TTLG|Jukebox|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 38131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 507

Thread: Not The News

  1. #426
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Point Nemo
    Arizona is kind of confusing at times. You can access private ranch lands for hunting and fishing with a pass and landowner permissions. There's a lot of reservation lands you can pass through and camp on with proper permits just leave the guns at home. Then there's lots of state and BLM land that's accessible.

    Washington state, where I'm from, has lots of national forest land that you can do just about anything on within reason. There are a lot of acres of private forest lands in Western WA that can be accessed with permission.

    But yeah, what Tocky said, a lot of the places we used to wander around freely and ride our bikes through are closed off or developed. Of course you could wander a lot more freely locally when you're a kid because nobody really pays much attention to kids unless your a Karen.

  2. #427
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: The other Derry
    Most undeveloped land up here used to be owned by timber companies, and most were accomodating to recreational users. There were lots of old hunting and fishing camps on leased timber company land, and their logging roads and trail networks were usable by ATVs in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter. Around 2000-ish, the timber companies started closing their mills and selling off their land. Fortunately, a lot of that land has been purchased by the states and private trusts and conservancies for public use.

    If developers had their way, it would all be auctioned off. But I think all the states up here have something in their constitution to prevent that. Notably, New York has a "forever wild" clause. Besides, expanding public access to land for outdoor recreation is very popular around here even among conservatives.

  3. #428
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Point Nemo
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Most undeveloped land up here used to be owned by timber companies, and most were accomodating to recreational users. There were lots of old hunting and fishing camps on leased timber company land, and their logging roads and trail networks were usable by ATVs in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter. Around 2000-ish, the timber companies started closing their mills and selling off their land. Fortunately, a lot of that land has been purchased by the states and private trusts and conservancies for public use.

    If developers had their way, it would all be auctioned off. But I think all the states up here have something in their constitution to prevent that. Notably, New York has a "forever wild" clause. Besides, expanding public access to land for outdoor recreation is very popular around here even among conservatives.
    For some reason this reminds me of an Edward Abbey quote from Desert Solitaire:


    “We need wilderness whether or not we ever set foot in it.” “We need a refuge even though we may never need to set foot in it.” “We need the possibility of escape as surely as we need hope; without it the life of the cities would drive all men into crime or drugs or psychoanalysis.”

  4. #429
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: thiefgold.com
    5 year old kid gets falsely accused of blackface by Twitter moral crusaders



    A few media outlets that cover the NFL, such as Deadspin, falsely accused a young Kansas City Chiefs fan of wearing blackface -- a vile act -- while at Allegiant Stadium on Sunday to watch his team defeat the Las Vegas Raiders.

    The CBS broadcast momentarily displayed the young fan wearing Native American headdress, but caught him from an angle that only showed the right side of his face, which was painted black.
    Instead of investigating further, some sports media outlets ran with the story going viral on X (Twitter), and have yet to retract despite new information arising.

    The left side of the child's face was painted red, clearly repping Chiefs colors, a common practice amongst fans of any NFL team.
    Chiefs fan also slammed over headdress
    Since there is evidently no act of blackface occurring, outraged fans instead focused on the child's Native American headdress.

    While the Chiefs logo does not feature the Native American headgear, it's clearly part of the team's identity.

    This situation of non-Native American people finding NFL team names offensive has already been seen in Washington and did not do much in terms of improving the country.

  5. #430
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: The other Derry
    Forget the black face nonsense. It's still in bad taste. It's not the kid's fault of course, it's the parents who put him up to it to get on TV. The Chiefs banned headdresses and war paint in their stadium years ago because a lot of native Americans considered it offensive. But this game was in Las Vegas.

  6. #431
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The continued desire of white people in the US to cosplay as Native American tribal leaders is so weird.

  7. #432
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Why is that weird? Their accoutrements are genuinely awesome.

  8. #433
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Point Nemo
    I had to get up and pee in the middle of the night and I made the error of opening up this thread from an email because I'm subscribed to the thread. Because we have this thing called the 1st Amendment in the US so there may be opinions but there is no argument available for whether or not the kid should or should not have dressed up the way he did other than loose hypocritical arguments from left-wing terrorists. Man I feel surly when I don't have any caffeine in me.

  9. #434
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    That's just as much a misuse of "what about my first amendment" as people who get upset because a private entity told them to GTFO and they can't post shit on their platform.

