The Mance

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Mance

  • Rank
    illegitimate peripheral participant
  • Birthday 11/15/1970

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Not Boston. Definitely not Boston.
  • Interests
    Full vegetative immersion in epic fantasy novels

Recent Profile Visitors

7,041 profile views
  1. Well, it is and it isn't. In the sense that it was never the goal to genuinely fool people into believing the name change long term. I'm mean, obviously as soon as the team owner comes out and says, "err…ya, no," the jig is up. End of fake news cycle. What I've seen instead, is that the intent was just to get people to feel that initial reaction upon hearing the news, and then later to reflect on how simple, logical, and really just generally non-earthshaking that sort of name change would be for the team, or the fans, or the owner.
  2. Agreed. Kal, I'm not sure that shoehorning individuals into roles that they may or may not completely identify with is worth maintaining just because it happens in a variety of cultural contexts. Better to identify the various strengths or weaknesses of a person and celebrate the good while discouraging the bad. I think as soon as you (general you) assign a group of characteristics as an archetype and slap a gender label on it you are setting someone up to have only some of those characteristics, but not all, and therefore open them up to condemnation or self-doubt.
  3. Well, not to ruin a good strawgasm, but my point was that, while yes, people can control their basic biological functions to a large degree, in the interests of physiological need, convenience, morale or productivity or whatever, we still have agreed upon mechanisms to ensure that, where possible, they don't have to. Now, you can certainly claim to know that nobody should ever need to jerk it at work, and I'd probably agree. But I don't see why, given appropriate considerations to privacy, decorum or sanitation, anybody should give a shit if they do.
  4. Err…we have pretty strict guidelines ensuring that people's eating, drinking, and defecating needs are accommodated during their work hours. Like, mandated break schedule regiments, min/max meal times, appropriate and available facilities, etc, sooo…maybe not the strongest argument against. Just saying'.
  5. Yeah, unfortunately... Trump, Bannon and the GOP: "Soooo, you guys think we should double down, or triple down?"
  6. Any chance Trump tries to use signing the bill as some kind of leverage on the investigation?
  7. Ok, well that's a legitimate, though thin, distinction that was not at all clear from your initial statement.
  8. Regardless of how objectively true it is?
  9. The truth of a statement doesn't make it not bullying. A message can be both true and bullying because of tone and context.
  10. How is it a utopia if people have to suffer in order for me to appreciate it? That is to say, what sort of a monster would you have to be in order enjoy a blissful, perfect, afterlife with full knowledge of all the misery endured by the innocent victims of this lesson in contrast? That wouldn't sour it for you? Just a bit?
  11. Well, again, I think theres some space between what ma and pa gun owner would agree are reasonable measures, and how those proposed measures, or even the implications of conceding those measures, are presented to to them by the (their) news and political propagandists. I'm wary of citing any statistics because I really don't feel like doing my due diligence, but isn't there pretty broad support for things like background checks and even waiting periods? Like on an individual voter level, people are fine with a lot of basic proposals. Its just that those basics don't make it into actual legislation because of the undue influence of vocal minority lobbyists who scare up all sorts of real or imagined slippery slope projections.
  12. I don't know, maybe. I mean, I agree that ultimately it amounts to the same thing legislatively. So maybe it is not caring enough, or maybe that caring gets run through the ringer of NRA propaganda, right-wing scare mongering, there gunna take ur gunz!! or whatever, and just comes out the other end as inertia. And, just to reiterate, I'm talking about some imagined proportion of gun owners. Certainly there are plenty that mostly don't care. I'm just saying that many do, and short of some magical, finger-snapping, gun-erasing miracle, they just don't see how them giving up their personal firearms is really going to make things safer.
  13. I...don't see how thats any different than what you were saying before. Is there some distinction I'm missing?
  14. But isn't that exactly what they're saying when they promote the good guy with a gun myth? I mean, its right there on the tin. After Newtown, wasn't there a big call from the right for arming teachers, or putting armed security guards in schools? Why? Because they didn't care about all the school kids? No, its because they have thoroughly blinkered, imo, ideas for preventing another school shooting. But that isn't the same as not caring.
  15. And thats fair too. But I'd say the "too soon" mantra is something you get more from politicos covering for the NRA or other donor class figures. Whereas I'm talking more about what regular mom and pop gun owners are feeling when they see coverage of any of these shooting events.