[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BTW, Shaddim, you haven't commented on my bringing up Turtle, Stupendousman, Badkosh, Abe, and perhaps even Big Mac as analogues to the left-wing posters in here that you feel are angry?

Maybe because they've been run off and no longer post here very often, if at all? If I see them pull the same nastiness I'll report them too.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You might not be sensitive to certain American sore points, like slavery and the civil war, because you're an immigrant. Maybe that's why you are having such a difficult time with this concept. Does Canada have any chronically down-trodden protected classes that it's just bad form to kick while they're down, even if they're not visibly "down" at the moment? I'm just trying to see this from your perspective to help with communication.

Their Inuit population doesn't like to be called Eskimos.

On this I agree with you. Shaddim has a real blind spot about hostility and bickering when it's coming from conservatives, including himself.

That's why I've been working on it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's bullcrap. You're not Nate Silver, and what we do here isn't to try to predict the future while ignoring the implications. When we had threads about election predictions, did anyone post while trying to ignore the causes or effects of the election results on policy, or how those election results could be changed, or take sides in any way? I admit, I didn't follow those threads, but I would be very surprised if you can point out a single MacNN member who posted in those threads but didn't mention any of these implications.

I honestly have no idea what you are getting at here, and I suspect you don't get me either.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This is exactly what I was saying about context. You can't transition from a hostile to non-hostile context of the same topic, it just doesn't work that way. You can't take a racist post and say "hey maybe that racist did have a good point or two about Blacks being prone to criminality, let's discuss that in a non-racist manner." The hostility doesn't just go away, it's going to stick to that thread forever. If you don't already know this, then it's an important thing for you to learn now.
You might not be sensitive to certain American sore points, like slavery and the civil war, because you're an immigrant. Maybe that's why you are having such a difficult time with this concept. Does Canada have any chronically down-trodden protected classes that it's just bad form to kick while they're down, even if they're not visibly "down" at the moment? I'm just trying to see this from your perspective to help with communication.
On this I agree with you. Shaddim has a real blind spot about hostility and bickering when it's coming from conservatives, including himself.

I agree with you that my pivot was not terribly well thought out.

Are you suggesting that you feel protective of the south, and that I'm beating up on them?

It's hard to say what the equivalent of the north and south would be in Canada, Canada is basically a nation of mutts with so much diversity in the urban areas that there isn't one identifiable "Canadian way", if you know what I mean.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Did you create the following thread?
http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/493299/why-are-republican-states-consistently-daisies-and-roses
Wasn't it previously called, "Why are Republican states consistently shitholes?"
Then, in the first post you said:
That's not about Rob, he didn't start that beauty.

That thread was created before I changed my approach in examining these issues.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Maybe because they've been run off and no longer post here very often, if at all? If I see them pull the same nastiness I'll report them too.

Okay, I'll keep this in mind, I realize this approach of yours is pretty new. Relax, I'm not going to be putting your future posts under the microscope and call you out on future unfairness, if this ever happens, but because I'm interested in observing your efforts and seeing what works and what doesn't. I wouldn't have been interested if you saw this as some sort of one-sided mission.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

[QUOTE name="Uncle Skeleton" url="/t/494635/conspicuous-consumption/100#post_4203872"]
That's bullcrap. You're not Nate Silver, and what we do here isn't to try to predict the future while ignoring the implications. When we had threads about election predictions, did anyone post while trying to ignore the causes or effects of the election results on policy, or how those election results could be changed, or take sides in any way? I admit, I didn't follow those threads, but I would be very surprised if you can point out a single MacNN member who posted in those threads but didn't mention any of these implications.

I honestly have no idea what you are getting at here, and I suspect you don't get me either.
[/quote]
I have my doubts that even you "get you"

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

[QUOTE name="Shaddim" url="/t/494635/conspicuous-consumption/100#post_4203878"]
Did you create the following thread?
http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/4932...sies-and-roses

Wasn't it previously called, "Why are Republican states consistently shitholes?"

Then, in the first post you said:

That's not about Rob, he didn't start that beauty.

That thread was created before I changed my approach in examining these issues.
[/quote]

So you've never really given your idea the benefit of its own thread (without a bigoted hateful OP to poison it). Despite the fact that you are still interested enough to bring it up whenever a hateful OP does happen to come along. No wonder it's causing you such frustration...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you suggesting that you feel protective of the south, and that I'm beating up on them?

I feel protective of any people that are getting beat up on just for who they are. Why don't you?

[subego]

Well put.

[besson3c]

Uneducated, overweight, etc. is genetic stuff that is engrained in who they are? No choice involved?

