The Outrage Thread

[Chocolate Lab]

How this woman still has a job on TV is mindblowing.

Acting like the economics and "the benefits we've gotten from Biden" are so great.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

'Bout time someone makes a sensible decision for once...

VA reverses plan to ban iconic WWII kiss photo from medical sites

Employees had been instructed to remove the photo because of its portrayal of a nonconsensual sexual act.

www.militarytimes.com

BTW, isn't that Booze in that picture?

 

[bbgun]

BTW, isn't that Booze in that picture?

Yes. He always had a thing for sailors.

 

[Cotton]

Good morning,

I received the attached email earlier this week, and I noticed that the games for men are denoted by the color blue, and the women's games are indicated using pink. I reached out before about this and noted that it isn't a huge issue, but it does seem a bit incongruous that the parking department of a world-class research institution would purposely rely on gender stereotypes to indicate something so innocuous as a basketball game rather than, say, team colors or something more representative.

When I reached out before, I did not receive a response. That was not a problem because I indicated that it wasn't a big deal; however, due to the continued use, I would like an explanation for this decision.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

_

This was an actual email received by Texas Tech today. Fucking academics.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

"I said it wasn't a big deal, but because I didn't get my way, now it is."

 

[Irving Cowboy]

"I said it wasn't a big deal, but because I didn't get my way, now it is."

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Cotton]

That's it in a nutshell.

I laughed all day about this shit. I wish I made this up but it's real. Insanity.

 

[Cotton]

Good morning,

I received the attached email earlier this week, and I noticed that the games for men are denoted by the color blue, and the women's games are indicated using pink. I reached out before about this and noted that it isn't a huge issue, but it does seem a bit incongruous that the parking department of a world-class research institution would purposely rely on gender stereotypes to indicate something so innocuous as a basketball game rather than, say, team colors or something more representative.

When I reached out before, I did not receive a response. That was not a problem because I indicated that it wasn't a big deal; however, due to the continued use, I would like an explanation for this decision.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

_

This was an actual email received by Texas Tech today. Fucking academics.

I want to let this go, but I can't. They changed the reading of the email to take out pink and blue. I'm tired of these cowards bending the knee. Fucking sick of it.

 

[Smitty]

The Indians were fucking robbed and anyone who thinks that didn’t happen or that it was ok because it happened elsewhere in the world is well, to be nice, delusional to say the least.

Nonsense.

The Indians had no ownership of the land. It's like me saying that because I live on planet earth, I own Greenland.

They occupied certain parts of it but didn't even ascribe to the concept of ownership and wouldn't have agreed that they owned it, so the entire debate is moot. If they can't argue they own it, how can they argue under what grounds transfer of such ownership is wrongful?

The reality is that the Indian population was wiped out almost entirely (90%+ died) accidentally by disease. That is to say, Columbus wasn't trying to genocide the Indians by introducing European illnesses, they didn't understand the concept at the time. While yes, certain evil actors did at points in later history hand out smallpox-infected blankets to Indians, this isn't what I'm talking about. By the time the 13 Colonies were even a thing, the Native population of the Americas was basically gone compared to what it had been.

What was left was a miniscule number of people roaming over vast and unoccupied empty lands as they had for millennia but with no legal or moral standing to claim the right of exclusion of others.

Literally the only system they understood for 10 thousand years was warfare and conquering, so if we want to play by their rules, the Americans win.

If we want to play by legal rules, the Americans took the land by adverse possession, so the Americans win again.

And if we want to throw some sort of quasi-moralistic mumbo jumbo that is completely fabricated out of whole cloth, we can do that too: It would have been wrong for somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 individuals (the ENTIRE surviving post-disease population of the US and Canadian Native Americans, as there was never more than 3 million natives on the North American landmass above Mexico, and that surviving number being equal to the population of a medium sized suburban town, these days) to block the expansion into unarguably EMPTY LANDS between the Appalachian Mountains and the Pacific coast. The lands were EMPTY. They belonged to no one.

