's looking at because this doesn't and seems to deliberately obfuscate the data it is presenting, so I don't see any reason to trust it enough to consider it valid. Could I believe that the data on the others side may not be accurate and illegal immigrant violent/property crime rates may be higher than reported? Sure. I'm happy to look at the evidence of that and form a reasonable conclusion based on it. Do I take this at face value and accept it as fact? Nope. Not without more evidence to back the claims, and it certainly doesn't help that it's obviously deliberately misrepresenting a lot already. Do I trust either side is being completely honest? No, I'm not an idiot. However, this article obviously propaganda and fails super hard at disguising it, making it very hard to trust any claim it makes. It's extremist "news" intended to confirm biases, not accurately report anything. Between two extremes, the truth is usually in the middle, and the opposition to this has more independent sources, is better documented, and thus I'm more likely to think it is closer to the truth, even if I don't necessarily believe it completely or think it is 100% accurate.
  10. No, they are not similar. In no way is calling an ethnically Asian person Asian "incorrect". I get where you're coming from saying that calling a Canadian "American" is technically incorrect, because "American" generally means someone from the US. The same does not apply to saying that someone from a broad ethnic group is from said broad ethnic group. Their nationality doesn't enter into it at all and is completely irrelevant. That's kind of my point. It isn't wrong to begin with, there is no wrong being done and there is nothing to correct. There is no mislabeling going on here. The term is not derogatory. It is simply descriptive, and accurately so. As I said, it's no different than labeling an Ethnically Northern European person as "white" rather than Swedish, Swiss, or Finnish. Most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between one or the other at a glance, or even know the difference between the accents if they aren't from the region or regularly exposed to them. Expecting someone to "label" random strangers exactly correctly at such detail is frankly unreasonable and stupid. That's why words like "Asian", "European", and "African" exist in the first place. It's literally why we use terms like "black" or "white" instead of Ugandan and Nigerian or Irish and French respectively. It is literally their purpose, a general easy to understand descriptive identifier instead of details that it is unreasonable to expect people to know at a glance. It's not hateful or rude, just "That specific person there". You really don't have any grounding for your position here regarding this. It seems like a platitude more than valid reasoning. This idiot who made a fuss over literally nothing is entirely at fault and in the wrong here. They were an ignorant asshole who put their foot in their mouth and tried to raise a fuss and ruin a business over nothing. Fortunately, reading the comments, it seems to have had the opposite effect, as most of them are supportive of the restaurant and staff, and are calling out the ignorant moron for their stupidity. You don't get to pick your ethnicity. I can say I "identify" as a black man until my face turns purple, have an operation to darken my skin, and surgery to alter my features, but I'll still be ethnically white. That isn't a decision someone can make. You don't get to pick who your ancestors are or where they came from. I feel the same way about transgendered people. I fully support their right to dress how they want, get whatever surgery, take whatever drugs to alter their body chemistry, and love whoever they are comfortable with who shares those feelings with them. I, however, have no obligation to pretend they are something they are not. A trans woman might not be a man anymore, but she isn't a woman. The same goes for trans men. At best, trans is its own separate thing that should have the same rights and protections as anyone else, but no one has, or should have, any obligation to play along with their self image. No one but them is responsible for that, and we shouldn't have to play pretend with them to avoid being shamed or worse. Someone not being willing to play along with their self image is not persecution, it's not harassment, it's not abuse, and it doesn't matter how they feel about it. Trans women are surgically and hormonally altered effeminate gay men, and trans men are surgically and hormoneally altered masculine lesbians. That's fine and I'm all for their right to do it without harassment or discrimination, but I see no reason not to call it what it is, and calling it what it is is neither harassment or discrimination, and how they feel about it is irrelevant. It's not my concern or problem that they aren't comfortable with being described as what they are. That's shit they need to sort out themselves and no one has, or should have, any obligation to play along to enable that. Straight men and women do not owe trans people sex or equal romantic consideration [and neither do non-trans gay women and men], and will never see them as desirable partners. No amount of political PR or media propaganda is going to change that. If you're a man and you're dating a trans woman, you're gay. Not "gay" as a euphemism, you are literally a homosexual in a homosexual relationship. There's nothing wrong with that, but it also is what it is, and if you think it's not, you're delusional. "Trans people face discrimination and persecution" I completely agree with and do think they deserve better. It's a civil rights issue that needs to be addressed. "Trans people are really whatever gender they say they are." No. They aren't. That's not how it works. That's not discriminatory. I am not an astronaut. It doesn't matter how much I say I identify as one, how much I want to be one, or whether or not I run around in a real functional space suit. I cannot simply choose to be one because I desire it and do my best to look like one. No one is discriminating against me, harassing me, or otherwise violating my rights by telling me I am not an astronaut, because I am not one. I fully support their right to be who they are. I do not support forcing anyone else to acknowledge and play along with their self image. They shouldn't need that acknowledgement, there doesn't need to be a bunch of "new genders", and no one should have to play coy or dance around what they are. These people at the restaurant were Asian, they weren't mislabeled, misrepresented, or discriminated against in any way. Nobody abused them, persecuted them, or treated them any differently than any other customer that I can find any evidence of. The description on the ticket was 100% accurate, was not derogatory, and was simply there to easily identify the table so the order and their check went to the right place. It was a simple descriptor used to facilitate service and nothing more. It wasn't racism, or hate, or any such nonsense. It was simply reasonably functional.