If this is so then Republicans have no right to criticize poor people for not getting a job and living on welfare - it is just who they are.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What they choose to do, believe, believe in, or look like is part of who they are. As long as they're not hurting anyone else by doing it, they don't need other people telling them they're doing it wrong any more than you do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What they choose to do, believe, believe in, or look like is part of who they are. As long as they're not hurting anyone else by doing it, they don't need other people telling them they're doing it wrong any more than you do.

A population that is a strain on our safety nets, and is not generating skilled workers is "hurting" us. If there were no negative ramifications for states performing badly in education, why should any of us care about the quality of our education? If there was no ramifications for obesity and other health related problems, why wouldn't we just all be fatties?

Smart and/or skilled engineers, thinkers, artists, etc. are job creators.

[Shaddim]

Weight does seem genetic, at least partially, and higher education is a new concept. The South is based on agrarian trades, not long ago most people here worked on farms or had livelihoods directly involved with agriculture. They worked hard, ate a lot, had tight-knit communities, and were multi-generational under the same roof. Family values were passed down through their trades and beliefs, and the Bible was the primary tool for learning to read and in teaching morality.

Now, agriculture has almost entirely moved to corporate "superfarms", usually leaving those areas entirely, and automation has taken most of the jobs that were left, displacing all those trades. This had a direct impact on the entire culture, breaking community ties and lessening a family's dependence on each other. At one time, grandpa was a wealth of information, he seemingly knew how to do everything you needed to know for success, you respected the man. Now he's a strange old guy in shorts, who wears diapers and drones on about the "good ol' days". F*ck that, hand me the control pad and Doritos. With the loss of the family farms, these areas have lost their purpose. This isn't the case in urban centers, where there's more diversity in business and vocational opportunities.

This will change, and it's already started, with new manufacturing facilities and a developing educational infrastructure, but it takes time, probably several generations for long-term effects to fully come to fruition. When they do, however, the South will again be a powerhouse of industry and growth, based on the traditional resourcefulness and tenacity of her people.

[subego]

I should note all of Illinois which isn't Chicago and the immediate suburbs qualifies as the South.

Not a judgement, just an observation.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Weight does seem genetic, at least partially, and higher education is a new concept. The South is based on agrarian trades, not long ago most people here worked on farms or had livelihoods directly involved with agriculture. They worked hard, ate a lot, had tight-knit communities, and were multi-generational under the same roof. Family values were passed down through their trades and beliefs, and the Bible was the primary tool for learning to read and in teaching morality.
Now, agriculture has almost entirely moved to corporate "superfarms", usually leaving those areas entirely, and automation has taken most of the jobs that were left, displacing all those trades. This had a direct impact on the entire culture, breaking community ties and lessening a family's dependence on each other. At one time, grandpa was a wealth of information, he seemingly knew how to do everything you needed to know for success, you respected the man. Now he's a strange old guy in shorts, who wears diapers and drones on about the "good ol' days". F*ck that, hand me the control pad and Doritos. With the loss of the family farms, these areas have lost their purpose. This isn't the case in urban centers, where there's more diversity in business and vocational opportunities.
This will change, and it's already started, with new manufacturing facilities and a developing educational infrastructure, but it takes time, probably several generations for long-term effects to fully come to fruition. When they do, however, the South will again be a powerhouse of industry and growth, based on the traditional resourcefulness and tenacity of her people.

Makes sense to me...

What is it about states like California, Florida, and parts of Illinois - states that have had agrarian economies in years past, much different in our overall perceptions of them?

[raleur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is it about states like California, Florida, and parts of Illinois - states that have had agrarian economies in years past, much different in our overall perceptions of them?

I can't say much about California, but I think the obvious answer in the cases of Illinois and Florida is that there are major cities and/or tourist centers that color one's perceptions of those states. Most of Florida, outside of the major cities (think Orlando and Miami), is still very poor and fits those stereotypes very well. Likewise, Chicago tends to be the focus on Illinois- if we hear any news at all from Illinois, chances are it's about Chicago. I haven't been outside of San Francisco, but I imagine that the same is true for California.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by raleur 

I can't say much about California, but I think the obvious answer in the cases of Illinois and Florida is that there are major cities and/or tourist centers that color one's perceptions of those states. Most of Florida, outside of the major cities (think Orlando and Miami), is still very poor and fits those stereotypes very well. Likewise, Chicago tends to be the focus on Illinois- if we hear any news at all from Illinois, chances are it's about Chicago. I haven't been outside of San Francisco, but I imagine that the same is true for California.

