Debate Hall Current Events Thread -- Use this for all discussion on current events!

[rvkevin]

But that quote was in response to Ehrman saying that as historians they can't make that inference. Craig later states that if we followed this logic the historian's would not allow us to conclude anything.

I still don't see how that follows...please explain.

 

[Savon]

Big debate tournament today. I am leaving in about an hour and won't be back until Saturday. I have really been doing my homework about this whole "North Korean Threat vs Iran Threat"

I just wish that there were some arguments that did not apply to BOTH sides of the argument.

Anyways wish me luck foos

 

[rvkevin]

LoL. Five minutes into the debate, Craig defines the universe as all of reality and then says God must be external to reality. So, God is not real? I think we can agree on that!

 

[Theftz22]

Initial impression, I got pissed off whenever Krauss talked about philosophy or logic and when he treated the opening speech like a lecture or something.

That said Craig ignored some major points and got called out hard on his science.

Overall it was weak by both I felt.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Thoughts on the new America Invents Act? This is a patent reform law in which the most notable change is going from the "first to invent" system to the "first to file" system, meaning that whoever files for a patent first is entitled to the patent regardless of who invented it first.

Personally I support this; the first to file system was used by every country except the US before this act and for good reason: the first to invent system has confusing language over whether someone "worked diligently to reduce the invention to practice" and fosters a lot of sticky situations over who actually got the idea first. I'll have to familiarize myself with other parts of the bill as well, but as I understand it, this was the main reform involved. Amazingly, this bill was actually able to receive bipartisan support, something seemingly impossible these days.

On a side note, Obama signed this bill at my high school (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology)! I got to see him live signing it! At one point I was within 12 feet of him and it was quite awesome. I also shook hands and briefly spoke with Francis Collins, director of the NIH, at the event. Also I'd like to say hello to some people who (hopefully) still remember me, such as Sucumbio, Bob Jane T-Mart, and Dre.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well, unfortunately I don't know very much about patent law. It seems like a reasonable idea, considering it looks like it will streamline the patent process.

On a different note, should banks be allowed to speculate on food, given the recent famines in East Africa?

 

[Gionni]

This thread could already exist and if so I'm sorry, then I apologize for my bad english.
For the two of you who didn't know, recently Islamic terrorists attacked in Paris and in Bruxelles, killing people for God, or so they said. I live in Italy, these events are pretty near us, one could say even more important to us because in Italy lives the Pope, I see a lot of hate and ignorance, a lot of muslims are being treated like they were the ones to do such an horrible act, that's not right, the coran, from what I know, says that killing a man is like killing the entirety of humanity, and a lot of muslims that I know are good people that, like it should be, think killing is wrong, and think that you must respect the others culture, religion, language et cetera... unfortunately almost everyone I see thinks that those who did the attack in Paris are just like everyone that's muslim. I would like to know how's the situation in other parts of Europe, what do people think about this fact, I would also know what people from the rest of the world thinks of these events.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/15/europe/charlie-hebdo-france-attacks/ a link to an article that speaks generally about the matter

 

[Louis Tursi]

Is there a link to the news article or wherever you read/heard this from that you could send?

 

[Gionni]

Is there a link to the news article or wherever you read/heard this from that you could send?

oh, yes, that's probably a good idea, I'll edit my first post

 

[Claire Diviner]

This thread could already exist and if so I'm sorry, then I apologize for my bad english.
For the two of you who didn't know, recently Islamic terrorists attacked in Paris and in Bruxelles, killing people for God, or so they said. I live in Italy, these events are pretty near us, one could say even more important to us because in Italy lives the Pope, I see a lot of hate and ignorance, a lot of muslims are being treated like they were the ones to do such an horrible act, that's not right, the coran, from what I know, says that killing a man is like killing the entirety of humanity, and a lot of muslims that I know are good people that, like it should be, think killing is wrong, and think that you must respect the others culture, religion, language et cetera... unfortunately almost everyone I see thinks that those who did the attack in Paris are just like everyone that's muslim. I would like to know how's the situation in other parts of Europe, what do people think about this fact, I would also know what people from the rest of the world thinks of these events.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/15/europe/charlie-hebdo-france-attacks/ a link to an article that speaks generally about the matter

I think the attacks in Paris (more infamously, the Charlie Hebdo incident) is quite known by just about everyone at this point. Even the hacker collective, Anonymous, has retaliated and will attempt to take them down (link provided below).

These attacks are done by extremists of Islam. There will always be extremists to ruin everything for everyone. It's just Islamic extremists tend to actually attack innocent people from what I've seen, though I'm sure given today's media, they're not the only extremist group to do so, and are currently the most focused of groups.

Link to Anonymous retaliation:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/anonymous-retaliates-charlie-hebdo-attacks-213752529.html

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So Michael Bay is making a Benghazi movie.

God dammit.
This **** just won't ever die, will it? This is going to become the "9/11 was an inside job" of the next generation of conspiracy theorist morons (many of whom somehow happen to hold seats in congress).

 

[Claire Diviner]

So Michael Bay is making a Benghazi movie.

God dammit.
This **** just won't ever die, will it? This is going to become the "9/11 was an inside job" of the next generation of conspiracy theorist morons (many of whom somehow happen to hold seats in congress).

I'm pretty sure no one would take a Michael Bay film seriously anymore. His work is as credible as M. Night Shyamalan at this point. Tommy Wiseau is a fresh step up, and I'm not even exaggerating (okay, maybe I am, if just a bit).

 

[Sucumbio]

I still haven't had time to Google ben gaz ee

 

[PSIBoy]

Question: Is there a debate going over about the Battleships? I don't have time right now to look through everything right now and I want to know as soon as possible.

So Michael Bay is making a Benghazi movie.

