Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

Yes, he other most recent thing was that he made a very big deal that he was publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton because he thinks he would be assassinated he didn't (which he continues to talk about in that post).

Yeah, because he's Just That Important...

Stengah wrote:

Yes, he other most recent thing was that he made a very big deal that he was publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton because he thinks he would be assassinated he didn't (which he continues to talk about in that post).

Not just that he'd be assassinated, but also that he'd be one of the top 10 targets because of REASONS.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1454560...

The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an “apologist” on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).

In my experience, there's only 1 type of person who thinks a race war in America is imminent or even remotely plausible.

Robear wrote:

Yeah, because he's Just That Self Important...

FTFY.

Not just that he'd be assassinated, but also that he'd be one of the top 10 targets because of REASONS.

So, along with everything else, he's apparently also a coward.

I used to read Adam's blog all the time. He seemed to always phrase everything as a thought experiment, or he seemingly wrote extreme ideas as a joke, or to get a response.

Over time though I really think he started to actually believe the crap he was writing.

What's the rule of the internet that you can't tell if someone is being honest or sarcastic?

Poe's Law

Jayhawker wrote:

Poe's Law

Not sure if serious, or...

PaladinTom wrote:

I used to read Adam's blog all the time. He seemed to always phrase everything as a thought experiment, or he seemingly wrote extreme ideas as a joke, or to get a response.

Over time though I really think he started to actually believe the crap he was writing.

Yeah, that's how I took it too. I remember reading his blog years ago and thinking it was kinda quirky/interesting but not serious.

Somewhere along the way it turned into "oh god, you said *that*?" and I've long-since unsubscribed. Seeing what he's writing now is... sad and scary.

Is there any political reasons not to use Verizon of T-Mobile. For example maybe to support anti LGBT laws or something?

Verizon has been good on the LBGTQ front, particularity as it relates to benefits for employees (see here), it's their political lobbying to try and f**k their customers that's the problem.

I know nothing about T-Mobile because I never worked there, but my guess is most of the big telecommunication companies are fairly progressive seeming because they have retail store locations and need to be on the good side of consumers. Sure, they know they're playing cat and mouse with consumers over their data and whatnot, but they generally don't want people to crap on them for social stuff.

garion333 wrote:

Verizon has been good on the LBGTQ front, particularity as it relates to benefits for employees (see here), it's their political lobbying to try and f**k their customers that's the problem.

They try to f**k their employees too, but it's all employees equally.

Stengah wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Verizon has been good on the LBGTQ front, particularity as it relates to benefits for employees (see here), it's their political lobbying to try and f**k their customers that's the problem.

They try to f**k their employees too, but it's all employees equally.

Is it possible to be a company that large and not be terrible?

NathanialG wrote:
Stengah wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Verizon has been good on the LBGTQ front, particularity as it relates to benefits for employees (see here), it's their political lobbying to try and f**k their customers that's the problem.

They try to f**k their employees too, but it's all employees equally.

Is it possible to be a company that large and not be terrible?

No, not really. Verizon pays well and has great benefits, but my gf works in a retail location and it's basically a mandatory 50 hour work week for her. The sales reps need to work even more overtime to get anywhere close to meeting their sales quota so they can, you know, actually get paid commission.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

Is there any political reasons not to use Verizon of T-Mobile. For example maybe to support anti LGBT laws or something?

Have you looked into Google Fi? $20/month + $10/gig used. Use 1.7 gigs, pay $37 for the month.

Edit: fixed link

kaostheory wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

Is there any political reasons not to use Verizon of T-Mobile. For example maybe to support anti LGBT laws or something?

Have you looked into Google Fi? $20/month + $10/gig used. Use 1.7 gigs, pay $37 for the month.

Your link doesn't work but I'm looking it up now.

In response to the other posters I guess a big company can't be completely clean these days.

Baron Of Hell wrote:
kaostheory wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

Is there any political reasons not to use Verizon of T-Mobile. For example maybe to support anti LGBT laws or something?

Have you looked into Google Fi? $20/month + $10/gig used. Use 1.7 gigs, pay $37 for the month.

Your link doesn't work but I'm looking it up now.

In response to the other posters I guess a big company can't be completely clean these days.

The major downside to Google Fi is that at the moment, it only works with three phones: the Nexus 6, Nexus 6p and Nexus 5x.

Is the word 'retard' an offensive description for people with mental disabilities? Specifically in the US/UK?

Is it on the same level as 'negro' is an offensive description for people descending from south of Sahara?

Yes, and yes. It's a mark of serious ignorance on the part of the speaker.

jbavon wrote:

Is the word 'retard' an offensive description for people with mental disabilities? Specifically in the US/UK?

Definitely. More to the point, its "secular" usage is not favored, similar to how "that's so gay" is considered casual homophobia.

So Trump followers are merely "stupid," not "retarded."

This sort of thing puts obstacles in our accustomed ways of using language--obstacles we soon learn to sidestep without a second thought.

On a personal note, I'm wistful about how conflicted I am about Tropic Thunder's "you never go full retard" speech.

Yes. Retard is an offensive insult these days.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

On a personal note, I'm wistful about how conflicted I am about Tropic Thunder's "you never go full retard" speech.

I feel like whatever value that speech had as a satire of condescending Hollywood performances of the disabled has been entirely undone by the colloquial use of "full retard". Most of the time when I see that referenced, it's not a reference to the satirical aspect of the film but is instead simply a way of saying that someone (usually a political opponent) has done something especially ridiculous, e.g., "Boris Johnson went full retard today" or "Clinton's gone full retard with this".

Telling people that it's offensive usually gets hand-waved away as it being a reference to Tropic Thunder. Which it is in that it's using the same words, but it isn't in that it's entirely missed the point of that scene in the movie. That scene in Tropic Thunder is an interesting one as a satire of Hollywood mores and their tendency to reward majority actors for playing minority characters, but I almost wish it didn't exist for having given that term to so many people to misuse.

I like the new GWJ logo.
I'll have to go digging the threads to find out the origin.

fangblackbone wrote:

I like the new GWJ logo.
I'll have to go digging the threads to find out the origin.

They were a donation drive goal, I think. Certis mentioned it when they launched on Friday.

Clock gave an explanation over in the regular Questions thread.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

One of the donation drive goals a few years ago was for a variety of randomly selected versions of Stan that better reflected the diversity of the community. That apparently got implemented today. If you refresh the page a few times, you'll see a whole variety of Stans!

CptDomano wrote:

Clock gave an explanation over in the regular Questions thread.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

One of the donation drive goals a few years ago was for a variety of randomly selected versions of Stan that better reflected the diversity of the community. That apparently got implemented today. If you refresh the page a few times, you'll see a whole variety of Stans!

It makes me want to get new coffee mugs with each Stan on them! Collect the whole set!

Gotta catch em all!

fangblackbone wrote:

Gotta catch em all!

Hey! That's not this thread!

Petition to have KKK officially labeled as terrorist group.
Your text to link here...

Didn't think it needed a new thread. And I thought I could turn it into a question. If you don't think the KKK is a terrorist organization why not?

Done. Thanks for posting that Baron.