scoobdog

The Heisman winner himself.

Also, also…. Most people don’t know… but I was in the background of any number of pictures of the Bush Push. In those days, the band was on the field for the entire game.

You don’t win if you can’t get dirty.

And yes, I was at Notre Dame Stadium.

Why did you guys summon me to this thread?

You deserve whatever you need from us.

Oh shit.

Horrible news.

That’s something else. We all objectify to some degree, and it’s not inherently bad on its own. You don’t try to empathize with everyone you meet because that’s impossible. When you objectify people as stereotypes by applying a racist ideology globally, it’s obviously bad. We learn to hate because we apply racial and cultural stereotypes to groups of people instead of simply assuming those people have the same basic core beliefs as we do.

Not sure what you're asking.

Happy Birthday to our favorite ballon aficionado.

I'm going to field this question because it opens up an interesting and somewhat unseemly aspect of human nature. Humans objectify their fellow humans for reasons that are generally unrelated to hatred or lust, the most basic of such being how we regard those we consider part of our "pack." In a relatively stable society, a justice system and a network of social services mitigate a lot of the disenfranchisement that leads to the horrific conditions the vast majority of Palestinians are forced into, but even here we have pronounced effect on the African American community due to latent and over biases. When you deprive a group of people the basic necessities for long-term sustainability - things like access to fair wages, affordable and stable housing, quality medical care, and shelter from climate - you force them into an untenable position. By definition, objectification is impersonal: when you dehumanize an antagonistic entity, you do so based on its position within a greater unseen force. Objectification is the process by which we depersonalize other people, usually those who are unrelated to a specific act but nonetheless a part of the oppressing social structure, and its a way to rationalize attacking a weak part of that structure in defense of one's "pack." That might sound somewhat sympathetic to oppressed people who resort to violence, but it also applies to unsympathetic entities like psychopaths, sociopaths, racists, bigots, and eugenicists and it's a mechanism often ignored because most of us don't have to face extreme situations or mental illness. To be clear, there is no justification for massacring unarmed citizens. It is nonetheless more likely to happen in situations where disenfranchisement is prevalent and the choices to overcome that disconnect are few and ineffective. The short answer to your question is that we give up our humanity when we give into hatred because humanity is the easiest thing shed when faced with few options to defend yourself and your family.

He doesn't really have a take.

It’s not a fair comparison. The US was attacked purely for ideological reasons, while Israel has been in continued conflict with Hamas for 36 years. That doesn’t mean the attack is any less heinous, just that it doesn’t represent the cultural shift 9/11 did not just for the United States but also the rest of the western nations who allied with us.

Ghosty, it’s your responsibility to fact check your own sources. Don’t post videos from suspect sources and expect us to check their validity ourselves: you don’t add to or further discussion doing that, you only muddy the discussion.

Damn. I wish we had that feature a few months ago.

She’s the face in my avatar. I will.

Happy Birthday, @blueraven1999. Valentine says hi.

I think I would be worried if you didn't hate it.

So, can we do another fund raising drive or no?

How much money?

No, it’s a legitimate crisis, just not due to any kind of influx over the historical average. It’s a crisis resulting from the dismantling of prudent and sustainable immigration policy.

A Dem speaker would be hilarious, but kind of unlikely. That kind of unraveling will do more harm than good, especially this close to the next election cycle. That’s not to say the Dems won’t nominate a Dem to force a moderate Republican, but there is no advantage to being a cross party speaker.

it does not.