Geeto67

just run the fucker already. heads up, in a line. Gap that shit. None of this letting him tune your car and crap and twitchstergramming people talking in a parking lot. Let's see some down in old mexico shit.

he has to be successful, he told you so himself.

Fixed it for you.

Chrysler Pacifica

that made everyone laugh. What the hell is a soyboy anyway? and how is eating soy an insult? everyone eats soy, it's in like most of the products people eat these days anyway (srsly it's in like half taco bell's menu items). If that is the Alex Jones wannabe replacement for cuck that is the saddest thing I have ever heard - It's like trying to insult someone by calling them oxygen breathers.

Serious question: if we go to war are you going to re-enlist? I mean you want to do something about it so bad, there's your chance.... (full disclosure: don't re-enlist).

I think Country Joe and the Fish need to update the "fixin' to die rag". (I don't expect anybody to get that reference).

those look really nice. do you know what brand they are?

That moment when you realize a late 2000's music reference is an old reference and you put your 90's grunge jokes in the garage with the xmas decorations.

you are way oversimplifying it. And very little of American "white" culture still retains traditional Irish, German, British, etc...culture as regional pockets developed. Except the majority Spanish spoken is a Central and South American dialect that has evolved from Spanish explorers and no longer resembles the original Spain it originated from. The third most spoken language in the US is Chinese followed by French Creole, which is another evolved language and has it's own sub dialects. And Chinese, and native american, and french creole, and Klallam, etc...road signs are regionally curated for non federal highways, so while there is a recommended US standard the local community still has to meet the needs of their population. My Hometown of Flushing, Queens in NYC has street signs in Chinese, Korean, and Hindi If you don't live in one of the many communities that exist in the US that don't use the Gregorian calendar. If you live in the orthodox Jewish community the year is currently 5778. If you don't live in a community that prohibits that in the US. If you choose to go to a western medicine physician, which you are not obligated to do. If you go to a hospital emergency room and the Dr prescribes something you can refuse it and ask for rhino horn. They may not give it to you, but that doesn't keep you from seeking it out elsewhere. The only times were you may be forced to take western medicine is when you are unconscious and it is necessary to save your life, or when you are a child and it is necessary to save your life. In the case of children, care can still be refused up to a point on religious grounds. Is it though? There is an entire part of mainstream American subculture that does measure status by those things, excluding the actual closed communities and groups that do measure "true wealth" by those things. I think you are just smelling your own farts.

That has to do with the definition of "Speech" within the bounds of the constitution. It really should be "Freedom of Speech, Expression, and the Press" but everyone colloquially shortens it to "Free speech" without truncating the idea. That itself could be another long tome but the basics are that "Speech" isn't really just the words you speak, it's talking, writing, printing, broadcasting, using the internet, as well as any visual symbolism and symbolic acts you use to express yourself or carry a message. This covers most of the Art world as well as displaying flags, burning crosses, wearing armbands, etc... If you are still confused, read this, it's a pretty good introduction: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/interactive-constitution-the-meaning-of-free-speech Well it is more complex than that and based on the content of what was said: - If I didn't know what I said would set you off then generally no, not really. It wasn't intended and violence was an unreasonable action. You still might have some defense depending on the content (e.g. I say "incoming" and you have a PTSD flashback) as to the state or local assault charge but you could be arrested and charged. - If it can be proven that I knew and still did it, then I am presumed that your striking me is not unreasonable and I would probably be charged with a lesser state or local criminal charge like verbal assault or inciting criminal behavior. You could still be arrested as well under assualt but would have a pretty good defense in court. However I should point out that the standard in most jurisdictions isn't just me saying one thing, but a series of actions to provoke you striking me (such as me bullying you at work). - If what I say is commonly understood to be of the nature that a violent reaction is not unreasonable, e.g. a racial slur, Then I would be arrested and charged with assault, and you could be arrested as well. Depending on how aggressive I was you could have a very good affirmative defense to the charge that you were defending yourself. If what I said was a prohibited racial or ethnic slur commonly understood to be so in the context it was used - then I am likely to be charged with committing a federal hate crime as well. The precedent for this is quite high as well, it is doubtful that I would be charged with a hate crime, but if I said it..I dunno...48 times in a really threatening way, or painted a giant slur on the side of a building I didn't own but was guaranteed to get maximum exposure to the group I am trying to offend (like a synagogue or a mosque) , then I don't think I am getting around it. It's way more complex that than but you get the idea. Also you have to remember, being arrested, being charged, and being convicted are all different things: - Being arrested is the state detaining you and depriving you of your liberty in connection with a suspected crime. - Being Charged is the State formally accusing you of committing that crime, - Being convicted is the state proving through evidence to a jury of your peers (or sometimes a deciding judge) that you actually committed that crime. What you are worried about is being charged, not being arrested. You can be arrested without being charged. Then what are you saying? Because from where I sit your filter is the ideology and content.

