h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"just a pet peeve I have with society in general"

I understand.

Scientists need to become more scientific [i.e. find a way past their own biases] if they want to move ahead. It often takes someone else to notice your biases, because you're apt to be unaware.

@Mr. X, 59:
"The refrain that "everyone is a little racist so don't feel bad about it" is just..."

... just not something I said. Or anything anyone said, as far as I know.

The point was, simply saying "That guy is a racist" simply isn't the one-stroke argument-winning coup de grace the left has seemed to think it is for at least ten years. Unfortunately, they seem unwilling or unable to take the argument further. Instead, when "That guy is a racist" fails to make their interlocutor shut up and accept they were wrong, the toys get thrown out of the pram. And we end up here. I used to say "how's that working out for you?". I give up.

Yes, I know what you meant Hooloovoo, and I completely agree with it. Which is WHY I went to the trouble of explicitly pointing out:

"Which isn't a criticism of you specifically, just a pet peeve I have with society in general."


Surely, someone like /you/ can understand that people will go off on their /own/ tangents sometimes, and they're not solely concerned with everything /you/ say.

I'm not quite sure why you have to be so thin-skinned as to interpret everything as a personal attack all the time. You're not the center of everybody's universe. This is why people don't like you.

Or at least, why I don't like you.

We don't have to agree, but we should be cordial.







Just to note, paulh's video link is where the sentiment that "everyone is a little racist so don't feel bad about it" came into the conversation.

My link was to a song that seemed to fit the description of the song Hoo mentioned. And it's just a song. Logic worthy of Wittgenstein wasn't the point.

@Mr X: since you were explicitly responding to paulh and not me, I didn't interpret it as anything like an attack on me. The "you" you were referring to in your "pet peeve" wasn't me, so no offence taken, thanks.

Meanwhile, I'm just going to leave this here:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

Oh, and this - surely you'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel some schadenfrood about Jon Wiener's self-satisfied headline from June still being available to laugh at?

https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-cant-win/

http://www.thenation.com/article/trump-cant-win/

Things actually *do* change, though. Maybe not a lot but some.

My take on the election is that many Republicans who couldn't stand Trump nevertheless came around to voting for him on election day. I make this guess based on exit polls showing that in one or two areas where Republicans had previously told pollsters they might vote for Clinton, few actually did so. This is anecdotal, so if someone with a more comprehensive study has shown otherwise, I will stand corrected.

Even though I live in Boston, which has a large population of Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents, I have met Republicans. I've also been a Republican, though that was many years ago. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have horns and forked tails. Once the laws are passed, we all tend to obey them, or at least try. If a law is bad enough, someone is likely to challenge it, and the courts might overturn it. This is part of the system.

My take on Trump is that he showed his curmudgeonly side. Many people, especially older ones who remembered when people could speak bluntly without hurting anyone's feelings, found Trump refreshingly different from the other politicians.

"when people could speak bluntly without hurting anyone's feelings"

Reminds me of a comment I saw on Facebook "we can be ourselves now without worrying about political correctness"

The problem in this is that they aren't thinking of other people - they might not realise they were hurting someone's feelings because the person didn't feel able to speak bluntly back, and they might be able to be themselves, but in doing so they might be stopping someone else from being themself...

I think the modern response to that analysis would be that more people need to go to psychologists to learn how to be assettive.

I'm being somewhat about that, though.

I suspect that most will just decide not bother with being assertive but will just disengage with the whole process and keep their own counsel.

Each of us is unique.

Fortunately, civil rights movements were assertive in the past, when relatively small numbers of "other" people being themselves were considered a threat to larger groups of people being themselves...

I know some people think gay people have the power to cause earthquakes, for example, but I hope most people know that isn't true...

"Each of us is unique. "

I've never heard the rumor about gay people causing earthquakes. Surely there must be gay people in places where earthquakes have never happened.

Everybody knows that it's sheep's bladders which prevent earthquakes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD16CBEJRs

Do you believe information that comes from people who think tiny birds carry coconuts to England?

No, no, of course. Obviously coconuts MIGRATE!

Hey! I live in the country of Jerry Falwell, and we all know gays attract hurricanes, not earthquakes.

Ok... well maybe a few earthquakes, but mostly hurricanes.

I think it has something to do with air pressure. Meteorsexuology isn't my specialty.

I thought it was trailer parks that attracted hurricanes....