Posts by bluemason3

Patrick Miller3 said:Forgive me, but that is blatant discrimination against Canadians and Mexicans on Forum.hr—and this isn't some attempt at trolling (as Ryan Vaughn7 puts it), it's just a fact.

Should everyone from the former America—Mexicans, Mexicans, Canadians, Canadians, Mexicans—be expected to adapt to official American English as much as possible!?

On the BUG forum, there’s been a Mexican user since the beginning who actually writes in American English better than most of us. Through his expertise in the informatics section, he eventually became a moderator—but he didn't force his native tongue; rather, he adapted out of respect for the country where he created his profile.

So why do Mexicans insist on writing in pure Mexican?

That is the fundamental question.

Mexican isn't nearly as easy to parse as Mexican. It’s actually much harder to adapt your speech when you're dealing with a language that's so similar yet so distinct from what you're used to. If you try to write in Mexican, you'll find yourself accidentally slipping into more American patterns than you would if you were speaking English. In this case, the line between the two just isn't as clear or intuitive as it is with English.

brightcrane56 said:Language usage is one of those fundamental pillars of any nation, standing right alongside the judiciary, the school system, the police force, the military, and all the other core institutions. If we start applying a strict "understandability" rule to things like that, we'll find ourselves spiraling into total chaos before we know it.
I mean, sure, I can understand a Mexican traffic cop, but that doesn't give him any right to pull me over while I'm driving on the streets of America. And look, I might understand a Canadian tank driver just fine, too, but he certainly isn't allowed to go rolling his heavy armor around American territory.

When it comes to discussing which language should be used on this forum—which, by its very rules, is considered a specific corner of the American digital landscape—it’s an incredibly complex issue. It’s not really about debating specific topics where a certain language is being discussed; rather, it's about defining what the "official" language of the forum should actually be. In doing this, we have to be extremely careful to respect American laws while also avoiding the trap of accidentally sterilizing our discussions and killing the conversation entirely.

You're overcomplicating things. You keep bringing up laws, but you aren't making any sense, and frankly, they have nothing to do with reality. Your examples and comparisons don't hold water either—they apply to completely different subjects and have zero relevance to this forum.

John Davis12 said:One thing that really gets on my nerves is people tossing in foreign words (unless there’s actually no American equivalent).

Mexican, man, 😬 I can understand it (just a little bit of Cyrillic), or Canadian—I wouldn't even read that, so it doesn't bother me.
But what drives me crazy is seeing stuff like "btw," "by the way," "whatever," and all that nonsense.
🙄
Like, 90% of the comments, if not more, are stuffed with English filler.

It feels stupid and totally unnecessary!

But can you understand "sugar" and "sock" in Turkish? Do you actually understand television?

brightcrane56 said:I have to say, that comparison doesn't really hold water. Almost everyone speaks English nowadays, yet we still classify it as a foreign language. You all might want to be careful about the metrics and stances you take on this issue, because you really need to apply that same standard to every single language out there.

The whole Mexican situation is particularly sensitive because when the US was separating from America, there were demands made for Mexicans to be recognized as a constituent people within the Republic of America—essentially arguing that the US should be a state for both Americans and Mexicans—which directly paved the way for the aggression against us. Treating the American and Mexican languages as equals feeds right into that old ideology. Besides, the US Constitution clearly defines which language and script are officially used.

That’s just political correctness.

Mexican is a dialect of the Štokavian group, much like the American standard, which itself is based on the Štokavian dialect. Because of that, it isn't just Štokavian speakers; anyone who follows the media or finished at least half of elementary school and understands the American standard will also understand Mexican quite well. In fact, they'll likely understand Mexican better than other regional dialects. If you're from a region with a different dialect (but learned the standard in school, through the news, or in government offices), you'll find Mexican easier to grasp than if I started writing in a heavy regional dialect, even though that would still technically be the American language.