And that's fine. Understanding is not the same thing as morality. I can understand why the Boers did, and the British did, but none of that makes it right. At some point you have to learn from the past and say the past is past and we are moving in a different direction. eh....maybe on somethings, but on a lot of things SA is lagging behind. I don't know if it's a look at the future so much as it affords an objective look at the present to learn from as an empathetic outsider. We all are sick of mis-information, but that's the yoke we bear. If we are committed to being whole, educated, enlightened people it is our responsibility to separate the wheat from the chaff and not be drawn into the traps by things that affect us emotionally. That's man's inner turmoil as old as time, Logic vs emotion. The majority of those looking for "equality" aren't looking for homogeneity, just recognition and an end to systems setup to exploit because of antiquated tribalism around race. American "culture" is a mix of a lot of cultures so there is no true assimilation to it. Everybody assimilates to the level they are comfortable with, and it generally works because crime rates among immigrants aren't any different than crime rates among natural born citizens. eh...there are plenty of domestic, born and bred US citizens that go on mass shooting sprees too. The Parkland shooter wasn't an un-assimilated immigrant. Neither was Tim McVey. There really isn't any evidence to support this.

So not "total" then. The current limitations in the US are: - False statements of fact, Not all false statements but Knwingly making false statements; slander is covered under here. Historical statements, some medical statements, etc...are still protected speech as is unknowing statements (like unsubstantiated beliefs) - Inciting imminent lawless action subject to clear and present danger. e.g. you can't advocate violence as a means of enacting political reform where it is reasonably certain said violence will happen. - Obscenity, as established by community standards. This is what gives the FCC the right to keep people from saying "Fuck" on network television - Child Pornography - Fighting words and offensive speech, like hate speech. If you can reasonable expect using these words will cause someone to fight you then yeah...it ain't protected. - Speech owned by others, e.g. intellectual property rights. - Commercial speech. Not a total exemption but diminished rights. Each one of these could be a multi volume tome on it's own, but I would say it's pretty fair and free given the restrictions. Throwing someone in jail is government censorship. There are other methods of censorship that don't involve the government, and are not illegal, but still happen. I agree we should be talking about it in all forums, so make education happen. Still there are ways to teach this stuff without running afoul of hate speech and other forms of unprotected speech. I learned about the civil war without ever hearing the N word, and people do have sensible educated discussions freely about the N word and it's merits without running afoul of hate speech. This is not your SA woman who assaulted two police officers with the specific intent of causing harm. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but that's not the primary reason why there is a congressional hearing around Facebook. The core issue is data privacy and whether Facebook should have been more careful about the information it shared that was used to make propaganda - not the actual output message itself which was clearly used by foreign governments to compromise the security of the US. what you really mean is "I'm not reading anything that disagrees with my ideology", which is just bullshit. If there is a qualifying statement in there that precludes you from reading some things then you just aren't open to the information. What you should do is read it, and then dissect it so as to why it draws a different conclusion from you.