Exactly. It's their population centers that are the focus, not the rural areas. It was inevitable, really, with such a large population boom, and the need for so much more food, technology outpaced the need for the workers and craftsmen. So you end up with skyrocketing unemployment, a directionless sub-culture, and a loss of well-being. For the most part, Southerners are amazing people, very gracious and helpful, they just need to find their identity again.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Exactly. It's their population centers that are the focus, not the rural areas. It was inevitable, really, with such a large population boom, and the need for so much more food, technology outpaced the need for the workers and craftsmen. So you end up with skyrocketing unemployment, a directionless sub-culture, and a loss of well-being. For the most part, Southerners are amazing people, very gracious and helpful, they just need to find their identity again.

What do you mean by directionless sub-culture, and relative to the population, is the unemployment percentage greater in rural or urban areas?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

[QUOTE name="Uncle Skeleton" url="/t/494635/conspicuous-consumption/150#post_4204033"]
What they choose to do, believe, believe in, or look like is part of who they are. As long as they're not hurting anyone else by doing it, they don't need other people telling them they're doing it wrong any more than you do.

A population that is a strain on our safety nets, and is not generating skilled workers is "hurting" us. If there were no negative ramifications for states performing badly in education, why should any of us care about the quality of our education? If there was no ramifications for obesity and other health related problems, why wouldn't we just all be fatties?

Smart and/or skilled engineers, thinkers, artists, etc. are job creators.
[/quote]
Come on besson, you're better than that. Those silly talking points aren't worthy of a rebuttal when republicans use them against scary immigrants and welfare queens, and they're not any better when you try to adopt them either.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Come on besson, you're better than that. Those silly talking points aren't worthy of a rebuttal when republicans use them against scary immigrants and welfare queens, and they're not any better when you try to adopt them either.

The "job creator" phrase has been abused, I used it in an attempt to be clever, but I stand by what I wrote.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

...but I stand by what I wrote.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A population that is a strain on our safety nets, and is not generating skilled workers is "hurting" us. If there were no negative ramifications for states performing badly in education, why should any of us care about the quality of our education?

"If there are no negative ramifications for other people using Windows, then why should any of us care about the quality of our Macs?" Um, mind your own business?

If there was no ramifications for obesity and other health related problems, why wouldn't we just all be fatties?

If there was no ramifications for cutting off our fingers, why wouldn't we just all be fingerless nub-people? If the only thing preventing us from harming ourselves is the all-seeing nanny state hovering over us, we have bigger problems than obesity, and intolerance.

I'm not sure what you're asking here, are you asking my permission to let yourself go? Follow your bliss, besson. And more importantly, don't try so hard to meddle in other people's blisses.

A population that is a strain on our safety nets, and is not generating skilled workers is "hurting" us.

{The following analysis comes from the first webpage I happened across: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html Feel free to criticize the source material.}

What "population" exactly? That's where this is coming from, right? The foundation of this discussion is the question of whether the south is different from the rest of us. Yet that premise of drawing the boundary at the south was never questioned. According to the above link:
"The South had the highest prevalence of obesity (29.5%), followed by the Midwest (29.0%), the Northeast (25.3%) and the West (24.3%)."
They found the South in the lead too! By a whole 0.5%, probably within the margin of error. Looks like raleur nailed it with the "narcissism of small differences." Maybe these population demarkations aren't the most telling ones we could choose? They also found:
"Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest age-adjusted rates of obesity (49.5%) compared with Mexican Americans (40.4%), all Hispanics (39.1%) and non-Hispanic whites (34.3%) [See JAMA. 2012;307(5):491-497. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.39]."
Wow, Blacks are more obese than white (and average btw) Americans by 14%, not merely 0.5%. Being southern might not be "genetic," but they certainly were born into it. Why do you get to lump all southerners together just so you can set them apart from non-southerners?

Hay you know what, there are more blacks in the south than in other regions... what if the aggregate obesity of the south is merely being skewed by the higher population of blacks in the south. This graph is from 2006-2008, so it's not the same data, but it should be equivalent (source linked):
Percent obese:

When you look at the regions among whites, only half the southern states are fat, and less than half the fat states are in the south (no correlation with region, although I bet there is one with income). The white-fat outlier (WV) is a northern state (in fact it is defined by having defected to the north in the civil war). Southern blacks may be slightly fatter than other blacks, but looking here at a map of that data doesn't seem to correlate with the south, but rather have a few lean outliers (CO, NY, NV, WA, etc), and merely not enough subjects in some non-southern states for statistical methods.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

EDIT: Except I once called turtle stupid for no good reason. My bad.

LOL, I'm sure there was a reason, like you not liking my opinion. (I don't like yours either, so we're even).

But, I can respect an honest "stupid" call much more than the passive-aggressive shit some other members are pulling.

-t

[screener]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, I'm sure there was a reason, like you not liking my opinion. (I don't like yours either, so we're even).
But, I can respect an honest "stupid" call much more than the passive-aggressive shit some other members are pulling.
-t

turtleneck

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, I'm sure there was a reason, like you not liking my opinion. (I don't like yours either, so we're even).
But, I can respect an honest "stupid" call much more than the passive-aggressive shit some other members are pulling.
-t

That's because you're stupid.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's because you're stupid.