God dammit.
This **** just won't ever die, will it? This is going to become the "9/11 was an inside job" of the next generation of conspiracy theorist morons (many of whom somehow happen to hold seats in congress).

It shouldn't die. It is basically the equivalent of December 7, 1941 except without all the ships, planes, and the thousands lives lost. Only a handful of lives were taken, but they included America's ambassador as well as some soldiers who defied orders to try to rescue people trapped inside, in addition to the American embassy. But the embassy was American territory, just like the British embassy in the US is British territory. In short, it was an attack on the soverignty of the US. In layman's terms, it would be refered to as an act of war. And don't say it was some people upset over a video: 1) that's not a good excuse to kill people over, and 2) the attackers raised a black flag over the embassy, the black flag that terrorist organizations in the Middle East use.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It shouldn't die. It is basically the equivalent of December 7, 1941 except without all the ships, planes, and the thousands lives lost. Only a handful of lives were taken, but they included America's ambassador as well as some soldiers who defied orders to try to rescue people trapped inside, in addition to the American embassy. But the embassy was American territory, just like the British embassy in the US is British territory. In short, it was an attack on the soverignty of the US. In layman's terms, it would be refered to as an act of war. And don't say it was some people upset over a video: 1) that's not a good excuse to kill people over, and 2) the attackers raised a black flag over the embassy, the black flag that terrorist organizations in the Middle East use.

It's basically the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, except that the people making a huge fuss about the president knowing about it ahead of time and not doing anything are a lunatic fringe, rather than a political party controlling a little over half of congress, and the evidence supporting it is even more ridiculously flimsy. There's no particular reason to forget it happened, but good god would it be nice for it to leave the news cycle for a while.

 

[PSIBoy]

It's basically the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, except that the people making a huge fuss about the president knowing about it ahead of time and not doing anything are a lunatic fringe, rather than a political party controlling a little over half of congress, and the evidence supporting it is even more ridiculously flimsy. There's no particular reason to forget it happened, but good god would it be nice for it to leave the news cycle for a while.

Huh. Thought it was largely about whether or not he lied about it under oath for his own political gain. One thing that supports it is that the CIA issued a report saying it was terrorism, but then he blamed it on an anti-Islamic video and if I recall correctly the creator was thrown in jail. So much for free speech, huh? I didn't even think it was on the news, but then again, I rarely ever watch it: I get it from books or news sites, but I won't discount the possibility of it still being debated about on TV.

You know what really gets under my skin though, is when people say Benghazi is insignificant. An act of war? No, that is not minor at all.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Huh. Thought it was largely about whether or not he lied about it under oath for his own political gain. One thing that supports it is that the CIA issued a report saying it was terrorism, but then he blamed it on an anti-Islamic video and if I recall correctly the creator was thrown in jail. So much for free speech, huh? I didn't even think it was on the news, but then again, I rarely ever watch it: I get it from books or news sites, but I won't discount the possibility of it still being debated about on TV.

Well, let's get the first thing out of the way right off the bat - the creator of that anti-Islamic video was not thrown in jail because he made a film. He was thrown in jail because he violated the terms of his probation. Very explicitly and very publicly.

Now did he lie under oath for political gain? Well, there have been numerous investigations of this from both sides of the aisle in congress, and so far, no real dirt has been turned up. The most recent investigation was the House intelligence report (led by republicans), that found essentially no wrongdoing. Susan Rice was wrong when she reported links to the video and a spontaneous protest, but she was wrong because the intelligence community was wrong, and because they had bad intel.

And I think it's worth noting for just a moment that the republicans in congress have poured god knows how much money into the ground largely on a hunch that a member of the Obama administration made an inconsequential lie on public television.

The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.

Why in god's name are we having another investigation? What is the point? What do we still need to learn? Well, to take it from the recent FOX headline (which they ran instead of the headline everyone else was running, which was about how good the job numbers were): "we don't have the result we want, so we're going to keep looking until we do". And yes, Benghazi is still very much a part of the FOX news cycle and mainstream republican thought, despite the fact that not a single conspiracy theory surrounding it actually panned out. It's like 9/11 truthers, except the crazies are in congress.

 

[PSIBoy]

Well, let's get the first thing out of the way right off the bat - the creator of that anti-Islamic video was not thrown in jail because he made a film. He was thrown in jail because he violated the terms of his probation. Very explicitly and very publicly.

Now did he lie under oath for political gain? Well, there have been numerous investigations of this from both sides of the aisle in congress, and so far, no real dirt has been turned up. The most recent investigation was the House intelligence report (led by republicans), that found essentially no wrongdoing. Susan Rice was wrong when she reported links to the video and a spontaneous protest, but she was wrong because the intelligence community was wrong, and because they had bad intel.

And I think it's worth noting for just a moment that the republicans in congress have poured god knows how much money into the ground largely on a hunch that a member of the Obama administration made an inconsequential lie on public television.



Why in god's name are we having another investigation? What is the point? What do we still need to learn? Well, to take it from the recent FOX headline (which they ran instead of the headline everyone else was running, which was about how good the job numbers were): "we don't have the result we want, so we're going to keep looking until we do". And yes, Benghazi is still very much a part of the FOX news cycle and mainstream republican thought, despite the fact that not a single conspiracy theory surrounding it actually panned out. It's like 9/11 truthers, except the crazies are in congress.

Well, I saw somewhere that the CIA knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack 24 hours after the attack. If I can find the source, I will gladly post it. Then, on the 14th an email was sent telling Rice to tell the UN that the attack stemmed from a protest (http://www.infideltaskforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/benghazi-email.jpg). Even so, that isn't enough evidence to prove if President Obama actually lied or not, but given the background of the IRS scandal, in which his credibility took a hit there, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually did.

