Phi for All

I keep seeing various violations mentioned by various folk, but I see no patterns I recognize. The video quoted by mistermack is obviously pro-Putin disinformation, but that same reporter was accused of misleading viewers about something innocuous Putin said that she claimed was a "rape joke" about Ukraine. OTOH, YouTube blocked WION last month for violating it's restrictions on denying or trivializing well-documented violent events. They are part of the more infamous Zee Media Corporation, which has pushed fake news stories on multiple occasions and been caught out. The little I've read about them suggest they run a lot of stories denigrating other countries, almost like they're being paid to. Nepal thinks Zee Media is paid by China to make them look bad, and have banned them from cable and satellite programming there.

Which ones, the ones that emphasized working with nature to ensure easier living, or the ones that established fair trade practices, or the ones that emphasized bonds of friendship and family and nation, or the ones that attempted to show the difference between good and evil to bronze age humans?

If you click the Enlargement of NATO link in your own link, it points out that Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, and Georgia are aspiring members specifically because they "formally expressed their membership aspirations". It seems like you're taking your "facts" from Putin. You seem to be arguing that an alliance that was formed to defend democracies against a tyrannical Russia is a justifiable threat to Putin, when the treaty basically states that "we'll come to your aid if Putin attacks you". Are you arguing that Putin should be able to invade whoever he wants to? I think your position is just getting uglier and uglier to defend. Right? The bully whines about the fact that you have so many friends willing to help you because you're a good person. What a shocker!

This is true. This is false. Most things have a rational foundation at the start. That's why they get started, because they're needed and they make sense. Explaining various phenomena as best you can with the knowledge at your disposal is rational behavior. Religion is no different to begin with. We wanted life to have certain rules and consistencies, so we made them up and we made them important enough so everybody would follow them. The foundations were rooted in the kind of reason we were capable of at the time, and included philosophies we knew would help humans survive closer proximity to each other in denser populations. You may not like what modern religions have become, but their foundations at least were rational.

It's a very flawed argument, so it's more likely it was ignored because of that. Watch the video again, and realize she keeps referring to "NATO expansion", as if they're actively recruiting member states. That's disinformation, and fosters the Putin viewpoint that an aggressor is threatening. That's not the unvarnished truth you seem to think it is. I'd love to hear from some of our Indian members to see what they think about WION. To me, it seems like cheap propaganda claiming to be fair and balanced. In truth, NATO is an attractive alliance for many former Soviet territories looking to form democracies, or anyone looking for collective security to protect from greedy neighbors. What Putin (and the disinformation journalist in your video) fear is that the contrast between Russian dictatorship and NATO democracies is becoming ever more apparent, and making NATO look especially good by comparison. So tell me, do you think Mexico should invade the US because they're NATO members and so many Mexicans are applying for US citizenship? Mexico used to own parts of this country too. Is this an example of American/NATO expansionism, where we conquer them by being a more desirable place to live?

Is this true? I don't think pointing out the insensitivity of the joke is an attempt to justify the violence of the response. It's not even trying to mitigate it. I'd like to think it's an attempt to heal multiple harms done within the population over time. Why else spend so much time on celebrity gossip, right?

When an idea is shown to be false, we move on to the next. MOST ideas end up being false. Age only restricts the time you've been able to spend studying science. Perhaps you haven't yet figured out how deeply layered scientific knowledge is. Seriously, it's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle cut from the layers of an enormous onion. You can get some pieces to fit together, but you need more of the puzzle before you can start guessing what the rest of it looks like. Does that make sense? I'm not sure how it's applicable here, but the science is certainly discussable. You still assume your idea, which was falsified, is supposed to "blow our minds"? The replies you got showed that your idea can't be correct, so I don't know why you think we'd be "hurt" by it. Again, MOST ideas are wrong, and that's only bad if you don't acknowledge it. Wrong isn't horrible. Nobody is shocked by an idea that isn't true. You aren't challenging mainstream science the way you think you are. Only if you promise to find someplace else to learn about science. You're a smart person who is ignorant in many areas, which describes most of our membership. If you leave here, find someplace that will help you learn.