That being said, we can point to INDIVIDUAL instances of malfeasance (broken treaties, lies, handing out smallbox blankets, etc). But the greater concept that white settlers stole the lands from Native Americans writ large is untenable.

 

[bbgun]

 

[Cotton]

Nonsense.

The Indians had no ownership of the land. It's like me saying that because I live on planet earth, I own Greenland.

They occupied certain parts of it but didn't even ascribe to the concept of ownership and wouldn't have agreed that they owned it, so the entire debate is moot. If they can't argue they own it, how can they argue under what grounds transfer of such ownership is wrongful?

The reality is that the Indian population was wiped out almost entirely (90%+ died) accidentally by disease. That is to say, Columbus wasn't trying to genocide the Indians by introducing European illnesses, they didn't understand the concept at the time. While yes, certain evil actors did at points in later history hand out smallpox-infected blankets to Indians, this isn't what I'm talking about. By the time the 13 Colonies were even a thing, the Native population of the Americas was basically gone compared to what it had been.

What was left was a miniscule number of people roaming over vast and unoccupied empty lands as they had for millennia but with no legal or moral standing to claim the right of exclusion of others.

Literally the only system they understood for 10 thousand years was warfare and conquering, so if we want to play by their rules, the Americans win.

If we want to play by legal rules, the Americans took the land by adverse possession, so the Americans win again.

And if we want to throw some sort of quasi-moralistic mumbo jumbo that is completely fabricated out of whole cloth, we can do that too: It would have been wrong for somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 individuals (the ENTIRE surviving post-disease population of the US and Canadian Native Americans, as there was never more than 3 million natives on the North American landmass above Mexico, and that surviving number being equal to the population of a medium sized suburban town, these days) to block the expansion into unarguably EMPTY LANDS between the Appalachian Mountains and the Pacific coast. The lands were EMPTY. They belonged to no one.

That being said, we can point to INDIVIDUAL instances of malfeasance (broken treaties, lies, handing out smallbox blankets, etc). But the greater concept that white settlers stole the lands from Native Americans writ large is untenable.

Well said, brother.

 

[Cotton]

It's just going to get worse.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

Nonsense.

The Indians had no ownership of the land. It's like me saying that because I live on planet earth, I own Greenland.

You lost me right there. That makes absolutely zero sense.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

You lost me right there. That makes absolutely zero sense.

What is your definition of ownership? It's difficult to put in todays context because today every piece of land is owned through purchase or government taking it. There isn't land just sitting out there that you can claim as your own with no other means than saying, it's my land now. I think it's impossible for people to today to contextualize what it was like living in a world like that.

 

[Smitty]

You lost me right there. That makes absolutely zero sense.

Well, when you have no argument, tapping out without addressing anything I said is certainly one tact.

Not effective, though, because you are still totally and unarguably wrong.

 

[Smitty]

What is your definition of ownership? It's difficult to put in todays context because today every piece of land is owned through purchase or government taking it. There isn't land just sitting out there that you can claim as your own with no other means than saying, it's my land now. I think it's impossible for people to today to contextualize what it was like living in a world like that.

You just can’t say that 300,000 people have some sort of moral right of first refusal to the entire North American continent, most of which they could not be said to be “owning” or even “occupying” under any definition of the word at the time.

You have any idea how much empty, unused, unoccupied space there is in this country (and Canada!!!) with only 300k people on it? It’s functionally empty. Utterly and completely empty.

We are talking like 3-6 football fields full of people were on the continent north of Mexico when the colonies were established.

 

[bbgun]

 

[Cotton]

Good for the other students at least.

 

[boozeman]

I have to admit, the guy has mastered the art of being a douchey fraud.

 

[Cotton]

Jesus fucking Christ, this was on the Oscars last night. I just don't understand this world anymore.