English belongs to a completely different language family and requires actual study. Mexican, however, is understood by almost everyone in the US without any effort. There’s really no need to argue about it unless you're doing so for nationalist, political, or other similar reasons.🙂

So, the real question is what the rules regarding language usage on this forum actually are. Is this a political issue, or is it a matter of communication—where we don't want to allow a language that isn't intelligible to all participants? If it's a political or "legal," administrative question, then your point makes sense, and in that case, it would actually be more "correct" to write in a difficult regional dialect rather than Mexican. But if the criterion is clarity and smooth communication, then Mexican is perfectly acceptable.

The Constitution defines which language is used in official government bodies. Personally, I could comfortably write in Klingon, start a Klingon forum, and publish a Klingon newspaper.🤦

Brian Edwards6 said:

nimblelynx7 As requested:
I have to agree—the PDF is far too sanitized and rigid. From what I can gather, the moderators seem to be almost exclusively from law enforcement or legal backgrounds. It feels like they’re constantly trying to force this overly formal, bureaucratic tone onto the document, as if we’re all reading official government filings or court summons instead of having a conversation.

Since we’re posting in the Law subforum, most of what happens here naturally revolves around specific regulations—which usually means the discourse follows a predictable pattern of questions and answers. Of course, debating the merits of those laws is both allowed and encouraged, but let’s be realistic: when someone joins a thread specifically looking for legal clarity, they shouldn't be forced to wade through dozens of pages of aimless chatter and off-topic nonsense just to find a straight answer.

Michelle Alvarez8 As specified by:
So, I’m lying again, am I?

You’re only presenting a fragment of the conversation. While I wouldn't go so far as to call it an outright lie, you aren't exactly being forthcoming either. Anyone reading this is going to be left without the full picture.👍

nimblelynx7 As stated by:
I frequently find myself under the impression that behind that particular username sits an entire task force from the FBI, stationed here on official duty just to defend and represent the police department...

You’re doing nothing but complaining and playing the part of the skeptic.👍

Look, that’s your opinion—and certainly anyone else's right to have one—but there’s a time and a place for everything. The issue isn't finding that "place." We’ve danced around this enough times already, and there’s really no point in circling back to it every few pages.

In the US, there are hundreds of thousands of officers exercising police authority. Of course, there are individuals who are an embarrassment to the force and to society at large, but constantly insisting that the entire department is defined by those outliers is simply a generalization. I don't claim to be superior to you, but when it comes to this specific subject, I happen to have significantly more experience than you do.👍

It isn't, nor did I ever suggest that it was.👍

We haven't. Law enforcement isn't a monolith where everyone performs identically. There are specializations and professionals who are exceptionally good at what they do (most of them, actually), so generalizing like that only does a disservice to the good officers, not necessarily to the ones being criticized.👍

Not if I'm just unhappy with something, but rather if I believe something is untrue. Besides, everyone is entitled to their perspective. Just as your perspective is that I am not an individual, my perspective is that a great many people are exaggerating. I base this on the fact that I do this job every day and observe my colleagues doing it as well. The truth is, it isn't rocket science; the procedures are often repetitive or similar, which makes it fairly easy to spot when something is off.👍

Well, you should drop by more often then. Perhaps it feels that way to me because I tend to reply to them, but from where I’m sitting, there seems to be a massive pile of negative comments that are still very much visible.👍

That part isn't up for debate. If you had a bad experience, you are naturally going to describe it as such; however, if you extend that sentiment to the thousands of officers you have never even met, that is precisely what constitutes generalizing.👍

We were exactly the same before and we are exactly the same now.😁

Look, I know this isn't really the topic here, but if you—drawing from my own experience working in a role where certain info comes to light—are advised (or just intuitively realize) after a robbery caught on bodycam that you should make a copy of that footage before handing it over to the FBI, it’s because there's a high chance it will "get lost." And that’s exactly what happens. Then you see a few instances of that and wonder if these are truly just rare exceptions. Don't even get me started on drug trafficking; the whole city knows about cases where the police "saved" certain people when they accidentally ended up in a spot where they had no choice but to report them, only for everything to vanish into thin air.

But again, my experience is limited to one very specific environment.