On a far enough timeline back we are all colonizers and pilgrims. And History is always going to be complex. Still, at some point it stopped being about Afrikaners and English and became Black and White. If you look at the US, we went through the same things and honestly, most black people aren't indigenous to this country either. but ok, the indigenous people thing is murky, so let's just focus that the European Colonizers made slaves out of the Bantu's (primarily the xhosa), and then when slavery was abolished they instituted a system of indentured servitude. Then came the legislation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natives_Land_Act,_1913) that limited the amount of land black people could hold in SA (similar as to how the US shoved the First Nation people on to reservations), they took away the rights to vote (the General Pass Regulations Act), The instituted residential segregation, etc...I mean all the same stuff the US was doing to the black population here in America in the 1800's except we are talking about the 1900's (pre 1948). History is very complex in this area, but honestly you are making a case for permissible racism at the end of the day. Sure it was bloddier and way more recent than what happened in the US, but there are some parallels that draw to the Civil war (Boer wars), Jim Crow (Apartheid), and the Civil rights movement (the Anti-Apartheid movement). History has borne out again and again the subjugation and segregation of people along racial lines doesn't end well and isn't generally the right thing to do.

I think you have to define "total" for me, because as I understand it "total" does not exist and is not an attainable goal. There is always going to be some legislative adjustment that puts the priority of equality over the priority of free speech when they intersect. I don't think the answer is censorship. It's the "taking it as truth" part I have a problem with - not the young kids watching it part. The solution is education, spend more money on it so children understand the context, have an interest, and ask questions. Elect officials who support education spending. I don't think you can make the comparison between Facebook and the Daily show here. Zuckerberg is being drilled by congress because he released private data to a company that posed a national security risk. While I am all for being over inclusive as to what constitutes as a national security risk, it's a far stretch to call the "the Daily Show" based on the subject matter of jokes. But again...you call Trevor Noah's stuff bullshit, but most times he speaks from his cultural experience and not from history. It's bullshit to you because you had a different view, not because it is patently untrue. He is willing to place the positive things she did for the movement in SA ahead of the negatives and you are more willing to put the negatives forward over the positives. We want the whole picture and diverse viewpoints and to be honest when it comes to historical figures like Winnie Mandela we get that - plenty of books written from both sides of it and plenty of people who condemn and praise in their own mediums. If you are so concerned about kids getting the whole picture, support advancing those sources rather than seeking to remove the other ones.

Again context is important and I don't know enough about context to defend him on this front. He's a comedian with a comedy show that talks about news. I don't think anybody in this conversation is putting journalism or seriously political commentary over comedy in this context. In that clip however, the section I was referencing related to his personal experience and was used to give context to his comedy. I can't knock his personal experience because it belongs to him, and I kinda have to take his word for it because he is speaking on a cultural experience from first hand knowledge. And it jives with what I know first hand from other cultures I have been immersed in. I'm not saying he's instantly credible on the whole based on that one comment - he's a comedian doing a show, he's pretty much not credible based on format - but in this one instance where he was relating a personal experience I happen to believe him. I think you are struggling with the context here. It would be in-appropriate in any serious news source regardless as to who is saying it, which is kind of why it works in a comedy context. It's funny because it is so glaringly in-appropriate. John Stewart made the same kind of comments all the time and he's white, and it got the same laugh. Outside the context of a comedy show, yeah it's not cool. Your explanation is segregation? really? separate but equal isn't equal. They didn't want a separate nation (with no indigenous people to colonize) after their culture and land were exploited by colonialism. The Europeans didn't bring and create anything without taking from the people they colonized and enslaved, and then just giving them a nation isn't going to make up for it when the European (re: white) settlers still get to keep all the land and the wealth. I'm guessing you aren't ok with this, right? I mean, you do understand that when they asked for citizenship and opportunity in their own country the solution wasn't to just give them other land and say "go be citizens over there", do you?

This is about Money and power. Technically White people are the minority in the US if you group together all the other racial minorities and counted them as one entity. Who there are more of and who there are less of plays a role but it is overrated in the larger context compared to how much it gets talked about. It's an indicator for injustice, not a solution. These struggles always come down to who controls the wealth of a nation and who controls the government of that nation. In the US the laws were written specifically along a racial line and to keep perpetuating the wealth and power of that race. A lot of those laws still haven't been repealed, and other systems have been built out of them and that's how we end up with institutionalized racism. SA is going through the same thing - only more recent because Apartheid ended in the 90's and not the 1960's. If you want to talk about majority, you could easily say white people held the majority in SA until the end of Apartheid because black people weren't conferred real and full citizenship in the country. This isn't about numbers of people, it's about wealth, about who the laws were written in favor of, about prevailing attitudes that support bigotry, and about how to effect change in that environment.

