• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by metalslug

  1. After your history in this forum? I can afford to be wrong here. You'd like the 'win' on this one? Take it; bill is dead right. I concede that the mainstream understanding of cancel culture includes boycott action. I'm disappointed that it does but I'm unable to deny it. 'The right' is trying to 'cancel' Disney. Or in the presence of social pressure. The decision still falls to individuals in those cases. This is where I find myself now, feeling that cancel culture is neither good or bad. It's a synonym for common and predictable market phenomena and therefore quite uninteresting.
  2. Fair enough. Seems there's a few differing opinions on what constitutes 'cancel culture'. I concede I may be on the wrong side of what constitutes the more popular definition then. It is said that Will Smith now fears being 'cancelled' as several pending movie deals are now suspended or cancelled. The individuals making those contract decisions did not put out a national poll on the matter before deciding that. They subjectively determined that he was just not good business right now and unilaterally decided, as is their right. It's entirely possible for a handful of people to scuttle someone's career, whether deserved or not.
  3. You're sure? I recall a separate thread on this subject mentioning (by bill or olof) that it was barely profitable to recycle them and that a only small percentage of existing batteries get recycled. Then there are solar panels and wind turbine parts, potentially many millions of them in a global future. A fair bit or extra landfill, excluding what ends up in the ocean. Not keen to rehash that same thread here though, may be better to go back to it if needed.
  4. Hah ! I like that. Well played. However; Is the timeline fairly comparable? so far as nobody at that time was declaring "Net Zero horses by 1830 !" Automobiles and fuels evolved over time at the rate determined by market and took several decades before automobiles surpassed horse & cart. The latter exists even today in a small number of rural communities as they were never outlawed. I have said at least once in this forum that I would be pleased to see green solutions if they were sufficiently economical and reliable. I don't imagine any one of us looks at smoggy skies or oil-soaked marine life or polymer pollution and thinks "Aah, great ! " . On some level I have to believe we all wish for something that is genuinely cleaner. My own concern is rather that proposed legislation is attempting to push the process faster than it can actually run and that there are negative impacts that have not been transparently accounted for. Also; a hope that we won't see fossil-related pollution replaced by vast swathes of discarded batteries and 'green' hardware.
  5. In so far as most (if not all) 'cancelled' public figures were cancelled by a single individual or a small body of decision makers based on a small sampling of subjective judgement. If boycotts count as 'cancelling' then one might that say drivers who dislike Ford vehicles are 'cancelling' the Ford motor company. I don't regard the word as an appropriate fit there. I also refer back to my Joe Rogan example; I would not accuse lefties of 'cancelling' Joe Rogan if they refused to listen to his work, but would if they fired or banned him.
  6. ?? OK... to help you then; I'm using the OP as the goalposts; 'The right' has not made any effort to dismiss Disney from their employ. Potential arguments so far seem to be that boycotts equate to 'cancelling' (which I'm not really convinced by, listeners boycotting Joe Rogan does not equate to cancelling Joe Rogan.) and/or that the state governor might revoke 'special privileges' from Disney. The latter could be a good argument for the OP if we had a clear measure of what these 'special privileges' actually are. Comparable to child tax credit or something else?
  7. ?? Rosanne was cancelled by her employer. Are you implying that Disney is in the employ of 'the right'?
  8. Yes, I'm against cancel culture, even against the left, although boycotts are not mutually inclusive with cancel culture as their success is largely determined by whoever chooses to participate. How does state government 'organize' mass boycotts? By paying for rent-a-crowd? Your Biden analogy would be a comparatively 'shitty' move but can Disney's special privileges fairly be compared to 'child tax credit'? I'm having a little difficulty trying to source what Disney's 'special privileges' are. I'd welcome anyone's input on that. I'd like to be fair on this so long as we're comparing apples with apples.
  9. If media reports are to be believed; Disney has opposed the state’s 'Parental Rights In Education Act' and DeSantis has said he’s “receptive” to the state legislature revoking special privileges the company’s received. Sounds like standard 'tit for tat' at the moment. I'm not yet sure how the right can 'cancel' (ban?) Disney products, no more than a private corporation can veto a bill that may be democratically passed. FWIW I have no problem with permanently archiving the older Disney works. In my youth a few of them seemed outright creepy to me anyway, I wasn't very receptive to fantasy themes and talking animals, I've had to acquire a liking. With regard to Disney's future it may surprise some here that I actually support their right to create whatever content they want as a private corporation. The market will decide their success in that regard.
  10. "--it's just science." Godwin's science credentials are even fewer than mine. Maybe I should use that tagline at the end of my posts.
  11. I'm left disappointed that there's no meaningful mention of nuclear energy in there.
  12. Not long after the 'gazpacho police' were a thing... Russian MFA declares: Borscht was the cause of war
  13. You declined to ask me for a definition of a giraffe after I offered one, presumably because I had already indicated what sort I would provide. I had not meant to imply that you declined to provide your definition of a giraffe. Better? I do agree though that this debate is going nowhere.
  14. An outright lie. I declined to answer even after the context was provided because that scenario with context was irrelevant to the OP or the KBJ question. "Filling in whatever fabrication" was a suggestion that you should answer your own question. And then... I even offered to provide a definition without context, which you declined. More wiggle and squirm on your end....
  15. You keep saying that and you know it's untrue. I did answer the question without context (#113) to which you even quoted me on it and replied with 'Yep'. Doesn't get much clearer than that. KBJ was asked the same question and declined to give any answer at all except to defer it to biological expertise and an inference that future cases (not present fact) might dispute the definition. You can keep saying that's exactly the same but that's on you. If KBJ or anyone here had said, for example; "A woman is anyone who identifies as such." or "The present contemporary definition would be adult human female although the individual merits of the cases or laws concerned would be considered". Both reasonable answers by lefty standards and likely true to their convictions, therefore should have had the courage to say as much. We can keep banging on about this (as we know your side has to 'win') but it's not going anywhere.
  16. I don't consider the handful that replied on this thread to be a reasonably large group. If you attended any kind of right-wing sub-forum, there's a fair chance you'd feel like the only one there who 'gets it'.
  17. US law, potentially including women's rights law. "Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy". Assessments of vocabulary are therefore relevant. Were you planning to 'do a bill' and move the goalposts?
  18. That's a curious graphic. Are you aware of a reason why only 'white' people were considered for that poll? ...or was it your preference to not seek one with more representation? If I were a US voter, I wouldn't vote for Trump either. DeSantis maybe. Much has happened since 2020...
  19. I rather suspect I'm the only one getting it. An interview for a judicial position is in the context of law and if you believe that jurisprudence is not tightly integrated with basic language and grammar then good luck to you. There's little point in debating further if you have no interest in the OP of the thread. The 'wiggle and squirm' has been all yours.
  20. I don't care to answer it in an irrelevant and fabricated context. Again you've absolutely missed it. Both the OP and question put to KBJ was devoid of context. Your 'Baker House at MIT' did have context. Not the same thing. When kallend's students are asking him about atoms so you think he would first get them remove the context of a racing car before agreeing to answer? It's utterly asinine to bang on about "but.. but... context !" in the obvious settings in which the question is asked.
  21. I avoid inventing new language unnecessarily. To recite a 'textbook definition' of something that I agree with does not imply physically referencing a book in the moment. A career academic such as yourself should know that.
  22. In the absence of explicitly specified conditions, new information and perspective then the definition defaults to the originalist meaning. Not? If the word has ambiguity then one is not 'wrong' to defer to that. To now obfuscate the question with additional but incomplete context therefore has no relevance to the OP or the question put to KBJ. To my earlier post in that regard, even bill replied with 'Yep' in his subsequent post. 'Being right (correct)' , in this forum, appears to be subjective opinion too.
  23. How is that relevant? It's your scenario so fill in whatever fabrication is missing from it. OTOH if you'd like to ask me for the definition of a giraffe then go ahead and ask. I'll be answering with some version of an English dictionary definition.
  24. In the same way that you might struggle to find US legislation that defines a grape, a giraffe or a pencil, and yet legal scholars can reasonably be expected to know what these are. You're making my argument for me.