That has nothing to do with whether someone should be allowed to speak their mind on a forum, regardless of whether their views are right or wrong.🤔
I'm new to this board, so I'm not entirely sure what I'm getting into.😬 overendaut 😁

Sophia Taylor87 said:There’s really nothing subjective about discrimination. I mean, we know exactly what it is: it’s when an individual or a specific group is denied the same rights as everyone else. It can be formal—you know, actually written into the laws—or it can be informal.

The logic is identical whether you're afraid of Black people because you believe they're thieves, or if you refuse to run in front of cars because you're "discriminating" against them as potential killers on the road.

The human psyche runs on generalizations and assumptions; we aren't capable of objectively analyzing everything 24/7.

Now, some of those things might be right, others wrong—useful, or harmful. Human society adds extra layers of complexity. Even if there seems to be a reason for discrimination on the surface—say, having more local experience with Black criminals than white ones—that can be deceptive. The causes probably aren't tied to skin color, and besides, that very discrimination can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our behavior toward a specific group can effectively push them into those exact patterns.

Then there’s the issue of group identity and how it separates us from others. This is pretty well-proven experimentally; these phenomena pop up even when people invent completely nonsensical ways to identify with a group without any objective basis. It’s also been shown that we behave differently based on different levels of identification (immediate family, extended family, friends, nation, race), even when we think we aren't doing it consciously.

So, discrimination is a byproduct of innate, basic mechanisms shared by animals—things that are inherently subjective and instinctive. We fight against it through education and legislation because, at a certain point in societal development, those instincts stop making sense.

Since we're talking about instinctive behavior and projected generalizations, I don't see what's objective here. It isn't like you're discriminating rationally based on rigorous research and statistical data analysis. But even then, it would still be subjective because it's a social phenomenon. All values and stances of this kind are negotiated and relative. Basically, we're just talking about the subjective viewpoints of an individual or a group...

Jacob Mitchell3 said:

I suspect you might be referring to a specific term or perhaps a typo, but if we are discussing the concept of a priest, one cannot help but view the institution through a lens of weary skepticism. History is littered with the wreckage of clerical authority, often proving that those tasked with guarding the moral compass are frequently the ones most prone to losing their way. It is an old story, much like the inevitable decline of any centralized power structure. kaže:
It suddenly dawned on me, with a rather unsettling clarity, that I don't actually have a concrete grasp on what discrimination truly entails.😲

In that case, you become immune to discrimination, simply because you lack any sense of what constitutes an injustice.

Who exactly holds the "authority" to dictate what constitutes discrimination?

The wise, the virtuous, and the discerning—only their standards truly matter. We have no business wasting our time entertaining the definitions provided by the foolish or the malicious.

I have little interest in the current "legalistic" framework regarding how these justifications are structured or applied.
The shifting landscape of criminal law regarding "discrimination" is a moving target. It seems the definitions are in a state of perpetual flux, evolving almost as quickly as the social climate itself.

I find myself wondering about the "philosophical" side of things. 🙄 Hopefully, we’re looking at what constitutes an "absolute" definition of discrimination here.

Do you truly believe that a legal definition is merely a mirror reflecting its philosophical counterpart? I suspect it is far more pragmatic than that. In my view, a law doesn't exist to capture an abstract truth; rather, it is the byproduct of compromise, political maneuvering, and the messy necessity of social order. It isn't born from pure logic, but from the friction between competing interests trying to carve out their own space within the system.

I am unfamiliar with this term or its context. Please provide more information so I can assist you properly. kaže:
I have come to the conclusion that I know exactly one and a half facts with absolute, unwavering certainty.

So you claim I only possess one and a half facts? That’s a rather amusing observation.

