Stanard

My first thought was "wait until they hear about Shakespeare". Literally every role filled by men, sometimes with the script explicitly calling for a man to play a female in full attire.

I'd also hate to see what policies they'll enact for their chorale program when performing historical hymns, where soprano parts specifically called for a male eunuch (castrato) to sing since females were not allowed to attend church services including choirs.

In my younger years I would have been absolutely vilified by these people. I'm probably vilified now, but I would've been then too. In all seriousness though, I cannot believe how far backwards we've gone in all this. I recognize that these thoughts and feelings have existed since before I was a kid but at least back then people seemed to have the decency to mind their own.

But to attack theatre of all things with this gender bullshit is attacking theatre itself. Crossdressing in theatre has existed for as long as theatre has existed. Cross-singing has existed for as long as singing has existed. If they're not teaching that stuff in their performing arts programs, they are denying young adults a quality education of the performing arts.

Edit: tl;dr ITT I try and fail to convey that terrorists using innocent people as meat shields/hostages is wrong and a government bombing those terrorists along with their hostages is also wrong. I dunno how that's too confusing for anyone to understand but I guess some folk truly are lost causes.

Original comment below:

Are you implying that Israel has not done any bombing whatsoever? Or are you implying that terrorists hiding behind innocent people means everyone involved must die by bombing? Or are you just a troll trying to get a reaction from people by posting an obviously ignorant comment?

Let me ask you this, if some bank robbers took your family and friends hostage, what do you think the response should be? By your own logic I must assume that they all need to die because criminals were using them as meat shields. By your logic, if your home is being robbed and the robber uses you as a shield, the response should be to mow you down along with the robber. How unlucky for you that the robber chose your house eh? How ignorant.

And if you're struggling to put yourself in those shoes, good. Be glad that you're so far removed from such dangers. But you are not immune. Criminals and potential terrorists exist everywhere, and I truly hope that if you ever find yourself in a hostage situation that the response isn't what you idolize for innocent people in a foreign land. Because even unemphatic scum don't deserve to die simply for being a hostage.

I'd like to assume that you simply forgot a "/s", and I apologize if the sarcastic intent of your comment was lost, but there are people that truly believe what you've said.

As long as our military budget is measured in trillions of dollars I think we can afford to feed even this scumbag on the . 0000001% off-chance that he's not guilty. It kind of sucks, don't get me wrong, but IMHO the death penalty isn't the answer. Not only do I feel like even one wrongful execution is far too many, I also feel like in some ways a quick and painless death is sort of going easy. I say make him live out the rest of his natural born life as a prisoner that will have this on his conscious, provided he has one, for the rest of his days.

A quote from the judge according to the article:

"I just can't believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun in that small of a space with children present"

What I find particularly concerning about this is that this implies that being evicted would justify picking up a handgun provided you're not in an enclosed space with children present. Why in the actual fuck would there be any further qualification after "I just can't believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun". Full stop. You're being evicted. You fucked up. Firearms don't belong in that conversation at all with the only possible exception I can think of being if you are being directly and illegally threatened with a firearm.

Ugh.

Great outfits! I'm curious though, does your local ren faire not require to keep your weapons "peace-tied"? I know most festival attendees aren't looking to cut people down, but even an unsharpened blade can cause a lot of damage in a sword-fighting accident so I feel like it's a nice policy overall.

Also, would you care to share roughly how much time and money went into these? I've wanted to get into the cosplay aspect of Ren-faire but it feels prohibitively expensive even buying online, and outright bank breaking buying anything at the faire itself. I haven't been in a few years but even back then the cheapest pair of boots anywhere on-site were $600. Granted, they were very nice looking, leather, presumably hand-made, and came with a lifetime guarantee (as long as that vendor stays) but whew that's more than I can afford.

I know a lot of that stuff will be and should be expensive just for the craftsmanship and time involved though. My buddy made his own chainmail shirt and it took him months and months of manually bending steel wire so I get how much work goes into these pieces.

Anyway, just wanted to say nice outfits and keep it going :)

I wouldn't pretend it's not something terrorists would do. I think what people are upset about is more like: let's assume that there is a terrorist HQ being run in a school. Let's also assume their are innocent people of any and all ages in that same school. Finally, let's assume there are only two options to deal with the terrorist HQ (there could be others in reality but for this exercise there are only two options).

Option a) bomb the school, injuring and killing everyone inside. Option b) a specialized operation that will only target the terrorists but may result in casualties to your army.

People, and myself, are upset that the option being chosen seems to overwhelmingly be option a, the indiscriminate injury and death of everyone in the building whether innocent or terrorist. No judge and no jury for anyone involved, only death.