Furthermore, there's this: http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...ty-imagine-that-a-sailor-cursing-2733648.html. Even if the rear admiral and the general weren't relived over Benghazi, and the 'stand down' order wasn't reality, the reason the rear admiral was relived was BS in my opinion, for reasons outlined in the article. And if you don't know who Halsey was, he started out as a rear admiral in WWII against the Japanese, was rough, tough, insensitive, swore, and hated the Japanese in a nutshell. He was promoted to vice admiral later in the war and was in command of the US Third Fleet in the invasions of the Philippines (particularly the Battle of Leyte Gulf) and Okinawa, and more operations which I am not aware of. Plus, this vice admiral isn't the only senior officer who has gotten sacked: most of the 16 commanders relived of what they were commanding were relived because of misconduct. A few I can understand, but several had high security clearances, even in command of nuclear warheads. You don't get that kind of responsibility for nothing. It's too much of a coincidence. Plus, everyone who was at Benghazi with the 'stand down' order, they were all lying? Seems fishy.

As for the committees, I'm not sure if they really have much more to dig up honestly. But there are a few inconsistencies that warrant some attention.

 

[Sucumbio]

A Major Victory for the Open Web

We just accomplished something very important together. Today, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted for strong net neutrality protections. This happened because millions of people — including many hundreds of thousands
in Mozilla’s community — joined together as citizens of the Web to demand those strong protections.

This is an important victory for the world’s largest public resource, the open Web. Net neutrality is a key aspect of enabling innovation from everywhere, and especially from new players and unexpected places. Net neutrality allows citizens and consumers to access new innovations and judge the merit for themselves. It allows individual citizens to make decisions, without gate-keepers who decide which possibilities can become real. Today’s net neutrality rules help us protect this open and innovative potential of the Internet.

Mozilla builds our products to put this openness and opportunity into the hands of individuals. We are organized as a non-profit so that the assets we create benefit everyone. Our products go hand-in-hand with net neutrality; they need net neutrality to bring the full potential of the Internet to all of us.

Today’s net neutrality rules are an important step in protecting opportunity for all. This victory was not inevitable. It occurred because so many people took action, so many people put their voice into the process. To each of you we say “Thank you.” Thank you for taking the time to understand the issue, for recognizing it’s important, and for taking action. Thank you for helping us build openness and opportunity into the very fabric of the Internet.

I'm still not sure what to think of so-called Net Neutrality...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well, I saw somewhere that the CIA knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack 24 hours after the attack. If I can find the source, I will gladly post it. Then, on the 14th an email was sent telling Rice to tell the UN that the attack stemmed from a protest (http://www.infideltaskforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/benghazi-email.jpg). Even so, that isn't enough evidence to prove if President Obama actually lied or not, but given the background of the IRS scandal, in which his credibility took a hit there, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually did.

As said, 7 different investigations looked into this and found that the Obama administration had not lied, and that they had gotten the false information from the CIA. I can't actually load that picture for some reason, it keeps giving me "verbindung unterbrochen" (connection canceled?).

Furthermore, there's this: http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...ty-imagine-that-a-sailor-cursing-2733648.html.

I don't trust this source. At all. BeforeItsNews is a notoriously crappy news site. They basically don't have a filter - if they think people will click on it, it'll run. For example:
http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-c...bama-space-flights-denver-aliens-2488124.html
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/07/wifi-to-kill-millions-whistleblower-says-2987112.html
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...-this-is-whats-happening-instead-3113754.html

These people are insane. Do yourself a favor and vet your sources a little better. But even according to your own article's sources,

Even if the rear admiral and the general weren't relived over Benghazi, and the 'stand down' order wasn't reality, the reason the rear admiral was relived was BS in my opinion, for reasons outlined in the article.

Of all the services, the Navy has been the most aggressive in holding its commanders to strict standards of professional conduct. According to statistics gathered by The Navy Times newspaper, more than 20 Navy commanding officers were fired in 2012 for inappropriate behavior and misconduct; another six commanding officers have been relieved of duty so far this year.

This isn't anything special.

Plus, this vice admiral isn't the only senior officer who has gotten sacked: most of the 16 commanders relived of what they were commanding were relived because of misconduct. A few I can understand, but several had high security clearances, even in command of nuclear warheads. You don't get that kind of responsibility for nothing. It's too much of a coincidence.

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/03/24/president-obama-purge-military/

Really? See, I don't know who these 16 are. But the fact is that a great many high-level military operatives have behaved phenomenally badly. Gaoette was clearly the least offensive of the lot, but the Navy holds a tight ship. Especially nowadays. The other guys on that list of 9 mentioned on skeptoid were fired because of really obvious stuff. Felonies. Fraternizing. Drunken benders in Moscow. Stuff like that.

Plus, everyone who was at Benghazi with the 'stand down' order, they were all lying? Seems fishy.

Citation needed. The congressional inquiries found no evidence of anything resembling a stand-down order. Hell, Snopes addressed pretty much all of your claims here.

I'm still not sure what to think of so-called Net Neutrality...

I couldn't say why. Net neutrality is perhaps the single most common-sense regulation possible for dealing with the Internet. It basically says that traffic is content-neutral. That is, one person's bits are the same as another person's. You can't make traffic to some people run faster or slower. You can't block off websites, with the notable exception of those breaking the law. You can't install an internet fast lane. This does several things:

• It prevents large media companies from stifling innovation. For example, if Time Warner Cable owned a media streaming service, they could throttle Netflix's internet speed to make their own service more attractive. You want to start your own online business? This prevents people like Amazon from buying an unfair advantage with the ISPs, and ensures that they have to stand up on their own merit in the free market, rather than simply paying to shut their competitors down.
  
