ContraBardus

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    6,762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Everything posted by ContraBardus

  1. 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.
  2. Television star Jan-Michael Vincent, probably most famous for starring in 80s action TV show Airwolf.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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."
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. I've also seen some speculation regarding this that they were upset because they were identified by their race on the ticket. The restaurant in question doesn't have table numbers, which is weird, and the claim is something to the effect that no one else would have been identified that way on a ticket, and that they were somehow singled out. That did not come from the customer themselves, whose rantings seem to contradict that, and it is pretty irrelevant anyway. It was a distinguishing feature that made the table easy to identify and nothing more. Identifying someone by ethnicity isn't inherently racist. There's no damages or inconvenience caused by it. It isn't profiling just because someone simply describes an Asian person as "Asian". If they can show they were treated differently because of it, I could see a complaint having some validation, but there's no evidence of that. They were served like anyone else according to all accounts and caused a scene over something that caused them no harm. I bet the restaurant has table numbers now.
  11. I don't think the people you heard this from represent a statistically relevant portion of the Asian population's attitude towards it. I don't believe it's really a common sentiment among Asians, at least not anymore. That's why I said it's probably an outdated sentiment. It might have been a thing at one point, but I'm positive it isn't the case anymore. Other Asian cultures are much more culturally relevant and well known thanks to their influence on popular culture and globalization. If anything, China has kind of taken a backseat to Korea and Japan, especially Japan, not only because of Anime, but also because of the video game market. Then the internet happened and further broadened awareness of Asian cultures, particularly Japan. There was a time when China was basically the only Asian culture that had any sort of cultural exposure in the west for the average person. All you really had was Bruce Lee and Kung-fu movies. That pretty much stopped in the 80s-90s with Nintendo and Anime becoming a thing that people were mostly aware of, even if they weren't into the hobbies themselves. Plus the home electronics boom further reinforced that. Today, if there's any country that would be the one most strongly associated with the term to the point it would annoy other Asians, it's Japan, not China. Most of the Asians I've interacted with have been Gen X - Millennials, with a few Boomers mixed in there as parents of friends or other adults from my childhood. They are the majority of the population at this point, and they really don't think that way about the term and will readily use it to describe themselves. Also, there's this: ... which makes this even dumber. I'll wear a Maga hat for a week if the asshole in question wasn't a Millennial. Also, they are not "similar" as you stated before. Nationality and Ethnicity are two entirely different concepts. Calling an ethnically Japanese person "Asian" is no different from calling an ethnically French person "European" or "White", or an ethnically Ugandan person "African" or "Black". It isn't wrong and works as an easily identifiable descriptor. Not being able to tell what specific ethnic sub group someone is a part of isn't unusual. I can't tell the difference between someone from the Ukraine and someone from Russia at a glance any more than I can tell the difference between someone from the Philipines and someone from Vietnam apart at a glance. Which is why terms like Asian and White are useful as descriptors.
  12. Except it isn't commonly used to mean "Chinese" specifically. I'm not sure where you get that from exactly, but that isn't really a thing. The term "Asian" is used in a lot of Asian media produced in Asia when it's localized in English, it shows up in Korean films and Anime a lot. These people you speak of are real outliers and it is absolutely not a common sentiment in my experience. I'm thinking it's probably very outdated thinking or extremely regional, because it is absolutely at odds with my experience over several decades, and I have quite a bit. It's commonly used to refer to people from East Asia, most commonly the area along the Pacific and the various islands in it, but also some inland regions such as Thailand. That includes China, but is far from limited to it. If anything, these days the term is more associated with Japan and Korea due to their larger influence in popular culture thanks to the explosion of popularity of both K-pop and Anime. I know a lot of Asians myself, and none of them thinks what you're claiming. They all call themselves Asian more often than they specify their particular ethnicity [Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc...] This has always been the case as well, I grew up a Navy brat and have always known a lot of Asian people, and it wasn't limited to just one region of the US, I've been all over the country. I even lived in Japan for a short while when I was a kid. Where I live now there are a ton of Filipino, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Koreans that I interact with regularly. None of them express what you're suggesting, and all of them use the term Asian to describe themselves more often than not.