For me at least this cartoon is not pointing out that terrorists would run an HQ in a school. It's pointing out that currently the IDF cannot, or will not, see past the fact that this is still a picture of a school. It may contain a terrorist HQ, but it's not a building labeled "terrorist HQ" with the sole function of being a terrorist HQ. This is a picture of a school that may also house a terrorist HQ. And that is a very very important distinction that seems to be wildly ignored.

I'm confused what this is trying to say. You tried defending genocide? Because that's messed up.

If you're claiming that a left-wing forum was defending genocide I'm gonna have to doubt that unless provided proof. From what I've seen genocide seems to be an ideal exclusive to the right-wing authoritarian crowd.

The only way to kill an entire population of peoples is to not allow for people to disagree with you, because people will disagree with you if you're trying to kill an entire population of peoples.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. That someone invented the iPhone and it went on to be a very successful product for a multi-trillion dollar company? The iPod was out for years before then. Before that there were portable CD players, before that were portable cassette players, and before that portable radios. Long before any of that people would set wood on fire and sing while playing instruments they carved from other wood.

Corporations do get things wrong plenty often. Successful corporations will not invest more than they can afford to on anything, and won't mass produce a product that their user-surveys and number crunchers say won't make them money. Sometimes those surveys and numbers are wrong, but a corporation doesn't build a worth of trillions of dollars by making stuff and putting it all directly in the dump.

I agree with you almost entirely. There are definitely deceptive advertising practices all over by every industry. And subliminal messaging is in use everywhere. Both are getting worse all the time as people trade privacy for convenience, myself included. A quick search will reveal many results of people talking about how they've talked about something for the first time that they have no interest in and being shown ads for it later. Advertising has reached the point where companies can tell when a woman is pregnant before she does and start advertising accordingly.

I also agree that for most of this, consumers are the virtually powerless underdogs. The only way to truly stop it, if there even is a way to stop something like subliminal advertising, is legislation.

All that said, I do think that consumers can do more than we are. In the current world it seems like waiting for politicians that are bought and paid for by these companies to pass legislation that these companies don't want is the wrong course of action if the goal is to decrease consumption. Nations want you to consume because that makes the economy look better.

However, educating ourselves, and more importantly each other, on these deceptive advertising practices, and taking an active stance to consciously combat said practices can make an immediate impact while we wait/hope for meaningful legislation. If we're watching a movie or TV show with friends and see some subtle product placement, call it out. When we're at the store take a moment to consciously think about whether we need some product, and what the consequences of buying said product are. How much energy is used, what kind of waste does it make both during production and after consumption. If it's recyclable, how? And how much energy is used in doing so? We should all demand to know what our local recycling policies are. Not just what they accept as "recyclable" but whether they actually recycle or just send it to a dump anyway. And wherever possible opt for options that are better for our world and better yet, going without when possible. I see a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses" in the modern world, and so much waste that seems reasonable avoidable.

I think I got a bit sidetracked. I definitely don't think we as consumers can do everything, and I think pretty much the full responsibility should fall on corporations and those in power, but currently that's largely not the case. And I don't think we have time to wait for that to change.

Ultimately I definitely think we largely agree; maybe slight differences in the how, but the end goal seems the same. As far as I can tell we are allies. We can and should help each other and others to advocate for personal changes and policy/legislative changes to combat the rampant over-consumption and over-production in the world today. I don't have children but I still want a livable Earth for future generations so so much.

You're making several assumptions that I don't think I've said or even alluded to. I don't think I've mentioned religion or motivation at all. All I've been trying to say is I disagree with the death of innocent people. I've agreed with you 100% that I do not have a good grasp of the situation and frankly I don't think you or most people do have a full grasp of the situation. You probably know more than me, good job. I still disagree with any person, country, military, religion, etc. taking the lives of innocent people. I recognize that sometimes it can mean fewer deaths in the long run, but seeing as I don't have absolute knowledge of the situation it's not my call to make. I'm not arguing whether one side is doing more harm than the other. I'm not arguing whether one side is more evil, or what their reason for killing is. I'm arguing that innocent people dying sucks. This will be my last reply to you/this thread because I don't have anything else to say. Killing innocent people should be avoided wherever possible because innocent people dying sucks. I'm not sure how that's such a hard concept to grasp or why anyone would argue that killing innocent people is good but evil does exist in this world and it sucks.

Have a wonderful day and may you achieve any and all of your non-evil dreams.

True, although to be fair the first iPhone wasn't released until late 2007. Timeline of Apple releases