• It ensures free speech on the internet. Let's say Kotaku has been running an investigative series on Comcast, and Comcast doesn't like that. Without net neutrality regulations, there's very little to stop Comcast from blocking Kotaku to its customers. ISPs could censor the internet, much in the same way China does. That would kinda suck, as many people get most of their news from the internet, and the internet is possibly the most valuable information-gathering tool in history. It would open the floodgates for people to destroy the most crucial purpose - information-sharing - that the internet was created for.
  
• It stops ISPs from "parceling up" the internet. Imaging needing to pay extra for access to Youtube and Netflix, and more again for access to ******* or XVideos. You know, something like this. Nobody wants that.

Net neutrality is kind of a no-brainer. If we see the internet as a utility (which we should, because it is), then there's no question. Even if we don't, the pros outweigh the minor con of getting involved in the market by a longshot.

 

[PSIBoy]

As said, 7 different investigations looked into this and found that the Obama administration had not lied, and that they had gotten the false information from the CIA. I can't actually load that picture for some reason, it keeps giving me "verbindung unterbrochen" (connection canceled?).



I don't trust this source. At all. BeforeItsNews is a notoriously crappy news site. They basically don't have a filter - if they think people will click on it, it'll run. For example:
http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-c...bama-space-flights-denver-aliens-2488124.html
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/07/wifi-to-kill-millions-whistleblower-says-2987112.html
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...-this-is-whats-happening-instead-3113754.html

These people are insane. Do yourself a favor and vet your sources a little better. But even according to your own article's sources,





This isn't anything special.

Refer to the part of my post about Halsey. Also want to add that in the following link, it states that Halsey said "**** are not fit to live in a civilized world!" (http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/exhibits/ww2/after/back.htm). Even though it may not be reliable, it did make the point about Halsey.

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/03/24/president-obama-purge-military/

Really? See, I don't know who these 16 are. But the fact is that a great many high-level military operatives have behaved phenomenally badly. Gaoette was clearly the least offensive of the lot, but the Navy holds a tight ship. Especially nowadays. The other guys on that list of 9 mentioned on skeptoid were fired because of really obvious stuff. Felonies. Fraternizing. Drunken benders in Moscow. Stuff like that.

This is what is suspicious: Why have 9 generals and admirals all been sacked over some form of misconduct by the Obama Administration itself when they served for decades prior? Why in 2013? Why not earlier? Why are some of them only being exposed or acting up in 2013? And why have two gained charge of nuclear weapons, only for one to go out drunk and act like a teenager and the other use fake poker chips? They should know better. After all, one doesn't get responsibility of nukes for being an idiot.

Also, http://america-wake-up.com/2013/11/...-commanders-in-5-years-nine-generals-in-2013/. According to this article, nearly 200 senior officers (including 37 4-star generals) were sacked by the Obama Administration alone. The Bush administration sacked like, what? Two to four? Why are all these commanders being fired over misconduct now? It should be clear that this is unprecedented. Most firings prior to his have been during wartime in failures to perform well in battle, not by misconduct. Purge? Yet to be proven, but in the following article, retired military officers and current senior commanders are seeing a purge (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/23/military-sources-obama-administration-purging-commanders/). Note these aren't random Republicans: these are military veterans who know their stuff in the military, and even if the purge was false, people in it are saying the sackings is striking fear into the military.

The congressional inquiries found no evidence of anything resembling a stand-down order. Hell, Snopes addressed pretty much all of your claims here.

Call me a conspiracist or naive or whatever, but I'll take a senior officer's word over our current President's any day regarding war, and right now they are saying they are afraid. That would shut a lot of them up. This is just based off an inference, not hard evidence. I personally belive the current President is at the very least the most incompetent President ever when it comes to military affairs. Like this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...o-leave-some-very-important-equipment-behind/. They should've flew out on a military transport, not a civilian plane. Then they would have been able to salage some, if not all their equipment. You will not convince me that the UMC will leave via civilian plane unless there was no other option (which there clearly was) or they were ordered to.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Refer to the part of my post about Halsey. Also want to add that in the following link, it states that Halsey said "**** are not fit to live in a civilized world!" (http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/exhibits/ww2/after/back.htm). Even though it may not be reliable, it did make the point about Halsey.

Yep, and we've had major cultural shifts since the 1940s. Racism has gone from the order of the day to something which kills careers, and that's a good thing.

This is what is suspicious: Why have 9 generals and admirals all been sacked over some form of misconduct by the Obama Administration itself when they served for decades prior? Why in 2013? Why not earlier? Why are some of them only being exposed or acting up in 2013? And why have two gained charge of nuclear weapons, only for one to go out drunk and act like a teenager and the other use fake poker chips? They should know better. After all, one doesn't get responsibility of nukes for being an idiot.

I don't know. Why don't we look for some answers? Do you have a reference sample for Bush or Clinton? Couldn't this just as easily be seen as a tightening of the conduct rules for the military? Wouldn't that be, I dunno, a good thing? The fact that higher-ups in the armed service got away with serious misconduct in the past isn't exactly a good thing. They should know better, but I guess they didn't. Or are you insinuating something here?

Also, http://america-wake-up.com/2013/11/...-commanders-in-5-years-nine-generals-in-2013/.

You know, I have this general rule that when an article is full of crazy, I don't use it as a source. I try to find a better source, and if I can't, I reject my claim. This article is really full of crazy. And of course, the 197 in question are never gone over. They don't examine why they were fired, they don't examine any sort of control sample (I still can't tell if this is actually something out of the ordinary, and I'm not trusting these nutbags to tell me it isn't!), and they downplay the few reasons given (for example, the fact that one of those was actually a felony).

The Bush administration sacked like, what? Two to four?

I don't know, and I can't find figures on it. I'd like to know, so we have some context for this.

It should be clear that this is unprecedented.

Except that it isn't, because literally every source you've cited so far has been a right-wing fringe blog or has not made that claim.

Like this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...o-leave-some-very-important-equipment-behind/. They should've flew out on a military transport, not a civilian plane. Then they would have been able to salage some, if not all their equipment. You will not convince me that the UMC will leave via civilian plane unless there was no other option (which there clearly was) or they were ordered to.

And we have virtually no details on this case. Just sayin'.

 

[PSIBoy]

Yep, and we've had major cultural shifts since the 1940s. Racism has gone from the order of the day to something which kills careers, and that's a good thing.

Yes, that is a good thing, except when there's a double-standard. If you can get fired for being racist to black people, shouldn't you get fired for being racist to whites? And there are so many misconceptions that people are crying 'racist!' or some other ridiculous nonsense for when it really isn't. A classic example being the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. http://m.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/israel-and-palestine. Hamas is the one firing rockets into Israel, that is an act of war. Of course Israel is going to respond with force. Seems like a double-standard there.

I don't know. Why don't we look for some answers? Do you have a reference sample for Bush or Clinton? Couldn't this just as easily be seen as a tightening of the conduct rules for the military? Wouldn't that be, I dunno, a good thing? The fact that higher-ups in the armed service got away with serious misconduct in the past isn't exactly a good thing. They should know better, but I guess they didn't. Or are you insinuating something here?

And what exactly proves your position here? They have had clean records to my knowledge, and some of the almost 200 fired don't even have a reason. May I add that I haven't been able to find anything where the news interviewed any one of them? So in a way you're right: another Benghazi committee is not needed. What is needed is for someone to look into and interview these guys.

You know, I have this general rule that when an article is full of crazy, I don't use it as a source. I try to find a better source, and if I can't, I reject my claim. This article is really full of crazy. And of course, the 197 in question are never gone over. They don't examine why they were fired, they don't examine any sort of control sample (I still can't tell if this is actually something out of the ordinary, and I'm not trusting these nutbags to tell me it isn't!), and they downplay the few reasons given (for example, the fact that one of those was actually a felony).

Google '200 generals fired', see if you can find an article that you don't consider crazy. All these articles are talking about 'purging' and whatnot, which you do not believe I might add.

I don't know, and I can't find figures on it. I'd like to know, so we have some context for this.

It seems a lot of people are saying around those numbers.

Except that it isn't, because literally every source you've cited so far has been a right-wing fringe blog or has not made that claim.

Your only right-wing source was the Benghazi thing, and you were only trying to say that the guy was stupid. You wanna try to find a non-liberal writer who backs up your claim? Like I said, 200 high officers fired over mostly misconduct, when before they had no records at all, I mean doesn't that sound like I don't know a little suspicious?

And we have virtually no details on this case. Just sayin'.

There should have been a military transport even a few hours flight to the embassy area.


Wait, we aren't even arguing about Benghazi anymore, which wasn't even current to begin with, if by definition of current it means it happened within the last week or so. Well, it seems that we have steered off-topic then. We should probably stop before this goes much further. I'm willing to bury the hatchet and forget.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

For what it's worth with regards to the military purge, I passed the question to some people who I generally find to be more well-informed than myself, and I got this back:

I'm not sure what the upside of "purging" the army (in the nefarious, remove ideological opposition sense of the word) is when you've only got one and a half year left in the seat, no third term available and not much in the way of projects left to implement. Looks more like jettisoning dead wood to me.

[...]

Yeaaah... those all seem like pretty good reasons to remove people, conspiracy guy. You really want "mishandles nuclear missile silo" and "steals from the petty cash" guys to keep their post ?!

[...]

So there's downsizing going on, which generally involves letting people go. That doesn't scream nefarious, does it ?

General Ham had just completed a normal twenty-four month assignment as a theater commander. He was 61 years old and had served a 39 year career. So it's likely that his decision to retire at that point had no sinister causes behind it.

Purge, schmurge, as mentioned, among the general officers the dismissals are mostly for the sort of causes why people are dismissed. Before someone says "but some of those are trifles", High Command is a position of trust, not a tenure. No career federal official is per se untouchable, being military is not an exception, and in that field if you get a disciplinary mark in your record that prevents you from being promoted or reassigned to a new command at the same rank level -- or, if through no fault of your own you are repeatedly passed over for such(*) -- the expectation is that you'll honorably walk away when you get the chance without being asked.

(*And there's no obligation to create a post just so you can keep an officer on active duty if it's time for him to cycle out of his current one, and all equal-or-higher slots are already otherwise filled)

Plus if on top of all that, you are imprudent enough to ***** and moan about the CinC and your lawfully appointed superiors on the record, you'd better be a star performer to stay on a good career path. That is not new. Early in your career you learn to NOT give out free ammo to use against yourself.

Someone does not know what "mostly" means. And some more info about those Air Force majors:

In early June, the records of 6,438 majors — 3,033 in or above zone — went before the promotions board for majors and lieutenant colonels; 1,054 majors in or above zone were selected for promotion. The records of the 245 majors twice passed over then went before a selective continuation board; 157 got the boot, 88 — many of them pilots — get to retire.

So, no nefarious plan, just another RIFT.

From first link:
"A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter said even “young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House."

Wonder what the hell this means? Not talking negatively about the POTUS at work; that's been the standard for as long as I've been in (since '88) of officers who act professionally. If an officer talks to subordinates about how screwed up someone in the Executive branch is, how is that gonna affect good order and discipline, ya think?
If a JO has to be reminded to not talk politics at work, I worry for their career.

At this point I find it prudent to mention that in no job is badmouthing your boss looked kindly upon. The military, doubly so. The fact that your boss happens to be POTUS doesn't change that fact.

