Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

KingGorilla wrote:

So to answer his question. It is OK to dislike Mark Wahlberg because he stabbed a guy?

Yes.

Robear wrote:

I was not using divorce as illegal or a measure of immorality, but rather of character, just like racism. Many divorces happen for reasons of genuine incompatibility.

How is divorce a sign of poor character? I always look at it as better for everyone to move on than stay in an unhappy marriage. (This doesn't have to be a derail. Just consider it a different question for the question thread).

KingGorilla wrote:

So to answer his question. It is OK to dislike Mark Wahlberg because he stabbed a guy?

Sure, but then you have to basically dislike most entertainers (not to mention pro sports) because they're all a bit screwed up or have skeletons in their closets.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

So to answer his question. It is OK to dislike Mark Wahlberg because he stabbed a guy?

Sure, but then you have to basically dislike most entertainers (not to mention pro sports) because they're all a bit screwed up or have skeletons in their closets.

Or you can be human and decide on a case by case basis whether a given skeleton renders an entertainer's work unenjoyable.

Stengah wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

So to answer his question. It is OK to dislike Mark Wahlberg because he stabbed a guy?

Sure, but then you have to basically dislike most entertainers (not to mention pro sports) because they're all a bit screwed up or have skeletons in their closets.

Or you can be human and decide on a case by case basis whether a given skeleton renders an entertainer's work unenjoyable.

Yes, HOO-MANN. I am one of those.

KingGorilla wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

So to answer his question. It is OK to dislike Mark Wahlberg because he stabbed a guy?

Sure, but then you have to basically dislike most entertainers (not to mention pro sports) because they're all a bit screwed up or have skeletons in their closets.

Or you can be human and decide on a case by case basis whether a given skeleton renders an entertainer's work unenjoyable.

Yes, HOO-MANN. I am one of those.

I thought you were more Gorilla gorilla than Homo sapiens?

Stengah wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

So to answer his question. It is OK to dislike Mark Wahlberg because he stabbed a guy?

Sure, but then you have to basically dislike most entertainers (not to mention pro sports) because they're all a bit screwed up or have skeletons in their closets.

Or you can be human and decide on a case by case basis whether a given skeleton renders an entertainer's work unenjoyable.

MADNESS!

Anecdote: I struggle with this in a similar fashion, but my bugbear is Orson Scott Card.

Also, I tend to feel that divorce is something to be avoided in all but the most irreconcileable of situations. Easy divorce impugnes the sanctity of the commitment and institution, imo. I realize I'm an outlier and won't defend the stance passionately here, but...well there you go.

Seth wrote:

Anecdote: I struggle with this in a similar fashion, but my bugbear is Orson Scott Card.

Things done in the past that a person now acknowledges as wrong and has legitimately tried to make up for are a lot easier to give a pass than things they are unrepentant in.

I kind of feel like people should be given an opportunity to grow and be better. If someone did things in the past that I find odious, I'm going to look at them skeptically for a while, but if they really seem to be turning over a new leaf, that's great. On the other side, I'm rather less lenient with people who I've respected in the past who do new things that I find repugnant.

It can be very hard to be fair: If someone has a history of violence back when they were young, but seems to have grown up... what do you do when rumours come out that they've been involved in violence again? That history is a bit of a black mark on their record, but at the same time, celebrity rumours can be kind of crazy. So I guess I'd like to say that I'm going to try to give the benefit of the doubt to someone in their 40s, say, who had trouble in their 20s. I might not be perfect, but I'll try to assume that rumours are just rumours (as I would with someone who didn't have that history) until there's some substance there. And if it turns out there is substance, it'll probably take another 20 years of good behavior to get back into my good graces—which is again about the same way I would treat anybody.

I guess the one exception might be if there's evidence of skullduggery explicitly to conceal bad behavior. That kind of dishonesty fills me with distrust, and I don't know that my opinion of someone who'd do that can ever be salvaged.

Hypatian wrote:

I kind of feel like people should be given an opportunity to grow and be better. If someone did things in the past that I find odious, I'm going to look at them skeptically for a while, but if they really seem to be turning over a new leaf, that's great. On the other side, I'm rather less lenient with people who I've respected in the past who do new things that I find repugnant.

It can be very hard to be fair: If someone has a history of violence back when they were young, but seems to have grown up... what do you do when rumours come out that they've been involved in violence again? That history is a bit of a black mark on their record, but at the same time, celebrity rumours can be kind of crazy. So I guess I'd like to say that I'm going to try to give the benefit of the doubt to someone in their 40s, say, who had trouble in their 20s. I might not be perfect, but I'll try to assume that rumours are just rumours (as I would with someone who didn't have that history) until there's some substance there. And if it turns out there is substance, it'll probably take another 20 years of good behavior to get back into my good graces—which is again about the same way I would treat anybody.