! Moderator Note I hope I did the right thing by removing the poll you had set up. This doesn't seem like a question for a poll, but if I'm wrong I can put it back (maybe). Iirc, K1 and K2 have fundamentally different sources. If you're at the initial stages of research, perhaps that would help.

! Moderator Note beecee, dimreepr, if you can't participate in these discussions without attacking each other personally, I will suspend you both. Stick to attacking ideas and stop trying to out-insult each other.

I think you're the one missing the point. Chris Rock made a joke about a black woman's hair a decade after he made a documentary about how damaging misconceptions about black women's hair can be to their relationships and self-esteem. He made the goddamn film after his own daughter asked him, "Daddy, why don't I have good hair?" I think that elevates the situation above "He just made a joke about it". He had all the data at his disposal to make the decision that a joke about a black woman's bald head would be hurtful, but he did it anyway for a laugh. I'll take this same stance if Jon Stewart waits 10 years and then starts making fun of 9/11 first responders.

I applaud your non-binary stance!

Not if you're going to be this vague. "Similar information" is too broad to be helpful. Can you be specific about the help you need?

This is the position Chris Rock takes in his documentary about black women's hair, almost exactly. Black women are blamed for damage done to their hair from relaxers and wigs and weaves designed to make their hair more palatable to employers and white society. They often feel guilty about their real hair and what's happened to it. They get blamed (and often blame themselves) for their own condition. I can only imagine someone with alopecia feels much the way you do, and sees the harm done by further misunderstanding.

I'm not sure why you think this matters at all. Hasn't everyone involved in the thread disparaged the "actual harm" Will Smith caused? And since comedians don't make jokes about type 1 diabetics (though at one time I'm sure they did), your lack of offense is no surprise. Are you saying that, since you don't think you'd be offended by a Type 1 diabetes joke at your expense, nobody else with an autoimmune disorder should be offended by being made fun of? What's the difference between "It doesn't bother me" and "I've become numb to it"? One of them at least seems like a coping mechanism. I'm a dreamer, I guess. To me, attacking someone's physical shortcomings for comedy is like running out of good arguments in a debate and just yelling "Fuck you!" You're scraping the bottom of the barrel if that's all you got. Our society used to work children to death, and have touring freak shows and dog fights as entertainment. I like to think that as our compassion has grown, we laugh less at the physical disabilities of others. I hope this is a further evolution of comedy, and the lazy comics poking fun at disabilities will have to try harder next time to earn a laugh.

Will Smith shouldn't have hit Chris Rock. Chris Rock produced a documentary called Good Hair, specifically about what hair means to black women, and then made a bald joke about a black woman with alopecia in front of her peers. He shouldn't have used the joke, and it has nothing to do with how many people don't mind his humor. Would it be out of line for Jon Stewart to make emphysema jokes at the expense of a 9/11 first responder? I haven't seen Seth Rogen's Hilarity for Charity Variety Show, but I'm willing to bet they don't make fun of Alzheimer's patients. Will Ferrell doesn't joke about college kids with cancer, and I would imagine Bob Saget didn't tell jokes about scleroderma after his sister died of it (probably hard to raise $25M for research if you're being insensitive about it).

Are your toes short because of some medical condition? Are you self-conscious about them because they're obviously not what society considers "normal", and now they're on display in front of millions of people, including some very close friends and peers? Have your shortened toes ever stopped you from getting work? Are they ever used to judge whether you're attractive or not? Did your wife film a documentary about how men like you struggle every day with short toe syndrome, then make you the butt of a short toe joke in front of your friends, peers, and fanbase? When you first mentioned this, you said bald jokes were kind of a cheap shot and weren't particularly funny to you. Are the toe jokes the same? They may not bother you, or cause you any embarrassment, but is it safe to say you'd prefer your wife doesn't make fun of physical conditions you have no control over, even though you know she's only joking and doesn't mean anything by it?