Last year only about half of Logistics branch Captains in the Army got selected for promotion to Major on their first look at promotion. It's very unlikely to get selected on a second and last look (before up or out gets you shown to the door.) The promotion system targets 80% to make Major. During the war, when the Army was growing end strength, it was not uncommon for rates of selection to Major to be in the high 90's. About two years ago the Army was implementing a policy to make re-enlistement for junior soldiers competitive and more limited. It's hard to judge those aspects as a purge. The Army implemented a new evaulation system to reduce inflation in rankings to make it easier to tell which of the fully qualified for promotion people get removed instead of promoted. The pendulum is swinging the other way. Early in war strength was growing. The Army is on course to be smaller than it was pre 9-11. It's likely on course to be smaller than at anytime since pre-WWII. The pendulum swung up a little for a decade and is now swinging back hard and fast.

General officer numbers had grown at a faster rate with the two campaigns underway post 9-11. A good chunk of that was driven by the creation of "temporary" postings in headquarters created to fight the war. When those postings started to go away (like after the end of Operation New Dawn) the senior slots associated started to go away. As cuts start finding their way to permanent structure that's accelerating. The ones with issues, whether small or just seeming small to civilians, are among the first to go.

I'm a military officer working in the pentagon for a number of years now. No purge, nothing nefarious. Up or out will cause a fair amount of Officers out of the military. Always has.

So basically, it's a combination of downsizing (we're ending or have ended major military operations in the last few years and the military has been bloated anyways) and standard operating procedure, just like I said.

And pretty much exactly as I predicted, what's going on here in the blogosphere is that crappy news sources are latching on to incomplete information to craft an elaborate, nonsensical conspiracy theory. That's why you don't hear about things like this from, say, The New York Times, or the BBC. Because they have the journalistic integrity to check the story before running it.

 

[FirestormNeos]

>"Current Events Thread"
>No discussion about a certain internet firestorm that is, according to a lot of people, about video games
>Implying said firestorm is not current
>mfw

I envy you all.

As for my opinion(s) on the matter...

• Both sides are good guys fighting a dirty war. It will inevitably screw one side over.
• The conflict has devolved into "Two echo chambers complaining about how bad the other side is" like all internet firestorms eventually do. However, this controversy is still relevant as these echo chambers still haven't shut up.
• I used to be on one particular side. That was until I stopped visiting a website that was incredibly biased toward that side. Now I identify myself as neutral.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

>"Current Events Thread"
>No discussion about a certain internet firestorm that is, according to a lot of people, about video games
>Implying said firestorm is not current
>mfw

I envy you all.

As for my opinion(s) on the matter...

• Both sides are good guys fighting a dirty war. It will inevitably screw one side over.
• The conflict has devolved into "Two echo chambers complaining about how bad the other side is" like all internet firestorms eventually do. However, this controversy is still relevant as these echo chambers still haven't shut up.
• I used to be on one particular side. That was until I stopped visiting a website that was incredibly biased toward that side. Now I identify myself as neutral.

I really don't know what you're talking about. Gamergate? That has become very old news and all that's left is cleaning up the mess it left of the respectability of gamer culture and games as art.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I really don't know what you're talking about. Gamergate? That has become very old news and all that's left is cleaning up the mess it left of the respectability of gamer culture and games as art.

Well it's not 2011 old news, so I figured it was worth at least a mention.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well it's not 2011 old news, so I figured it was worth at least a mention.

I think it's less that it's particularly old and more that it's just not worth talking about any more. Sexism and misogyny in the games industry and the gaming community is a real, huge problem. The idea that this was all about ethics flew out the window about the time Quinn started tweeting screencaps from 4chan IRC chats, and the sooner this chapter is buried, the sooner we can go back to trying to fix the problem, rather than acting like it doesn't exist and aggravating it.

 

[PSIBoy]

I probably should've done this months back, but the debate between me and @ Budget Player Cadet_ ? Yeah, well I dropped it. Not because I couldn't come up with a retort, but only because it was apparent that neither one was going to get through to the other and it was going to become circular soon. Both of us have made our main points and in hindsight, I feel that I should've gave some closure on this instead of simply not responding.

I sincerely apologize if I sounded rude or condescending in any way. And I must thank you for giving me some perspective. No hard feelings?

 

[Sehnsucht]

I probably should've done this months back, but the debate between me and @ Budget Player Cadet_ ? Yeah, well I dropped it. Not because I couldn't come up with a retort, but only because it was apparent that neither one was going to get through to the other and it was going to become circular soon. Both of us have made our main points and in hindsight, I feel that I should've gave some closure on this instead of simply not responding.

I sincerely apologize if I sounded rude or condescending in any way. And I must thank you for giving me some perspective. No hard feelings?

Since you have faced BCP and lived, you're ready to move to the next level.

You can find me atop the summit at dawn.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I sincerely apologize if I sounded rude or condescending in any way. And I must thank you for giving me some perspective. No hard feelings?

Actually, I'm a little miffed. Not because of any argument you made, but because of this:

Yeah, well I dropped it. Not because I couldn't come up with a retort, but only because it was apparent that neither one was going to get through to the other and it was going to become circular soon.

I kinda take offense at this, because I pride myself in being a free thinker with an open mind. If you have a good argument, and I can't refute it, I will generally accept your argument. So you're either saying that I'm not, or that your argument is bad and that you're going to go with it anyways.

 

[PSIBoy]

Actually, I'm a little miffed. Not because of any argument you made, but because of this:

I kinda take offense at this, because I pride myself in being a free thinker with an open mind. If you have a good argument, and I can't refute it, I will generally accept your argument. So you're either saying that I'm not, or that your argument is bad and that you're going to go with it anyways.