I guess the one exception might be if there's evidence of skullduggery explicitly to conceal bad behavior. That kind of dishonesty fills me with distrust, and I don't know that my opinion of someone who'd do that can ever be salvaged.

In general, people make mistakes. I can get past that fairly easily.

Bigoted views that they still hold on to well into adulthood...can't get past that.

Stengah wrote:
Seth wrote:

Anecdote: I struggle with this in a similar fashion, but my bugbear is Orson Scott Card.

Things done in the past that a person now acknowledges as wrong and has legitimately tried to make up for are a lot easier to give a pass than things they are unrepentant in.

Also a factor: if that person uses money made from your purchase to actively advance the things you find objectionable.

How is divorce a sign of poor character?

It can be. In this case, it was a divorce filed by his wife after an affair by Clancy. Yes, after 30 years and four kids, the marriage went bad, but it was one partner that screwed it up. Thus, the divorce is a character indication.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Seth wrote:

Anecdote: I struggle with this in a similar fashion, but my bugbear is Orson Scott Card.

Things done in the past that a person now acknowledges as wrong and has legitimately tried to make up for are a lot easier to give a pass than things they are unrepentant in.

Also a factor: if that person uses money made from your purchase to actively advance the things you find objectionable.

Moreso if he and his publishers continue to reject the future in ways outside of social policy as well. I would have been happy to buy Shadows in Flight for my Kindle, but apparently that won't be out for another 4 months for Kindle if you want the regular unabridged version. Don't agree with his politics or his economics sooooo meh.

Then again, after Shadow of the Giant, his writing has been way downhill for me and apparently for reviewers as well, so I can leave that behind just fine, I think.

Did Sarah Palin make the 'Shuck and Jive' comment because she was jealous of the attention Ann Coulter was getting? It's like an idiot contest of who can be more offensive.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Did Sarah Palin make the 'Shuck and Jive' comment because she was jealous of the attention Ann Coulter was getting? It's like an idiot contest of who can be more offensive.

What's the difference between when Palin said it and when Cuomo said it about Obama, other than confirmation bias?

My point being that I view the phrase a lot like the phrase "They gyped me" or "Jerry-rigged" both are based off a racial stereotype, but have become so commonly used that most of the time people use the phrase without any intended racism.

rosenhane wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Did Sarah Palin make the 'Shuck and Jive' comment because she was jealous of the attention Ann Coulter was getting? It's like an idiot contest of who can be more offensive.

What's the difference between when Palin said it and when Cuomo said it about Obama, other than confirmation bias?

SixteenBlue says it right in that response: Palin rapidly seeing her status as a has-been confirmed by her increasing irrelevance to this election, and she needed a controversy to get back in the news. When wondering if someone intended to say something controversial, the fact that they have in the past pursued controversy as a means to relevance and the only way it looks like they can re-establish relevance is through courting controversy seems pretty...relevant.

billt721 wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

My point being that I view the phrase a lot like the phrase "They gyped me" or "Jerry-rigged" both are based off a racial stereotype, but have become so commonly used that most of the time people use the phrase without any intended racism.

That might work if the phrase was one that was actually common. I had literally never heard the phrase before reading it up above, and had to look up what it's historical meaning was, so claiming it's some kind of colloquialism seems a bit far-fetched.

I thought it ceased to be racist at least a decade ago. I even recall a Gunny telling us to "knock off that shuck and jive BS". Should we have reported him for making a racist remark?

I had no idea that 'shuck and jive' had any racial connotation at all. I thought it was a variant of 'to pull a fast one', implying some kind of verbal trickery.

Malor wrote:

I had no idea that 'shuck and jive' had any racial connotation at all. I thought it was a variant of 'to pull a fast one', implying some kind of verbal trickery.

Skip to 30.

That might work if the phrase was one that was actually common. I had literally never heard the phrase before reading it up above, and had to look up what it's historical meaning was, so claiming it's some kind of colloquialism seems a bit far-fetched.

It's a very common phrase in the Mid-Atlantic, I've heard it all my life, and several times in the last month alone. Tech people use it a lot, although it's often taken to be "jury-rigged". I believe it was originally from WWI. Consider also the part of the body referred to in American slang as the "Heinie"...

billt721 wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

My point being that I view the phrase a lot like the phrase "They gyped me" or "Jerry-rigged" both are based off a racial stereotype, but have become so commonly used that most of the time people use the phrase without any intended racism.

