Jump to content

US Politics: Shutbound & Down


DMC

Recommended Posts

Just saw this on Drudge - Arizona legislator wants to pay for wall by taxing porn:

Quote

Republican state Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, wants to charge you $20 to look at pornography on the internet.

House Bill 2444 would require companies that make or sell electronic devices in Arizona to install software that blocks porn.

To remove the block, all you’d have to do is prove you are 18 and plunk down $20, payable to the Arizona Commerce Authority.

In related news, Rep. Griffin's re-election chances were just changed from solid to slim.  The story actually gets better if you continue reading the link.  The bill is linked to an anti-gay activist and former porn addict that once tried to marry his laptop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covington H.S is appearing more to be what people think they are:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-sports-covington-nathan-phillips-nick-sandmann-20190121-story.html

Quote

A photo said to be featuring Covington Catholic High School students clad in blackface during a 2015 basketball game made the rounds on Twitter Monday morning amid last week’s Indigenous Peoples March controversy.

The photo depicts several white students, some in blackface, shouting at an opposing black player.

While the photo’s origins couldn't be verified, the official Covington Catholic High School YouTube account published a video last January boasting its basketball school spirit, and several clips, including one from 2012, showcase attendees chanting in black face, a mockery of the opposing players. The school took down the video later on Monday.

The twitter in the article state the photo is 2015. The article could not confirm however Covington's own video show people in black face and as well as full body.

Yes, it does not involve the student(s) involved at D.C in either case. I do think it is showing an example what this place is promoting and educating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, DMC said:

Just saw this on Drudge - Arizona legislator wants to pay for wall by taxing porn:

In related news, Rep. Griffin's re-election chances were just changed from solid to slim.  The story actually gets better if you continue reading the link.  The bill is linked to an anti-gay activist and former porn addict that once tried to marry his laptop.

If anything at all is bi-partisan these days it’s probably not wanting to pay a state agency for the ability to look at porn.  Even completely disregarding the $20 fee, nobody wants a record somewhere in a state bureau that they paid for the right to see tits, vaginas, dicks, balls, buttholes, and various interactions between them on the internet.  

It’s amazing.  Taking an educated guess at her thought process based on the headshot that appears when googling her name, I can only surmise that Rep. Griffin believes that her constituents are god-fearing folks who wouldn’t ever look at porn and this tax will primarily hurt her opponents.  A 2 for 1 deal -  a border wall that perverted libtards will pay for.  

Bless her 84 yr old heart.  This is a throwback to the old moral majority approach that cannot coexist with the Trump era.  Not to mention I’ve seen no data suggesting that conservatives don’t like to rub one out from time to time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a follow up:

Quote

Based on comments in the BluegrassPreps message board, the intent of the black body paint was not racial but was instead a school tradition related to “black out” games, during which fans wore black to support the team. That being said, at least one person in the thread posited a connection to racist minstrel shows from the 19th century that used blackface on white actors to depict African Americans unfavorably. “That guy on the right looks like he might have been researching minstrelsy before the game,” one post read.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covington-catholic-black-paint/

I just wanted to post for the picture did show all the boys dressed uniformity in Black. Allowing boys to go black face or more is simply inexcusable in any circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to that election bs that was going on in North Carolina? The district where the Republicans hired some guy to go and pick up mail-in votes that are believed to have vanished? The last I heard was everyone involved in the investigation resigned, halting the investigation. Has the Republican kept the victory and been sworn in to Congress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Whatever happened to that election bs that was going on in North Carolina? The district where the Republicans hired some guy to go and pick up mail-in votes that are believed to have vanished? The last I heard was everyone involved in the investigation resigned, halting the investigation. Has the Republican kept the victory and been sworn in to Congress?

Not yet. There is an upcoming hearing, possibly today, regarding the investigation. And Mark Harris (the douchebag Republican in question) is suing because he feels that he is entitled to the Congressional seat he "won," and argues that even if illegal cheating wasn't involved, he would have won. Or something to that effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

So Trump 'fighting for the LGBT community' is going really well then. 

He's at least fighting for LGBTQ people as hard as he's fought for the blue collar voters who voted for him. Showing the same valor and determination he showed during Vietnam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Correct. but it's important to recognize what part of the brain that is. Without doing a deeper dive, it's the Frontal Lobe, and it's the area that among other things governs our decision making. 

The decision to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was made in 1971 in the United States, at least 20 years before we had the research showing that frontal lobe decision making does not generally become "mature" until around age 25. If that research had been done before 1971 and its results were widely known, perhaps a different decision on lower the voting age would have been made.

We still need a lot more research on these issues -- there needs to be a lot more research specifically linking the brain differences found to actual behaviors. However, there does seem to be a consensus among psychologists and neuroscientists that the problem in decision making that those between the ages of 16 and 25 have relative to those older is largely confined to situations of "hot cognition", where people have to make decisions when their emotions are strongly activated.

When you do experiments in "cold cognition" situations, where you give people good information about an issue when their emotions are not activated, 16 year olds actually do as well on average as people over age 25. But in "hot cognition" situations, younger people make worse decisions because their brains are not as able to allow the logical decision making functions to override their emotions.

Psychologists who advocate the voting age be lowered to 16 (like Lawrence Steinberg) do so because they conceive voting as being a "cold cognition" situation. I am a psychologist who finds that to be an incredibly naive position which confuses how people should make political decisions with how they actually do make them in modern times. I think many voting decisions are highly emotional and are more involved with hot cognition than cold cognition -- and I think that people who run modern political campaigns do so in a way that deliberately tries to make politics and political decisions more emotional and "hotter." Therefore I do NOT want to see the voting age lowered to age 16, because I think that adding to the voting pool more people who will have a hard time not allowing emotions to override logic is exactly what we don't need at this point in history. Unless we can create a culture where the great majority of people do really take a "League of Women Voters" logical dispassionate approach to voting, I think voting is too "hot" a cognitive process to want to add 16 years old into the decision making group.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The decision to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was made in 1971 in the United States, at least 20 years before we had the research showing that frontal lobe decision making does not generally become "mature" until around age 25. If that research had been done before 1971 and its results were widely known, perhaps a different decision on lower the voting age would have been made.

We still need a lot more research on these issues -- there needs to be a lot more research specifically linking the brain differences found to actual behaviors. However, there does seem to be a consensus among psychologists and neuroscientists that the problem in decision making that those between the ages of 16 and 25 have relative to those older is largely confined to situations of "hot cognition", where people have to make decisions when their emotions are strongly activated.

When you do experiments in "cold cognition" situations, where you give people good information about an issue when their emotions are not activated, 16 year olds actually do as well on average as people over age 25. But in "hot cognition" situations, younger people make worse decisions because their brains are not as able to allow the logical decision making functions to override their emotions.

Psychologists who advocate the voting age be lowered to 16 (like Lawrence Steinberg) do so because they conceive voting as being a "cold cognition" situation. I am a psychologist who finds that to be an incredibly naive position which confuses how people should make political decisions with how they actually do make them in modern times. I think many voting decisions are highly emotional and are more involved with hot cognition than cold cognition -- and I think that people who run modern political campaigns do so in a way that deliberately tries to make politics and political decisions more emotional and "hotter." Therefore I do NOT want to see the voting age lowered to age 16, because I think that adding to the voting pool more people who will have a hard time not allowing emotions to override logic is exactly what we don't need at this point in history. Unless we can create a culture where the great majority of people do really take a "League of Women Voters" logical dispassionate approach to voting, I think voting is too "hot" a cognitive process to want to add 16 years old into the decision making group.

 

And yet, the driving age is 16.

IMO, lower the voting age and raise the driving age. 

My daughter got her permit just after she turned 16. Four months in and there was no way she was ready. Then she came down with mono, and I wouldn't allow her to drive until she was completely recovered, which was more than 18 months later. When she turned 18, she reapplied for her permit.

The difference was night and day. She did a thousand times better on Day 1 than she did in 4 months of driving at 16. There was more maturity, more awareness of what was going on around her, and more appreciation for the fact that a car will kill you if not handled properly. 

That being said, these punks are not children. If they think they're mature enough to have a say in what a woman can and cannot do with her body (NOT), then they're old enough to be treated like adults. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that Twitter has suspended the account that posted the video of the MAGA hat boy and his confrontation with Mr. Phillips, saying the account claimed to belong to a California school teacher (‘teacher and advocate. Fighting for 20/20’) but actually belonged to a blogger based in Brazil.

The account, @2020fight, posts an average of 130 times a day and has 40k followers. Social media researcher Rob McDonagh said the account is suspicious, due to high follower count, highly polarized and yet inconsistent political imaging, the unusually high number of tweets, and the use of someone else’s image in the profile photo.

Molly McKew, an information warfare researcher who shared the video herself, said she later saw it was being amplified by a large number of anonymous accounts.

Twitter said their rules forbid users from creating “fake and misleading accounts”, and that “Deliberate attempts to manipulate the public conversation on Twitter by using misleading account information is a violation of Twitter rules”.

I guess that rule doesn’t apply to real accounts that use fake and misleading news to manipulate the public conversation on Twitter, like a certain WH account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The decision to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was made in 1971 in the United States, at least 20 years before we had the research showing that frontal lobe decision making does not generally become "mature" until around age 25. If that research had been done before 1971 and its results were widely known, perhaps a different decision on lower the voting age would have been made.

We still need a lot more research on these issues -- there needs to be a lot more research specifically linking the brain differences found to actual behaviors. However, there does seem to be a consensus among psychologists and neuroscientists that the problem in decision making that those between the ages of 16 and 25 have relative to those older is largely confined to situations of "hot cognition", where people have to make decisions when their emotions are strongly activated.

When you do experiments in "cold cognition" situations, where you give people good information about an issue when their emotions are not activated, 16 year olds actually do as well on average as people over age 25. But in "hot cognition" situations, younger people make worse decisions because their brains are not as able to allow the logical decision making functions to override their emotions.

Psychologists who advocate the voting age be lowered to 16 (like Lawrence Steinberg) do so because they conceive voting as being a "cold cognition" situation. I am a psychologist who finds that to be an incredibly naive position which confuses how people should make political decisions with how they actually do make them in modern times. I think many voting decisions are highly emotional and are more involved with hot cognition than cold cognition -- and I think that people who run modern political campaigns do so in a way that deliberately tries to make politics and political decisions more emotional and "hotter." Therefore I do NOT want to see the voting age lowered to age 16, because I think that adding to the voting pool more people who will have a hard time not allowing emotions to override logic is exactly what we don't need at this point in history. Unless we can create a culture where the great majority of people do really take a "League of Women Voters" logical dispassionate approach to voting, I think voting is too "hot" a cognitive process to want to add 16 years old into the decision making group.

 

Cognitive development is an issue I have always been fascinated by, but I care a lot more about it in the sphere of criminal justice reform than I do about politics. I can’t say I’ve studied it with regards to voting, but if I had to guess, I would say that it’s both hot and cold. I suspect it starts off hot, but cools with time and individual research, and I’m not sure how age affects it. If I had my druthers I’d keep it at 18, but I’d allow minors to vote if (i) they can provide evidence that they pay federal taxes and (ii) they can pass a high school level civics test. I doubt this would be considered constitutional, but it seems fair to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the inevitable concommitant of lowering the legal age of adulthood is sexual predation upon 16 year olds.

Mostly here we tend agree that older people having sex with kids so much younger than they are  -- marrying them! -- especially even people not here think marriage to little girls in some Islamic cultures is a shame and a sin! -- is not a production social or civic proposition. 

I honestly feel that very few 16 year olds are cognitively and emotionally viable for legal adulthood. This is based on so much time spent on campuses of higher education filled with kids doing incredibly stupid self-destructive and destructive to others acts every day.

Yes, I know many a legal adult over 21 isn't emotionally or cognitively viably mature enough in judgment and information either, but one must make a declaration somewhere. For example, this  27-year-old fellow shouldn't even be let out of a prison cell, much less allowed to vote:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/angry-virgin-christopher-cleary-threatened-to-kill-as-many-girls-as-i-see-near-womens-march?ref=home

Quote

“All I wanted was a girlfriend, not 1000 … not a bunch of hoes,” Cleary allegedly wrote. “I’ve never had a girlfriend before and I’m still a virgin, this is why I’m planning on shooting up a public place soon and being the next mass shooter cause I’m ready to die and all the girls the turned me down is going to make it right by killing as many girls as I see.”

That's really mature, all right.

Quote

n a survey of 300 users on a major incel forum, more than half of respondents said they’d considered plastic surgery. Loneliness (only 36.7 percent of respondents said they had friends) and general hatred of humanity (52.9 percent of respondents self-identified as misanthropes) are standard. More than half of respondents were white, and almost all of them under 30 years old.

People like this really shouldn't be voting.  Or drinking.  Or have access to guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...