I'm sorry. It's just that it's so easy to become emotionally attached to an argument, and when that happens it takes a lot more to convince, and that's what I thought what happened over the course of the argument. Of course, Internet makes misinterpretation easier, so I apologize if my assumption was a misunderstanding.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm sorry. It's just that it's so easy to become emotionally attached to an argument, and when that happens it takes a lot more to convince, and that's what I thought what happened over the course of the argument. Of course, Internet makes misinterpretation easier, so I apologize if my assumption was a misunderstanding.

I'm not emotionally attached to that argument or to the president. I just think that you (and many on the right) are taking a perfectly normal, ordinary event and acting like it's some huge deal, which it isn't. And if you disagree, I'd like to know why. What I don't like to hear is that you have an argument, but you'd rather not present it because you think you're wasting your time. If you think your argument has merit, believe me - you're not. I may come across as fairly convicted and aggressive, but that's just sort of how I face debate. I can and do change my mind.

 

[PSIBoy]

I'm not emotionally attached to that argument or to the president. I just think that you (and many on the right) are taking a perfectly normal, ordinary event and acting like it's some huge deal, which it isn't. And if you disagree, I'd like to know why. What I don't like to hear is that you have an argument, but you'd rather not present it because you think you're wasting your time. If you think your argument has merit, believe me - you're not. I may come across as fairly convicted and aggressive, but that's just sort of how I face debate. I can and do change my mind.

I guess it is also partially that it began consuming my life as the debate went on. I'd rather not let that happen again until I can learn how to cope with it.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I think it's less that it's particularly old and more that it's just not worth talking about any more. Sexism and misogyny in the games industry and the gaming community is a real, huge problem. The idea that this was all about ethics flew out the window about the time Quinn started tweeting screencaps from 4chan IRC chats, and the sooner this chapter is buried, the sooner we can go back to trying to fix the problem, rather than acting like it doesn't exist and aggravating it.

Alright, so with that out of the way, what do you think is the solution to fixing the "Sexism and misogyny in the games industry and the gaming community" problem?

I have a few ideas on what might work, but I want to hear your solutions first to get an idea what you value. That way I don't step on any landmines placed by those pesky internet trolls.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Alright, so with that out of the way, what do you think is the solution to fixing the "Sexism and misogyny in the games industry and the gaming community" problem?

I have a few ideas on what might work, but I want to hear your solutions first to get an idea what you value. That way I don't step on any landmines placed by those pesky internet trolls.

I have a few ideas. A good first step is simply to have more empowered female characters, and have them be actual characters. Not something like "personality trait: 'is female'", real characters who just happen to be female. Have more empowered female protagonists who aren't traditionally attractive, because there really is basically ****-all in that realm, and it sends a message that if you aren't eye candy, you aren't wanted. Stop treating "attractive white male" as the default setting for your game's protagonist, to the point where if your protagonist isn't white and male, it's something to apparently write home about. Kick these assholes right the **** out of the industry; they are a big part of the problem.

But honestly, all of these are just not enough. This is a really hard problem to solve, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being the dismissive attitude those within the industry have towards female game devs and gamers, regardless of competence. Or, to put it another way, if you meet someone with a female Mii avatar online, and they kick your ass, what's your first assumption? "This is a woman who's really good at smash" or "This is a dude with a female avatar who's really good at smash"? The fact that for most people, it's the latter, is part of the problem. I don't have a solution. I have ideas - stop shaming women for speaking up about these issues, stop pretending there isn't an issue, etc. - but it's hard enough to convince most people that the problem is even real, even after a feminist game critic got bomb threats when she accepted a speaking gig at a university, so solving it... Well, I do my part to call out obnoxious sexist behavior.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I have a few ideas. A good first step is simply to have more empowered female characters, and have them be actual characters. Not something like "personality trait: 'is female'", real characters who just happen to be female. Have more empowered female protagonists who aren't traditionally attractive, because there really is basically ****-all in that realm, and it sends a message that if you aren't eye candy, you aren't wanted. Stop treating "attractive white male" as the default setting for your game's protagonist, to the point where if your protagonist isn't white and male, it's something to apparently write home about. Kick these *******s right the **** out of the industry; they are a big part of the problem.

But honestly, all of these are just not enough. This is a really hard problem to solve, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being the dismissive attitude those within the industry have towards female game devs and gamers, regardless of competence. Or, to put it another way, if you meet someone with a female Mii avatar online, and they kick your ***, what's your first assumption? "This is a woman who's really good at smash" or "This is a dude with a female avatar who's really good at smash"? The fact that for most people, it's the latter, is part of the problem. I don't have a solution. I have ideas - stop shaming women for speaking up about these issues, stop pretending there isn't an issue, etc. - but it's hard enough to convince most people that the problem is even real, even after a feminist game critic got bomb threats when she accepted a speaking gig at a university, so solving it... Well, I do my part to call out obnoxious sexist behavior.

I ultimately agree with what you've said, but I can't help but speak up about something nagging at me:

We see women like Anita who get a lot of attention. That's both positive and negative attention, but it's still a lot of attention. What do these women do? They speak up about these issues. They get shamed for it, and that's bad. Since women are still technically a minority in game development, according to this, women like Anita tend to take up a large chunk of the female gaming spotlight. Anita is best known for critiquing games, not for making video games (which is not a criticism of Anita, just simple observation), and she doesn't critique games based on gameplay either (also not a criticism of Anita), an element many gamers hold near and dear to their hearts; she critiques the tropes used by games for idiotic reasons, such as the Damsel In Distress trope. Based on those observations, we can assume she will not be the Messiah of Video Gaming (and that's okay).

Now comes the part you all hate me for typing: Consider the following Catch 22 scenario.

