The Stupidest Things on the Internet

2»

Comments

  • We are nearly to the point where embryo selection will be feasible. I can foresee parents being socially blamed for having children with known genetic problems, but holding them legally responsible is a higher hurdle.

  • There was a star trek episode about this. A psychopath had his brain fixed so he could empathize and he was crushed by guilt/regret.

    Voyager "repentance"

    It was Voyager so probably not good.

  • edited August 13

    @Clme said:
    If a problem with brain chemistry turns out to be genetic, do we hold the parents responsible instead?

    Only if their Republican....

    <_<

    >_>

  • edited August 13

    @fenomas said:
    I think he's aiming at the idea that our standard for what is and isn't an exercise of free will seems to depend not only on the choice being made but also on how we understand the brain, implying that advancements in the latter will someday change the former.

    Where I think we differ, is that you feel that the definition (with respect to accountability) will change with our understanding of the brain and it's operation... I am not so sure that is likely... I (personally) believe in free will, and understanding the mechanics won't necessarily make free will any less free.

    That's not to say that I'd be unwilling to consider a redefinition in light of new science... I just think it's really unlikely.

  • edited August 14

    If we do reach the point that we understand what is and isn't free will, I don't think the standard for punishment/incarceration will change right away.

    I believe things will stay status quo until there are methods in place to 'fix' or rehabilitate the brains of those so afflicted. However, that will start an ethics fight that will take at least two decades to work out. Especially if there is a lack of trust of those in charge of deciding what is a normal brain.

    Wow. I'm suddenly to the part of the theoretical 1960's sci-fi book where a person stands up and says that they want to keep their flawed brain, because they don't feel like they'd be 'themselves' without the flaws.

  • @Rufus said:

    Where I think we differ, is that you feel that the definition (with respect to accountability) will change with our understanding of the brain and it's operation... I am not so sure that is likely... I (personally) believe in free will, and understanding the mechanics won't necessarily make free will any less free.

    Before we knew what tumors were we'd have judged the first guy guilty of falling asleep at the wheel, right?

    Or for a better example, suppose two different people call you an offensive name - and you know that one has Tourette's, while the other doesn't. Doesn't that knowledge affect how you judge their free, and if you later found out that the second person suffered from some newly-discovered brain abnormality, mightn't that again change your thinking?

  • @fenomas said:
    Or for a better example, suppose two different people call you an offensive name - and you know that one has Tourette's, while the other doesn't. Doesn't that knowledge affect how you judge their free, and if you later found out that the second person suffered from some newly-discovered brain abnormality, mightn't that again change your thinking?

    I'm open to the idea that there is an unknown disorder out there that renders a person unable to control some behavior, but... undiscovered or not, I think experts are able to distinguish between someone who has made a conscious decision to take an action and someone who does not have the capacity to control a behavior; whether we understand the cause or not.

    To accept your premise, it must be possible to someone to be unable to control their behavior, in a way that cannot be detected or understood by current science and psychoanalysis techniques. As I said, I can't say that isn't possible... I just think it's very unlikely... At least, not without attacking the very foundation of free will.

  • For awhile on various social medias I was trying to make the most extreme parodies I could of various right wing figures. Dana with the NRA is one of them.

    I can no longer parody them without pulling in alien mind control or some shit. :-( I... I'm broken. I'm actually at a loss for words. I have to give up on the parody.

  • @Clme said:
    For awhile on various social medias I was trying to make the most extreme parodies I could of various right wing figures. Dana with the NRA is one of them.

    I can no longer parody them without pulling in alien mind control or some shit. :-( I... I'm broken. I'm actually at a loss for words. I have to give up on the parody.

    American society keeps finding new lows...

  • in a world so full of stupid, how about this piece of stupid, to cleanse your pallet: https://www.delish.com/food-news/a23135716/mac-n-cheese-candy-canes/

  • But... why?

    I mean, I would still have to try one, but what in the everloving hell?

  • I don't think I could bring myself to try one...

  • edited September 20

    Is it like everything-flavored jellybeans?

    "Oh look, this one tastes like earwax/boogers/wood/scotch-breath-kissing-me-goodnight"

  • edited October 10

    Sometimes I think the phishing scammers aren't really trying...

    I never knew the Canada Revenue Agency operates out of Redmond, Washington.

  • He wasn't the first to suggest it. But he is probably the most 'respected' of those that have.