    The first amendment only restricts Congress's right to pass laws about what people can and can't say, it doesn't restrict CITIZENS from yelling over other people.

    Say for example if a newspaper publishes something, then people loudly complain, so the newspaper removes that and never prints that again. You can call that censorship, but it's literally the thing the first amendment protects. That's the free press - free to print stuff, free to not print stuff, as the whim takes it.

    Cancel culture is still free speech, thus first-amendment protected speech. And as those people are not the government the constitutional section doesn't even apply to them.

    You really can't claim to be some sort of first-amendment absolutist, then fail completely to comprehend when it's applicable, and call out people who make use of their own first-amendment rights as "terrorists" and "hypocritical".

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Say the idea of states mandating the 10 Commandments be displayed in schools came up, and some liberal complained about this being a breach of the First Amendment clause on religious establishments. Or say the issue was state-level book banning in schools, and liberals also complained about the First Amendment.

    Not a huge leap, but I'm guessing you'd be near the front of the line calling them out as ignorant fools, for not knowing that the First Amendment only applies on the Federal level, and as this is a state thing, the First Amendment doesn't even apply.

    you can't have it both ways, that state government book censorship and state government mandated religion isn't a first amendment breach, but someone on twitter hurting the 'widdle feewings' of some right-winger is.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 29th Nov 2023 at 08:14.

  10. #435
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Point Nemo
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post

    You really can't claim to be some sort of first-amendment absolutist, then fail completely to comprehend when it's applicable, and call out people who make use of their own first-amendment rights as "terrorists" and "hypocritical".
    Yes I can because the 1st Amendment said I could and stuff. Also, I don't think I made that claim about being an absolutist. I think what I was really trying to say was that calling a kid a racist for putting on a costume and makeup is dumb and batshit crazy. It's just as batshit crazy as forcing religion on students in public schools. Those are two different arguments but both are nuts.

  11. #436
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: The other Derry
    Quote Originally Posted by mxleader View Post
    I had to get up and pee in the middle of the night and I made the error of opening up this thread from an email because I'm subscribed to the thread. Because we have this thing called the 1st Amendment in the US so there may be opinions but there is no argument available for whether or not the kid should or should not have dressed up the way he did other than loose hypocritical arguments from left-wing terrorists. Man I feel surly when I don't have any caffeine in me.
    No law was broken here and nobody's speech was curtailed. It was a troll and it got the expected response. The thing that bothered me about it was the parents knew they were going to cause a controversy (any KC Chiefs fan would), and used their kid for it. Why would you do that to a kid who is too young to understand? Now he's got to grow up with this baggage.

  12. #437
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Point Nemo
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    No law was broken here and nobody's speech was curtailed. It was a troll and it got the expected response. The thing that bothered me about it was the parents knew they were going to cause a controversy (any KC Chiefs fan would), and used their kid for it. Why would you do that to a kid who is too young to understand? Now he's got to grow up with this baggage.
    I would guess that the kid won't catch much flak for it in his own school and in ten years time nobody will remember it. Maybe I should put it on my calendar to bring it up in a decade just to see who remembers it.

  13. #438
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Why is that weird? Their accoutrements are genuinely awesome.
    It's kind of hard to think of a proper analogy, because there isn't really anything of similar cultural importance in US culture signifying accomplishment and earned respect, but, as an example, you don't generally see civilians in the US slap on a Medal of Honor and pretend to be a veteran.

    Or maybe it's kind of like a Native American putting on a black shirt with a white collar, waving a bible around and pretending to be crucified.

  14. #439
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: thiefgold.com
    It just gets better and better. The kid actually is native American


    The boy’s outraged mother, Shannon Armenta, shared numerous images of her son getting a warm reception at the game — while suggesting Deadspin focused on a photo that hid the fact that half her son’s face was painted red.

    “This has nothing to do with the NFL,” she wrote, suggesting the photo was picked purely “to create division”

    “He is Native American — just stop already,” she wrote of her son.
    In fact, Holden’s grandfather, Raul Armenta, sits on the board of the Chumash Tribe in Santa Ynez, California, according to the Post Millennial.
    This is the age we live in folks.

  15. #440
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    So a writer for a popular sports blog saw a picture where it looked like someone was in blackface and wrote an opinion piece about racial issues in the NFL based on it, then right wing websites gleefully pounced on him when it turned out it wasn't blackface. Culture wars in the US never change, I guess.