• If we ditch Anita for female game devs who focus exclusively on making good video games (and we're talking Super Smash Bros/Spec Op: The Line/Portal 2 good. Not Gone Home/The Interview/Dear Esther "good"), are we implying that women are only accepted in gaming if they don't question Big Brother?
• If we stick to Anita and demand these issues are brought center stage, are we implying that women are only good at fighting for their rights and not at making video games?

If the answer to either of these is no, then my next question is "why does x not equal y, even though much of art critique is about finding these kinds of implications?" If the answer to both of them is no, I once again ask how we move forward past this.

 

[JayTheUnseen]

Getting rid of sexism against women is no easy task, and is not a battle that can be won swiftly. No, it'll disappear, if ever, only in small bits through the years, and everyone needs to make an effort. Even day to day interactions, not just social media, need to change ( from my limited knowledge of social interaction. )

What makes this problem so hard to combat is that it began so very long ago and has become embedded in society. Anyone remember Mario Bros? Damsel in distress stereotype right there
( and Nintendo still uses it today... ) Some of the old fairy tales have this problem too, but even they seemed to allow their female characters a decent role outside of being rescued by the man ( Rampunzel, for instance. )

But as we know, it dates back much farther than social media. In olden times, it was tradition for women to stay home and clean the house while the men go to work. A bit off-topic, but I'd like to bring up why people act as if that's a minor role, or even demeaning. Taking care of house chores is plenty hard work, too, but men in the old days didn't seem to respect that.

I'm not sure why it was so rejected until not so long ago that women do other kinds of work. Men afraid of having their designated role infringed upon? Or simply lack of respect for how much work a woman had to put into housecleaning, and how capable she can be in other areas? ( And it's not like she can't have gained some talent from work around the house. ) Lack of respect for the fact a woman may not enjoy such chores?

Regardless of its roots, it still exists today and should be gotten rid of, as really pretty much everyone seems to agree. What I wonder is how many of them realize they are just as much responsible for its lingering effects, and that they need to work just as hard to make a change in their lives as any other person.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Going to restate my question so it's not overlooked.

Spoiler

We see women like Anita who get a lot of attention. That's both positive and negative attention, but it's still a lot of attention. What do these women do? They speak up about these issues. They get shamed for it, and that's bad. Since women are still technically a minority in game development, according to this, women like Anita tend to take up a large chunk of the female gaming spotlight. Anita is best known for critiquing games, not for making video games (which is not a criticism of Anita, just simple observation), and she doesn't critique games based on gameplay either (also not a criticism of Anita), an element many gamers hold near and dear to their hearts; she critiques the tropes used by games for idiotic reasons, such as the Damsel In Distress trope. Based on those observations, we can assume she will not be the Messiah of Video Gaming (and that's okay).

Now comes the part you all hate me for typing: Consider the following Catch 22 scenario.

• If we ditch Anita for female game devs who focus exclusively on making good video games (and we're talking Super Smash Bros/Spec Op: The Line/Portal 2 good. Not Gone Home/The Interview/Dear Esther "good"), are we implying that women are only accepted in gaming if they don't question Big Brother?
• If we stick to Anita and demand these issues are brought center stage, are we implying that women are only good at fighting for their rights and not at making video games?

If the answer to either of these is no, then my next question is "why does x not equal y, even though much of art critique is about finding these kinds of implications?" If the answer to both of them is no, I once again ask how we move forward past this.

Getting rid of sexism against women is no easy task, and is not a battle that can be won swiftly. No, it'll disappear, if ever, only in small bits through the years, and everyone needs to make an effort.

Not everyone agrees with feminism yet, so we can just kiss the underlined part of this sentence goodbye for now.

Even day to day interactions, not just social media, need to change ( from my limited knowledge of social interaction.)

Underlined part is asking for nothing less then perfection out of people.

What makes this problem so hard to combat is that it began so very long ago and has become embedded in society. Anyone remember Mario Bros? Damsel in distress stereotype right there

Deeply imbedded sexism or just lazy choice of persuading the player to continue playing. It was made in the 80's, so I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Also, Nintendo is from Japan, and I highly doubt a company that used to own Love Hotels would hire a Political Correctness Department just to make a game about a plumber who eats mushrooms and steps on turtles.

( and Nintendo still uses it today... )

Mario could've been a diseased cow in the first game, and they'd still use that to this day. Nintendo making things different from what they used to be is like asking EA to not to be a shady corporation: Not happening in the realistic future.

(Actually, that would explain the use of the damsel in distress trope)

Some of the old fairy tales have this problem too, but even they seemed to allow their female characters a decent role outside of being rescued by the man ( Rampunzel, for instance. )

Old Fairy Tales were made in the Dark Ages. Nothing good came out of the Dark Ages.

But as we know, it dates back much farther than social media. In olden times, it was tradition for women to stay home and clean the house while the men go to work.

I blame the neanderthals for that.

A bit off-topic, but I'd like to bring up why people act as if that's a minor role, or even demeaning. Taking care of house chores is plenty hard work, too, but men in the old days didn't seem to respect that.

We can blame the Dark Ages for that too.

Regardless of its roots, it still exists today and should be gotten rid of, as really pretty much everyone seems to agree. What I wonder is how many of them realize they are just as much responsible for its lingering effects, and that they need to work just as hard to make a change in their lives as any other person.

Many people are just content with being #1 in their lifetime. Yes, most of these explanations have been extremely cynical, but part of finding a solution to these problems is assuming they originate from as mundane of a source as possible.

Also, If we're going to enforce a society where "not being sexist in any way" is mandatory, or else it's curtains for the violator, I at least want the people in charge (ie feminism) to disclose what exactly I'm supposed to do/not do in order to be safe from "not being sexist in any way."

 

[King K. Rool the great]

Wharves dd