  • People are capable of believing the stupidest things; because the alternative is to question their own internal narrative.

    Trump and his rhetoric is stirring up radical nut-jobs, into committing acts of violence against the other side? Well, that can't be good for our side... It must be a liberal conspiracy! That's the only explanation that prevents me from having to reflect on my own beliefs and rhetoric.

  • edited November 10

    The NRA wins the prize this week for stupid things on the Internet.

    A repeat winner, for the NRA...

  • Apparently 15 different incumbent representatives with "A" ratings from the NRA lost their seats the other day, all 15 being replaced by candidates with "F" ratings.

  • The NRA has totally lost track of their mandate... They should be leading the charge for responsible, safe, gun ownership, including policies that keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them...

    They have, instead, become partisan hacks.

  • I believe they lost their mandate 40 years ago.

    They were originally a marksmanship group that promoted education, mentoring, and responsible gun ownership for children and adults.

    The NRA suffered a fatal fracture in the late 1960s when their board decided to support nascent gun control legislation enacted after a spate of assassinations, mass shootings, and higher powered weapons becoming available in civilian hands. Members that were already upset at lack of action against things like the growth of "No Hunting" or "No Trespassing" signs were getting swayed by the conspiracy theorists that eventually took over the organization.

    In the 1970s there was a coup within the ranks. The Revolt at Cincinatti ...which would be an interesting story if it didn't cause 40 years worth of crazy to take over what was once a respectable sportsman organization.

    More info: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html?utm_term=.e8a6fc4d8d62&fbclid=IwAR1VFag9OYCQl6MlgRw0WYxuIIrBr4Olk3Zt5LF7R5Zb4s3A_LQinfGAKVg

    Perhaps the adults in the room can eventually take over again. If there are any left. More likely a new organization will have to rise up to counter the NRA... assuming it isn't crushed in its nascent period.

  • edited November 14

    The way I heard it, it was all down to Wayne LaPierre and his take-over, but I suspect there are more shades of grey to the story.

  • edited November 16

    LaPierre joined the NRA in 1977... the same year as the 'Revolt in Cincinnati.' He has somehow always been involved with lobbying politicians that were pro-gun, even working for pro-gun Democrats in the past. (Gun control was not really a major platform for many members of the Democratic party until the 1990s, and the gun control acts in 1967/1968 spurred years of political action). So while its not likely LaPierre was responsible for the initial schism, he definitely joined up when there was a chance to move policy in a direction he apparently liked.

    I don't believe he was in a position to dictate NRA policy until sometime in the early 90s, although he was a big part of their lobbying arm and for a period of time was the head of that lobbying arm. During that time he no doubt built up many contacts and learned who to influence in the rest of the organization.

    During the decade after the Revolt in Cincinnati the public face of the NRA changed slowly. Their lobbyists and bought politicians were slowly trying to reduce gun restrictions, and loudly trying to limit the power of the ATF. They also cemented their racist views around the same period. They defended white people that were arrested for breaking the handgun ban in New York, but vilified black people that were guilty of the same offense.

    The thing is... LaPierre is nowhere near the most radical person in power at the NRA. In modern times he really is a centrist in that organization. LaPierre gets challenged regularly, and at least once (in the late 1990s) was in serious danger of losing his position to another member that wanted people to prep for a violent revolution against Clinton's government. [...of course, I realize, after the Obama years the idea of the NRA calling for violent revolution seems quaint].

    The catchphrases were fun though, weren't they? Cold Dead Hands was the most famous, but many others have never left the lexicon thanks to repeated use by the NRA.

    Jack Booted Thugs with Bucket Helmets? Originally another phrase for the ATF (coined by a Democratic politician, adopted by the NRA in the 90s). Soon it would expand to any member of law enforcement that doesn't swear to hold a radicalized view of the 2nd amendment higher than a duty to Protect and Serve.

    Gun Grabbing Goon Squad? Any authority figure during the time of Clinton (and later Obama). Also, although this may not be entirely fair to the NRA, I occasionally still see this come out when pro-NRA trolls on news articles get mad when a black kid gets tasered rather than shot.

    Er... huh. I started out making the case against LaPierre being the problem, but I'm not sure if I ever got there. Damnit. I should have written an outline.

  • The radical views of so many of these people make me wonder what planet they came from. Common sense is out the window and the prejudices are off the scale.

Sign In or Register to comment.