And I don't think "joking about others" and making fun of someone's physical condition are synonymous. I think when you're "joking" about someone's physical impairment, there's little difference between being having alopecia and having cerebral palsy or Type 1 diabetes. Not much the person can do about these things. Comedians from the past used to openly mock folks with buckteeth, stutters, and crossed eyes, and got quite the laugh. Times change though, thankfully. If you stopped wearing her shoes, she'd probably stop mocking your toes. And making jokes about something you did wrong is fair game, because you could have done better, you could have changed the outcome. Unless you made it too big to fit in the basement because your toes were too short, then I'd have to go back to "you can't change that".

https://invisioncommunity.com/4guides/themes-and-customizations/css-framework/badges-r100/ If you have experience with these, and can offer some persuasive examples of ways to use them, we can approach an Admin about their implementation.

To date, we've taken the approach endorsed by the movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. What exactly are these badges you speak of?

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/25/1088720571/ginni-thomas-tex-messages-mark-meadows-2020-election What do you think about this? The justice has a voting record of weakening voting rights, and a slavish devotion to Republican agendas aimed at reducing the chances of fair elections. His wife is a conservative activist who sounds like she's gone down the QAnon rabbit hole, and doesn't care who the majority voted for.

Or most people have learned to appear to enjoy that type of joking around. If you appear sensitive about it, you attract more bullying. It can seem reasonable that allowing people to give us a hard time will make us stronger, but aren't we really just ignoring comments that would make us angry if we knew the joker "meant" something by it? If I'm joking at the expense of someone else's "lack", I don't think I'm trying hard enough to be funny. And comedy evolves like all else in our societies. Many things used to be hilarious that we cringe at now. I would personally love to see us move away from debasing people through their physical flaws as a way to elevate ourselves. People do enough crazy stuff to keep the comedians busy, so why keep perpetuating outdated physical stereotypes? Are the Academy Awards the same as heading down to the comedy club to see a show? I haven't watched them in years, so they might have changed. I thought it was more about peer-to-peer recognition and acknowledgement of artistic merit. If it's more like a roast now, I can understand why the viewership has declined.

Me too, I guess.

It's definitely cheap to point out parts of someone's body as being "less than ideal", especially when it's something one has little control over. Jokes on genetics have ALWAYS been hurtful and antagonistic. Big noses, red hair, no hair, big butt, small breasts, pigeon-toed, harelip, buck-toothed, non-white skin. People are often expected to be good-natured about things they can't control. Bullies are allowed to poke fun because "they don't mean anything by it", and they're "just giving you a hard time". I think there's a difference when it's something that attacks you like autoimmune disorders. I don't know enough about it, but it's my impression that alopecia isn't as genetically predictable as knowing you're nose is going to be as big as your grandfather's, or that you'll be bald by 30. If Jada Smith had rheumatoid arthritis, and hobbled when she walked, would it be appropriate to joke about her Olympic marathon chances? If she had Type 1 diabetes and had a severe hypoglycemic reaction, is it OK to joke about the seizures, or that all those holes in her arm make her look like an addict? MS can make a person look unbalanced and drunk, so there's a bunch of low-hanging fruit there. Lupus often starts as an unsightly rash, and we all know how easy it is to give a hard time to someone with skin that doesn't look right. I've often felt like some people need a back-of-the-head clout (grandma-speak for "What's the matter with you?!") for calling out the differences in others, but I don't actually do it. And I have to admit that I was a bigger fan of Chris Rock before his divorce. The last special of his I watched showed how bitter he's become towards women, and because of that I suppose I read some extra venom into his remarks about Jada Smith.

An aspect that's being overlooked is that extra bit of privilege a famous comedian gets in front of an audience of those intimately familiar with being in front of an audience as well as among them. There's a meta-performance issue at these awards ceremonies where fellow performers are expecting a known comic to be really funny and they also know their reactions are being filmed, and when the comic times a comment just right, the laugh is automatically on the lips, which doesn't give enough time to process what was actually said. Without that expectation, the ideal reaction to Chris Rock's cheap shot would have been nothing but crickets from that Hollywood crowd. They would have listened more closely to the words and realized the difference between roasting a colleague and attacking someone's illness. It would have shown Rock that he went too far and lost favor, momentum, and laughs. That's how you show a comedian your disapproval, not by assaulting them on stage.

If you don't understand the Big Bang Theory, how would you understand "documentation" regarding it? It has a LOT of evidence to support it, and where it's applicable it's shown to be remarkably accurate. Incredulity is a weak argument when it's clear you haven't really studied the science.