That might work if the phrase was one that was actually common. I had literally never heard the phrase before reading it up above, and had to look up what it's historical meaning was, so claiming it's some kind of colloquialism seems a bit far-fetched.

Colloquially, both of those phrases are used quite often around here (DC/NoVA area). While there is historically racist subtext to them both, no one I know uses them that way intentionally, and most don't seem to be aware of the subtext at all.

rosenhane wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Did Sarah Palin make the 'Shuck and Jive' comment because she was jealous of the attention Ann Coulter was getting? It's like an idiot contest of who can be more offensive.

What's the difference between when Palin said it and when Cuomo said it about Obama, other than confirmation bias?

Are you and Norman the same person? Or do conservatives just get a handbook when they sign up that explains to never admit that a fellow conservative is an asshole - instead find some liberal who did something similar and point that out?

How about this - they're both assholes, and so is anyone who defends them or uses 'the other side does it too' as a rationalization.

rosenhane wrote:

My point being that I view the phrase a lot like the phrase "They gyped me" or "Jerry-rigged" both are based off a racial stereotype, but have become so commonly used that most of the time people use the phrase without any intended racism.

That might work if the phrase was one that was actually common. I had literally never heard the phrase before reading it up above, and had to look up what it's historical meaning was, so claiming it's some kind of colloquialism seems a bit far-fetched.

Edit: I stand corrected by the responses below. Growing up in the northwest I'd never heard it before, even with extremely racist relatives (perhaps another point in favor of 'it's not racist').

Robear wrote:

It's a very common phrase in the Mid-Atlantic, I've heard it all my life, and several times in the last month alone. Tech people use it a lot, although it's often taken to be "jury-rigged". I believe it was originally from WWI. Consider also the part of the body referred to in American slang as the "Heinie"...

"Jury-rigged" actually predates "Jerry-rigged" by at least a century. I think Jerry-rigged may be a bastardization of the original phrase, but I'm too lazy to bother looking up the etymology of the word.

EDIT: according to Wikipedia, jury-rig is from the 1700's, and Jerry-rig was originally Jerry-built until people started confusing it with jury-rig. The two words don't have the same meaning.

DOUBLE EDIT: also, I think that "hiney" more than likely stems from either the word "behind" or "hindquarters," not some weird racial thing.

ruhk wrote:

DOUBLE EDIT: also, I think that "hiney" more than likely stems from either the word "behind" or "hindquarters," not some weird racial thing. :P

I believe "Heineken" stems from one of those words as well.

Thanks for the information, Rukh, I had always heard the propaganda usages and accepted that story.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
ruhk wrote:

DOUBLE EDIT: also, I think that "hiney" more than likely stems from either the word "behind" or "hindquarters," not some weird racial thing. :P

I believe "Heineken" stems from one of those words as well.

rosenhane wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Did Sarah Palin make the 'Shuck and Jive' comment because she was jealous of the attention Ann Coulter was getting? It's like an idiot contest of who can be more offensive.

What's the difference between when Palin said it and when Cuomo said it about Obama, other than confirmation bias?

My point being that I view the phrase a lot like the phrase "They gyped me" or "Jerry-rigged" both are based off a racial stereotype, but have become so commonly used that most of the time people use the phrase without any intended racism.

I didn't hear about Cuomo, that's the difference.

I don't care who says it, it's unacceptable.

On a related note (related to previous responses), I've gotten this response a lot lately. Is it just assumed that because I have issue with conservative X that I approve it when liberals do it? Because I don't. I don't get why you would even respond this way, as there is literally zero evidence that I approve of Cuomo saying it. You just made the assumption and went on the attack.

I know what shuck and jive refers to (or thought I did) in terms of being like a performance, but I've always thought it was racially tied to black performers who performed (or were forced to perform) in ways to appeal to white audiences while confirming some level of racial superiority in the white audience's eyes(going back to like the days of segregation and such).

I've never heard of it being used as normal term.

Regardless of what it has come to mean in some areas of the country (again, without me having ever heard of it), I would say it was still a poor choice of words. A million other things should could have been said about what he did and she went with one that does, at the very least, have a history with it, even if that history is less relevant now. Am I suggesting everyone should be tip-toe-ing? Not really, but I might suggest racially charged words when describing someone of a different race than you as a pundit (or whatever the heck Sarah Palin even is anymore).

You guys scared me for a second. I use "jury-rigged" all the time. And to think that it was "jerry-rigged" turned my stomach a bit. Thankfuly it turned out to not be true.

Also, unfortunately, I also use "gyped" a lot though I always though it was "jipped".

I always though shuck and jive referred to a combination of bob and weave with bait and switch.