Well, that wasn't honest, nor funny. But predictable.

Reported.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, that wasn't honest, nor funny. But predictable.
Reported.
-t

Where's my damn respect? You said you could respect an honest "stupid".

P.S. do you frequent http://penisland.net ?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where's my damn respect? You said you could respect an honest "stupid".

Oh, I didn't know you considered yourself an honest stupid.

Sorry for that. I won't make that mistake again.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

*sigh*

Turtle, you practically ASKED for that. No point in getting huffy about it now.

[turtle777]

I guess I besson-baited. Ah well...

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I guess I besson-baited. Ah well...
-t

Did you click on this link? http://penisland.net

[Shaddim]

Anyhow...

I've found that very few things say conspicuous consumption like:

7057/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

Starting this week, we'll have them. There's going to be a nice station by the gate with a patrol around the perimeter. I know the firm, they're good people.

It's just that time, sadly enough.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What made it that time?

[Waragainstsleep]

Hopefully not G4S.

[subego]

Jay Leno's been nosing around.

The standing order is "shoot to kill".

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What made it that time?

We had some vandalism and trespassing, nothing too serious but it could escalate. Partly I'm doing it to save lives, because if I catch them breaking into the house, I'll kill them. I don't want a community incident.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Jay Leno's been nosing around.
The standing order is "shoot to kill".

His chin would arrive 20 minutes early, much earlier than his nose.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Hopefully not G4S.

No, there's a local company that's really good, it's owned by a friend of mine.

[screener]

He really can't help himself can he.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by screener 

He really can't help himself can he.

Cut the snark and just say what you mean.

[screener]

I rest my snark.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by screener 

I rest my snark.

Useless. Typical.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by screener 

He really can't help himself can he.

I don't get it?

[andi*pandi]

Most people, when faced with minor vandalism or trespassing, would call the police or install a webcam to catch the culprit, not having enough money to pay for private security. However, Shaddim is helping a local business, so that's good. I wouldn't put this under conspicuous consumption.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I don't get it?

Same here- maybe screener will offer his diagnosis of the compulsion? Or is he simply incapable of anything besides envy?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Most people, when faced with minor vandalism or trespassing, would call the police or install a webcam to catch the culprit, not having enough money to pay for private security. However, Shaddim is helping a local business, so that's good. I wouldn't put this under conspicuous consumption.

I saw the hired security as a consequence of conspicuous consumption.

You have a lot of things that are a joy to look at and to present (or "show off", if you will), and enough people will take umbrage at that to wantonly damage or destroy them.

I'm of the mindset that I'm thankful that people like Shaddim exist, who take joy in buying and maintaining these beasts, because people like me can enjoy them - vicariously, as in this thread, and in real life, as these things burble by me on the street. Apart from the fact that a hundred-year-old Bugatti is a piece of ****ing history, as the Pantera, and as will be the other cars in fifty years' time, if they are properly maintained and some dumb asshole doesn't torch them at some point because he hates rich people.

Screener wasn't clear whether he disapproved of the security, or whether he was just envious, or what the **** else was going on with him.

[andi*pandi]

Good points.

[Shaddim]

Well, it was either me sit out and wait for them with a shotgun, I'd already filed a police report, or get some obvious security in the hopes it will dissuade them from coming back. If they persist, they'll be apprehended, hogtied, and prosecuted.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Most people, when faced with minor vandalism or trespassing, would call the police or install a webcam to catch the culprit, not having enough money to pay for private security. However, Shaddim is helping a local business, so that's good. I wouldn't put this under conspicuous consumption.

We have cameras, but they were wearing hoodies and it wasn't possible to make out their features well enough for an ID. I know one thing, they were fast, when the alarm went off they took off like rabbits.

[subego]

Had a guy bust into my dad's house once. Next day I was sleeping there and heard the guy come back. Grabbed a crowbar and went to investigate.

I have never seen a 6'5", 300 pound guy run so fast.

This isn't an Internet tough-guy story BTW. Pretty sure we were both scared shitless. Not to mention the guy had a half-foot and 130 pounds on me.


Now, if I had pulled out my prop Colt Commando...

[screener]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Same here- maybe screener will offer his diagnosis of the compulsion? Or is he simply incapable of anything besides envy?

Conspicuous "I'm rich", real or imagined.
In this, his thread, fine.
It seems that more often than not in any thread he slips in how well off he is.
I refer you to post #72

I'm done here, carry on.

[Spheric Harlot]

Yes, and?

And you chose this, his thread, where it's "fine", to take a shit on him for it?