    Meanwhile, at r/NativeAmerican...

    Ah yes the Chumash- known for their war bonnets..
    Warbonnets aren’t art. They’re essentially medals earned and displayed.

    I’m Lakota. We use them heavily. Our elders are getting antsy about younger generations using the bonnets of their grandfathers because they personally have no feathers, and it’s starting to be looked down on. You need to EARN those feathers to wear them. When you have enough feathers for a whole-ass warbonnet, then and ONLY then do you get to wear one.
    Yeah. Wearing a war bonnet when one didn't earn it as a member of that tribe is basically Stolen Valor. I know how white people get up in arms when they spot someone wearing fake service ribbons and a uniform when they weren't actually active duty.

    I wish people would understand how this worked and respected it.
    Last edited by Starker; 29th Nov 2023 at 23:32.

  16. #441
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    It's kind of hard to think of a proper analogy, because there isn't really anything of similar cultural importance in US culture signifying accomplishment and earned respect, but, as an example, you don't generally see civilians in the US slap on a Medal of Honor and pretend to be a veteran.

    Or maybe it's kind of like a Native American putting on a black shirt with a white collar, waving a bible around and pretending to be crucified.
    Nobody's going to blink an eye at a kid wearing either of those costumes. "Stolen valor" is when people try to actually pass themselves off as having a background they don't have, and get rewarded for it, socially or otherwise.

    https://www.amazon.com/GIFTINBOX-Mil...dp/B0C65BB5D6/

  17. #442
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Well, then there really isn't anything as culturally important in US culture, at least that I can think of, if people won't even mind parents encouraging their kids put on military decorations.

  18. #443
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: The other Derry
    The native nations of the Americas were wiped out by European powers and their colonial children in a textbook genocide. That might explain why people of native descent are generally more sensitive about misuse or crass use of their war symbols, as well as dilution of whatever remains of their culture.

  19. #444
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Mossad Time Machine
    As a person of Irish and Jewish descent, two other peoples the European powers did a bloody good job of trying to wipe out, I am perfectly happy for any one of you to culturally appropriate the shit out of shamrocks, shillelaghs, yarmulkes, dreidels, blintz, borscht and boxty. Culture belongs to everyone.


    (not gonna lie though, I raised an eyebrow when I came across a cafe selling bacon and cream cheese bagels, breaking not one, but two kosher laws at once)

  20. #445
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: Edmonton
    I agree that culture should belong to everyone or at least should be shared, but if a marginalized group would prefer that I don't prance around in their ceremonial garb, I'm happy to oblige.

  21. #446
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Point Nemo
    The whole modern day 'cancel' culture reminds me of those old American West stage shows where the room is filled with unruly customers who throw rotten food and random bullets at the stage performers when they don't like what they see.

  22. #447
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I mean, who cancelled this kid, really? A black man saw what he thought was possibly a young man or a teen in blackface and wrote a "what the hell... really?" post on the sports blog. Maybe he was too sensitive or overreacted, sure, but from the angle the particular picture was taken it's really not clear how old this kid was in the picture and it looked like the whole face was black. Should he have done more research before he reacted? Sure. That was clearly a mistake.

    However, nearly all of the subsequent pieces are from right wing publications and tabloids with a gleeful mix of "Ha! Not racist this time! You done goofed!" and trying to mete out righteous justice for what looks like a misunderstanding on the part of the author. Pretty much all of the outrage is aimed at cancelling this sports writer, with senators and billionaires chiming in. Just compare the two sides for a second: one single writer for a sports blog on one hand, an entire media landscape and some of the most powerful people in the US on the other hand.

  23. #448
    The only way to stop libs from stirring up outrage mobs, is to stir up outrage mobs against libs. If they want to play hardball, they can't cry when someone hits back.

  24. #449
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Except these right-wing outrage mobs are more often than not formed over the most trivial and petty things, like publishers deciding to stop selling old books with clearly racist illustrations or M&Ms not being fuckable enough.

  25. #450
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Point Nemo
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Except these right-wing outrage mobs are more often than not formed over the most trivial and petty things, like publishers deciding to stop selling old books with clearly racist illustrations or M&Ms not being fuckable enough.
    M&M's aren't fuckable? Dafuq you say, mang?

Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 38131415161718192021 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •