Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Interesting Stuff Thread

Options
1…202203205207208…219

Comments

  • Options
    #6122
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Jon Rosenberg weighs in:

    408104.jpg


  • Options
    #6123
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Jon Rosenberg weighs in:

    408104.jpg

    That is not what non violence approach advocates in this circumstance. Most of the time both sides are so busy hurling slurs at each other that they don't even hear the other side. The idea of escalating this to actual physical violence does not solve this problem, it only hardens both sides.
    People are swayed by information and emotion, by seeking open and reasonable discourse, it may be possible to find areas of common misconceptions that defuse the tension between both sides and also point out mistakes or find out that your view had mistakes in it.
    Of course if someone is actually attacking you, you will have to defend yourself, but just talking on the street does not qualify as deserving an assault.
    The idea that if you view yourself as 'anti-fascist' while displaying all the same traits as those you despise, is simply a game of semantics that make the person feel more legitimate in their own thuggery.


  • Options
    #6124
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    People are swayed by information and emotion...

    Insofar as some people are swayed by information and others by emotion, I'll agree with you. There are people out there that are positively immune to facts.


  • Options
    #6125
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Insofar as some people are swayed by information and others by emotion, I'll agree with you. There are people out there that are positively immune to facts.
    Oh I agree, but the only way to find that out, is to talk and listen. Punching people only vindicates their perceived victimhood.


  • Options
    #6126
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Oh I agree, but the only way to find that out, is to talk and listen. Punching people only vindicates their perceived victimhood.

    There are people who contradicting them with facts vindicates their perceived victimhood. What do you do with them?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6127
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There are people who contradicting them with facts vindicates their perceived victimhood. What do you do with them?

    Can you clarify? "What do you do with them?" refers to what group, the people contradicting or the people they contradict.
    In the first case, I don't see its relevance to the discussion. In the latter it is still not an argument for violence, as it only enhances the victimhood attitude by those that hold opposing viewpoints as they see it escalating.


  • Options
    #6128
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Can you clarify? "What do you do with them?" refers to what group, the people contradicting or the people they contradict.
    In the first case, I don't see its relevance to the discussion. In the latter it is still not an argument for violence, as it only enhances the victimhood attitude by those that hold opposing viewpoints as they see it escalating.

    I'm referring to people who, when contradicted with rational arguments and logic and facts, will claim they are under attack.
    What do you do with those people who will always play the victim no matter how you oppose them?


  • Options
    #6129
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm referring to people who, when contradicted with rational arguments and logic and facts, will claim they are under attack.
    What do you do with those people who will always play the victim no matter how you oppose them?

    Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. There are always going to be those that enjoy seeing the world in black and white terms, either for or against, either a believer or non believer. They usually don't have much going for them outside of that as they have to resort to such narrow terms.
    However they are still people and you have two options that are non violent. You can ignore them or isolate them publicly. The first is obvious. The media and the public simply consider them socially laughable and absurd that even talking about them is a waste of oxygen, the other is to repeatedly refute their claims whenever they publicly pronounce them, so that anyone listening TO them sees them as misinformed. The people making the claims may not ever change, but that is not a huge issue, you will always have outliers in society, people that have gone so far down the rabbit hole of their beliefs that they forgot there is anything else but the hole.

    For those that seek to punch someone they don't agree with, what does that solve. The person STILL will not change their mind by punching them. If a society 'protector' does nothing other than pander to their basest instincts, or seeks to frighten people into pushing their opposing agendas down dark alleys or secret meetups, then that is not a society worth saving. Fear will rule and majorities govern by brute force. Sounds pretty like the society people want to avoid.


  • Options
    #6130
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    However they are still people and you have two options that are non violent. You can ignore them or isolate them publicly. The first is obvious. The media and the public simply consider them socially laughable and absurd that even talking about them is a waste of oxygen, the other is to repeatedly refute their claims whenever they publicly pronounce them, so that anyone listening TO them sees them as misinformed. The people making the claims may not ever change, but that is not a huge issue, you will always have outliers in society, people that have gone so far down the rabbit hole of their beliefs that they forgot there is anything else but the hole.

    What do you do when both of those options fail, like they did with Trump who was seen as a joke by the Media, and constantly and publicly refuted every time he talked nonsense (pretty much every time he opened his mouth)?


  • Options
    #6131
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What do you do when both of those options fail, like they did with Trump who was seen as a joke by the Media, and constantly and publicly refuted every time he talked nonsense (pretty much every time he opened his mouth)?

    They have not failed, nor was that the reason he rose to power for now. Trump is a symptom of a larger issue with both sides of the debate. Punching people would not fix that. discussion might.
    Look, what is the point of punching someone, who is not actually physically threatening you? What does that really solve?
    As far as refutation of trump is concerned, there are some on the 'left' that cannot even listen or read what Trump says and represent it fairly either. The lack of objectivity is what helped Trump rise to power, with people ignoring the risk of his ascension to prove a personal point (like voting for a third party or not voting, or being obsessed with "anyone but killery" type rhetoric.).
    There is plenty of blame going around for all sides in regard to Trump. I frankly was very very surprised he 'won', believing that he would ultimately fail, but then the republicans played pretty dirty with vote rigging and propaganda while the democrats were idiots pushing for another Clinton while the overwhelming public opinion was for change.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6132
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm referring to people who, when contradicted with rational arguments and logic and facts, will claim they are under attack.
    What do you do with those people who will always play the victim no matter how you oppose them?
    Ignore them?


  • Options
    #6133
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    Ignore them?
    Worked with the A+ crew.

    Hard to see it working against DJT though.


  • Options
    #6134
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Came across this interesting interview of Thomas Friedman. His comments about Trump and how to handle him and what lessons to take from his rise to power is, in my view, very on point.


  • Options
    #6135
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    They have not failed, nor was that the reason he rose to power for now. Trump is a symptom of a larger issue with both sides of the debate. Punching people would not fix that. discussion might.
    Look, what is the point of punching someone, who is not actually physically threatening you? What does that really solve?
    As far as refutation of trump is concerned, there are some on the 'left' that cannot even listen or read what Trump says and represent it fairly either. The lack of objectivity is what helped Trump rise to power, with people ignoring the risk of his ascension to prove a personal point (like voting for a third party or not voting, or being obsessed with "anyone but killery" type rhetoric.).
    There is plenty of blame going around for all sides in regard to Trump. I frankly was very very surprised he 'won', believing that he would ultimately fail, but then the republicans played pretty dirty with vote rigging and propaganda while the democrats were idiots pushing for another Clinton while the overwhelming public opinion was for change.

    I am not advocating for punching people, I am just asking what are the alternatives when logic and facts fail, and they did fail in relation to Trump.
    Trump was ignored, then responded to with logic and reason and facts, all the while being mocked and satirised too. None of it mattered, it had no effect. So what do you do in that case?
    As for listening to and representing Trump fairly, I find it's far more often than not Trump supporters who don't listen to or represent him fairly, "alternative facts" and all that. Come to think of it, they didn't listen to or represent Clinton fairly either. Many Trump followers just heard the bits they wanted to hear, from both sides, and ignored the rest.


  • Options
    #6136
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    recedite wrote: »
    Ignore them?

    That only works if everyone ignores them. But what if other people don't? How many people have to start agreeing with such people before ignoring them no longer makes sense? What do you do when ignoring them plays into their hand?
    "See, he can't even respond to me, he has no argument!"


  • Options
    #6137
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    If you don't agree with other people's viewpoint, or find it offensive, then you can always ignore them.
    If the offending nazis start interfering with other peoples freedoms, then that is another matter.
    In a nutshell then, "punching a nazi" is not acceptable unless that nazi is actively engaged in nazi activities which affect others in a tangible and negative way.


  • Options
    #6138
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,173 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=milbW4RDIco


    F**k me I am glad I didn't see this at time of broadcast, wouldn't have been able to sleep for months. Nonetheless at 9 years old I was reading adult newspapers at the time, and a couple of months later (35th anniversary of Hiroshima) there was all sorts of stuff about how far the vaporisation, blast, and radiation effects would reach from a (puny enough) one megaton bomb on O'Connell Bridge.

    Conclusion was we're f**ked! especially as we have shag all in the way of civil defence.

    But this is worth watching all the way through, especially to see those with strong belief in their country's ability to protect them crumble before your eyes. When the poop hits the fan we're all fooked. Except fo the Swiss, obviously.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #6139
    Calibos
    Registered Users Posts: 7,805 ✭✭✭Calibos


    I for one am glad we live in a world with Nuclear weapons. The MAD doctrine prevents a conventional WW3 never mind a Nuclear one.


  • Options
    #6140
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,173 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    There is an argument that a balance of reasonably equally matched forces prevents a war from happening. When either side has the power to destroy much of the enemy in a first strike, then this is credible. This argument didn't work out well in the 19th century, 'balance of powers' where each side feared the other but still thought they could risk war without their own destruction. We saw how that worked out, WWI was a 19th century war fought with 20th century weapons.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #6141
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Calibos wrote: »
    I for one am glad we live in a world with Nuclear weapons. The MAD doctrine prevents a conventional WW3 never mind a Nuclear one.
    . . . until it doesn't, of course.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6142
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    . . . until it doesn't, of course.

    As Blackadder said when explaining to Baldrick about the arms race prior to WW2 and how the plan was bigger armies and more weapons made war less likely "there was only one thing wrong with the plan....it was bollox":D


  • Options
    #6143
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    recedite wrote: »
    If you don't agree with other people's viewpoint, or find it offensive, then you can always ignore them.
    If the offending nazis start interfering with other peoples freedoms, then that is another matter.
    In a nutshell then, "punching a nazi" is not acceptable unless that nazi is actively engaged in nazi activities which affect others in a tangible and negative way.

    I am not and have not at any time said anything about punching a nazi being acceptable or even useful way to engage or deal with them. I am asking what should be done when ignoring them and responding to them with logic/facts doesn't work.


  • Options
    #6144
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I am asking what should be done when ignoring them and responding to them with logic/facts doesn't work.
    Plus, what to do if the police, judiciary, legislature and executive become immune to facts, restrict rights and begin dismantling the apparatus of state - and peaceful protests are ineffective.


  • Options
    #6145
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    This argument didn't work out well in the 19th century, 'balance of powers' where each side feared the other but still thought they could risk war without their own destruction. We saw how that worked out..
    Indeed, Japan started a war with the US thinking the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages, but that was before nukes were invented.

    Interesting that the MAD balance has in recent years been upset. The US has added anti-ballistic missile bases around certain of the Baltic states and eastern Europe to the pre-existing ones in Alaska. On the face of it these are purely defensive, but if a missile shield is placed over Russia which lets missiles in, but not out, then Russia's effective nuclear deterrent is confined to its submarines. Which can be tracked by attack submarines.

    Consequently, countries that house these defensive bases became the prime targets, so that the main Russian nuclear arsenal can become effective again. Nothing personal, its just the way it is.
    I'll let Vlad explain...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo&

    Of course, many will choose not to believe anything Vlad says. But The Great Game is relentlessly impersonal, and tends to disregard personal beliefs.


  • Options
    #6146
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Calibos wrote: »
    I for one am glad we live in a world with Nuclear weapons. The MAD doctrine prevents a conventional WW3 never mind a Nuclear one.
    That was my view as well until quite recently - theoretically, MAD is predictable. In practice though, it's less so.

    In the days when US presidents appointed people with relevant experience to positions of power, William Perry - soldier, PhD-level mathematician, researcher, professor of engineering, business man, banker and much else besides - was Secretary of Defense.

    The BBC caught up with him recently to discuss nuclear weapons and his point of view must be one of the world's most well-informed:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rfyb8


  • Options
    #6147
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    The BBC caught up with him recently to discuss nuclear weapons and his point of view must be one of the world's most well-informed:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rfyb8
    Its a good interview. Despite some leading questions from the BBC guy regarding Trump, William J Perry does identify a terrorist attack as "probably the most likely" way a nuclear catastrophe would happen. The old "bomb in a suitcase" scenario is very hard to defend against, especially when inconvenient severe vetting procedures are rejected as an option.


  • Options
    #6148
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    The old "bomb in a suitcase" scenario is very hard to defend against, especially when inconvenient severe vetting procedures are rejected as an option.

    I guess we finally know what "extreme vetting" means: "would you mind opening the suitcase, sir?"


  • Options
    #6149
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    Its a good interview. Despite some leading questions from the BBC guy regarding Trump, William J Perry does identify a terrorist attack as "probably the most likely" way a nuclear catastrophe would happen. The old "bomb in a suitcase" scenario is very hard to defend against, especially when inconvenient severe vetting procedures are rejected as an option.
    I think what you meant to say what that the old bomb in a suitcase scenario is very hard to defend against if you image that Trump's severe vetting procedures are any kind of a defence.


  • Options
    #6150
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,170 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I can't help seeing a connection between the people in this video and the decision to go Atheist...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4180626/Fascinating-film-captures-reactions-diving-board.html#v-8284470162306809370

    yes, sorry its the Daily Mail, still worth watching.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6151
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think what you meant to say what that the old bomb in a suitcase scenario is very hard to defend against if you image that Trump's severe vetting procedures are any kind of a defence.
    What I mean is, there is no real defence against the suitcase. It could arrive in on a shipping container, or be carried by an American who thinks they are being paid to smuggle marijuana.

    What you can defend against is allowing the support network to exist inside your country. Safe houses, sleeper cells etc. The whole fifth column network.


Advertisement