  13. It's not the same thing as American/Canadian. That's your nationality, not your ethnicity. [Assuming you're not Native American of course.] Which is the root of the problem here, an idiot not realizing that they are not the same thing and causing a scene over it. In some cases they can both be accurately described by the same region, like say an ethnically Japanese person from Japan, but they are still entirely different things. This is especially true in places where there is more ethnic diversity, particularly places where colonies were a thing. Being ethnically Asian does not necessarily mean you are personally from Asia, it's just the region your ancestry is most strongly linked to, which obviously reflects in your appearance. Just like being Italian doesn't necessarily mean you've ever set foot in Italy, much less that you are a citizen of Italy. Just like there are lots of ethnically Japanese people who have never been to Japan in America. That doesn't mean they aren't American, but they are still ethnically Asian and pretty much anyone would describe such a person that way. We used to say Oriental to specify Eastern Asians, but that word isn't allowed anymore. I'm not even sure what lead to it being deemed offensive. Now, they are known as "Asians" because the more specific term is taboo. It's not a poor descriptor. It's just that, a descriptor. It's used to identify by appearance so we don't have to learn everyone in the world's name. It's no different than saying "that black guy over there". The point is to point out an individual so that the subject can be easily identified by some easily distinguishable feature so that another party who doesn't know them can identify them easily. That's the extent of it. If there was more than one "black guy" someone might say "the black guy in the red shirt" or "the black guy wearing glasses". It's utilitarian and we really can't function in small impersonal interactions without those kinds of descriptors. They are necessary for impersonal short term interactions exactly of the sort the article is highlighting. It's just an easy to understand general description so that someone can easily be identified by someone who doesn't know them, and there's nothing more to it than that.
  14. Your ethnicity has nothing to do with where you live. You don't magically become Native American because your family that immigrated from Ireland has lived in the US for three generations if all three of those generations are white Europeans, or Black, or Asian, or a mixture of those. Imaginary Australia is no different. Being Asian and being American are not mutually exclusive things. The same would be true of NZ if it actually existed. There's also a cutoff point where you can reasonably claim to be a member of a race. You are not "Native American" if you have one Native American relative five generations back and the rest are of European descent, or African descent, or whatever. I don't care how much you "identify" as one, you're not getting a cut of any of that casino money. TL;DR: Ethnicity and nationality are two different things.
  15. The entire thing is just the deliberate mislabeling of something to trick the ignorant into fearing what they don't understand and verify ignorance based bias. It's blatant nonsense fearmongering propaganda. That has nothing to do with whether socialism is a good or bad thing, it's just a fact regarding what the article is and it's actual purpose. It is literal "fake news" intended for the ignorant to reinforce confirmation bias.
  16. What principals? Chairity without a reliable inflow of revenue? That's not representative of any economic system, including socialism. The chain is fine. It's just a single location that is closing. Panera isn't going bankrupt, they're just closing that one location.
  17. I'm not arguing with you. You don't actually care which of us is right or about proving anything. Your goal is to upset, not to discuss, and you'll take any position necessary to achieve that regardless of how valid it is or isn't. You suck at arguing anyway and don't really know how to. There's no challenge in arguing with you and you simply resort to being annoying and making nonsense irrelevant arguments when you fail, which is usually within a page of posts, such as claiming someone "sounds like a fundy" or "is preaching", or making unreasonable demands like "prove me wrong" as if the burden of proof is reversed from what it actually is magically when you say that. That's not interesting or entertaining and just got old.
  18. I don't have to. That's not how the burden of proof works. No one has to prove that you're wrong, you have to prove that you're right. You also don't really care if I can or not regardless, you just want to "trigger" people, string it along for as long as possible, and don't actually care about the subject, so why would I bother anyway?
  19. I'm not even talking about that anymore because it's clear you're not really interested in it anyway. It just happens to be the tool for your sociopathic internet sadism in this particular thread. I doubt you even really believe it, at least not to the extent you go on about it. It's just a means to an end for you. As I said, your sociopathic behavior is not limited to just this subject. It's a consistent pattern throughout the forums that you've had for several years now in all of your posts on any subject. You're not here to have a discussion, aren't trying to convince anyone of anything, change anything, and don't care if you're making a valid point. You are willing to turn on a dime and change the subject on a whim to keep that going. You're here to "trigger" people because you think it's funny and want attention. Again, you've literally admitted to this more than once in the past, and I have no reason to not take you at your word. You've done it here again, though not as directly as you have in the past. That is literally anti-social sociopathic self centered behavior. You're not trying to accomplish anything but upsetting people to amuse yourself. Given that, why should I believe anything you say or take you seriously on any topic?