Sure. I was with you up until the highlighted part. Seriously man, you even recognize that he and you viewed your life in that country through different lenses and then immediately turn around and negate his view point because it is different than your own without a hint of irony. That's a lot of assumption that your comments can't support, nor should they. Seeing things from different lenses is just going to lead to different viewpoints. Let's not forget that he is himself a public figure and an entertainer (not a journalist by the way), so his stories are structured to fit the humor of his audience, but then again his audience is his audience because of his viewpoint and life experience so its not like he is omitting much or being deceptive. yes. culturally they are different. No shortage of opinions in this world and from all viewpoints. I can't speak for Robin Quivers, I can only speak for me. I can be understanding of Jay-Z's opinion because he has to live with it and I don't but I don't automatically adopt his position because we have similar views on other things. Speak for you, let the others speak for themselves. Bringing them up in a conversation about what you and I believe is just static without a point. Pointing out that the commonality of an extremist position that exists on both sides of the aisle isn't news, and it certainly isn't advancing your point. Preferential right to entry subject to the immigration laws of that country. Remember, we are also talking about a country that historically deported its citizens rather than lock them up so there is probably some precedent for blocking commonwealth citizens as well. They claim her entry was blocked because of "not conducive to the public good", which is a pretty broad catch all charge. I think her case is pretty shitty because they don't have to prove the underlying charge as to whether her material was hate speech or not, they just have to look at the result and whether she was seeking a similar result this time around.

Not to interrupt this lively discussion but I feel like this should be in here somewhere: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/us/politics/paul-ryan-speaker.html oh and I highlighted that last part for the people who keep saying we shouldn't be so concerned about white supremacists.

Well at least we agree on something. Although in the context of the digital age it's hard not to make a case that outside of your own home there isn't an expectation to be on your best behavior because you don't know who is filming. Everything is a lesson though - and honestly, with the right guidance he can certainly be a role model of how not to act, and how actions have consequences. Being frustrated is not an excuse for bigotry. That is part of the message the SA government is sending with these laws and making an example of this woman. you can yell and scream and throw a public tantrum all you like as long as it doesn't cross this very clear line in the sand. While this is no bigtory without hate, there can certainly be hate without bigtory. I hate peanut butter, I ain't about to call someone the n word because they serve me a PBandJ. I'd also love to other scenarios where you completely change the context. I'm just not going to be expecting that the outcome is the same and outraged when it isn't because...as I said before context matters, and that includes cultural context. Fixed it for you. being dismissive of the racial part of it misses the point entirely. For some reason your statement reminds me of that court scene in the movie Blow where Johnny Depp says: "what did I really do? I crossed an imaginary line with a bunch of plants." And the Judge says: "Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars." you are trying to trivialize the laws of the country like some great injustice is being done to someone who is clearly a bigot. Why? The SA government is trying to get change through legislation. You don't like the method, change the law, you don't like the people who are in power, vote new people in power, but don't make excuses for bigots and think you have some moral high ground.

I have no opinion of Winnie Mandela, because I don't know enough about SA history. Almost every figure in history is complex. There is no single historical figure who is purely good, or purely evil. All legacys are tainted. As far as Trevor Noah, he is SA, and you are SA. He is entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. When it comes to both of you expressing them I value both your experiences. In this case, there is a conflict between those viewpoints, and I kinda lean toward his view because you are saying they are exactly the same word, and he is saying there is a slight cultural difference, because our cultures are different - which from my experience tends to be true more often than false. Context always makes the difference. Otherwise rap music would be hate speech for it's overuse of racial slurs. Did you though? you are complaining that the UK had no right to block a journalist from entering their borders because they are a journalist. I don't agree, the UK has every right to block who comes into their country subject to their existing immigration laws. That doesn't sound like a discussion about whether she actually qualifies as a journalist or whether her actions, in full context and not isolated, qualify as protected speech under the laws of the UK or not. In this particular case she is not advocating for the inclusiveness of LGBT in Islam, she was looking to incite trouble. The context here is that she was being intentionally inflammatory, disingenuous, and fishing for physical confrontation, sounds like activity more consistent with hate speech than protest. I don't know English law well enough, but I suspect like many other countries that visitors to the country do not enjoy the same rights and protections as citizens. And honestly if she wants to push the issue, she can enter the UK illegally and they will give her a day in court (with the according penalties). However, it is completely understandable that they would choose not to spend the tax payer money on the proceedings and just lock her out of the country at the border, because...well...she has no guaranteed right to be in the UK because she is not a citizen.

It's not an exact 1:1 equivalent because the N word has very very limited social acceptance in the US based on context and the K word in SA, at least according to the South Africans speaking publicly about it, does not. And yes it does make a difference, because each case is to be evaluated individually. In this case, the increasing aggressiveness and successive use makes it clear that she seeks exactly to do the thing that the law was put in place to prevent. Is she guilty after the first utterance...sure, but it still needs to be proven in court. Each successive use chips away at any defense she might have about making a mistake, or just being understandably upset. I like that the police were compassionate people in this case letting it slide the first couple of times, but there is a limit to their compassion as well and once it ran out and she was out of credibility for her defenses, then arrest away. Free Speech as it is enumerated in the constitution is not an absolute. It has never been an absolute, and this goes back to when it was written into the constitution. This is the misunderstanding that most americans have about their constitution - that is some how granted unchecked absolute freedoms, but it never did and was never intended to. It just set up that any limitations on those items required more scrutiny (in the legal sense of the word) than any other law. As I said before, they arrest people for far less in this country. yes, people have been sentenced to jail/prison for saying racial slurs. Usually state laws tie those crimes to assault so even if there isn't a federal conviction for hate crime under federal statutes, the state gets them for assault. Usually it isn't in connection with a public protest, but as a couple in GA found out, when they enter someone's private property (during a child's birthday party) with their public protest flying confederate flags, racist slurs, and open carrying weapons - a 20 year prison sentence is the stupid prize they win for that stupid game.

Can we be a little more fair about this? She said the most widley recognized in South Africa most offensive racial slur at two police officers approx 48 times, and it was caught on video and the video went viral in South Africa. The US has the least regulated hate speech laws comparative to the rest of the world (including South Africa), has had them since the 1940's, and this same event in the US wouldn't have been tolerated in this day and age. There are plenty of state and local laws that have been on the books longer than either of us have been alive that covers aggressive use of racial slurs as a form of assault - and that is before we even get into the fact that the slurs were aimed at police officers. Trevor Noah had probably the best take on this on the daily show last week. His point was that the word in question wasn't like the N word in this country because the SA black community did not take ownership of it like the American Black Community has taken ownership of the N word. It is universally understood by every SA that it is an offensive racial slur with no single redeeming quality. This makes the line a lot clearer. "Journalist" is being kind to the person in question. Calling Canadian pundit "Lauren Southern" a journalist is like calling Tomi Lahren a journalist - even Fox won't do it (they call her a political commentator which is news speak for opinionated pundit). And they banned her for a pretty specific reason - she was distributing a poster that violated the UK's hate speech laws in February. Distributing hate material doesn't really sound like "Journalistic activity" to me. And let's be clear - they denied her entry because she committed a crime in that country, just because she presents herself as a "journalist" doesn't excuse prior behavior. Now, if you want to have a discussion about whether the poster she distributed in the UK in Feb is actually hate speech - that's a different conversation. It's really easy to say everything is going to "shit" and "everyone is loosing their freedom" based on these two cases when you conveniently ignore the actual facts of both cases.

You are right, I was looking at an old list (2015). this list: http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/list-top-10-american-trucks-gallery-1.2695780 has the F150 on top and the Honda Ridgeline and Toyota Tundra at 2 and 3. However, the problem I have with these lists are that they consider Canadian content as "american", and I wonder how it would shake out if they removed the Canadian part of it. Looking back over several years (2016, 2015, 2012) there are many years where the Toyota or Honda products are tied with the Ford for percentage of content. Something else to think about though - when it comes to trucks in class, since 2011 and the exit of the Dakota from the market, the sole domestic competitor to the Tacoma and Frontier has been the Colorado. And there have been years, like 2014, where the Tacoma and Frontier, had more American Content than the Colorado. Still when it comes to content - the Japanese are right up there at the top of the list all day every day, and not just with trucks but cars like the Camry and a lot of Honda's SUV product line.