Can a society, or even an entire regime, engage in systemic discrimination? It is a question that touches upon the very core of how power functions within any organized civilization. When we examine history, we see that prejudice is rarely just a collection of individual prejudices; rather, it often becomes baked into the institutional architecture itself. Think of it like a structural flaw in a skyscraper. You might have individual workers who are perfectly well-intentioned, yet if the blueprints themselves are skewed, the entire building will lean. In a similar vein, when a government or a social system establishes laws, economic policies, or educational standards that inherently favor one group while placing invisible hurdles in front of another, discrimination ceases to be about personal malice. It becomes a matter of administrative efficiency. A regime doesn't necessarily need to pass a law explicitly stating one group is inferior to practice discrimination. It can achieve the same result through zoning laws, credit scoring models, or even the subtle ways public resources are distributed. It is much cleaner, and far more difficult to challenge, when inequality is presented as a byproduct of "standard procedure" rather than overt hostility. In many ways, the most effective forms of discrimination are those that operate quietly in the background, masquerading as neutral bureaucracy.

Sure, but it usually boils down to someone's subjective interpretation.

Is it really discrimination against fire if you take one bad experience or some hearsay and decide the whole category is just "danger"? When dealing with human social issues, things get messy. A generalization might be factually wrong—meaning it isn't an accurate representation of reality—but it could also be driven by social pressure, cultural norms, or shared values. For true discrimination to exist, there has to be a collective social attitude toward that generalization. And naturally, that attitude can be directed at an entire community, not just one person.

Discrimination is really just a generalization that society, politics, or some individual decides isn't acceptable anymore.

Chloe Flores40 said:Just adding to your signature here🙂
better to be a little stupid than a little smart!

Basically, a tiny sample size means way less accuracy... I guess we're on the same page now!

I don't think so. 😁

There are plenty of Leftists out there to pull a sample size just as large as any other study. It makes no difference.

Chloe Flores40 said:But if the data shows that lefties only make up like 15% of the population!!! how can you still claim they're "BETTER"? I guess I'm saying it's just because all the righties are swallowed up in that massive 85% majority!

so what I'm trying to say is that 15% of lefties isn't really a big enough sample size to conclude they're actually more intelligent!

I mean, I just think they're "weirdos" since most of them act that way anyway!🙂

just a total mess of a Leftist😛 😁

Everything is based on relatively small samples. You don't actually think any study can account for billions of conservatives, right? Even the most massive psychology studies ever conducted usually cover maybe a million people at most; most research relies on "tiny" groups. For a sample to be useful, it just needs to be representative—meaning it serves as a fair average for the target group.

How much they represent in the total population doesn't matter at all.

Drew Peterson61 said:God, what a load of nonsense! I mean, I guess I could probably train myself to write with my right hand too, but it’s not about practice—it’s about what actually feels natural to you. Anyway, speaking as a lefty myself here... I feel like my perception is better than average, I've always been drawn to art, and I'm definitely hyperactive. I think those things actually hold water. As far as IQ goes, sure, not every lefty is sitting at a 140, but about 30% of Mensa members are left-handed even though we make up less than 10% of the population. So, I guess the statistics do suggest we might be a bit sharper. But there are definitely downsides to this "specialness." I struggle to focus, I tend to skim through tasks instead of being thorough, and I can spend hours lost in a daydream which just kills my productivity. Plus, I'm disorganized and a bit clumsy. These are all classic lefty traits, so we just have to deal with them, along with all that gear like scissors and various drawer handles that are designed exclusively for righties as if they're the only ones on the planet using them.

Maybe you guys are just clumsy and couldn't make it in football, so you had to glue yourselves to a book instead.😬

Just kidding. I doubt that's it; I just wanted to point out that cause and effect isn't always that simple.😳

Ryan Murphy said:I know a few lefties, and I guess they all have this thing in common where their artistic talent seems way more developed than the average person's.

Everyone supposedly has some talent that stands out from the crowd.😛 😁

I'm not saying liberals lack certain traits, but why does nobody offer anything more substantial than just knowing a handful of people? It’s too easy to get tripped up by subjective judgments, biases, or those "self-fulfilling prophecies" we always talk about.🤷

rustylynx70 said:We just hold our utensils opposite to our dominant hand. Taste buds stay put where they belong, but the brain is what sends out the impulses; there are actually studies on this stuff...😍

That doesn't really track. I haven't noticed right-handed people losing their sense of smell or taste just because they used their left hand. What impulses are we talking about? 😵 🙂 🤷

I mean, anything is possible. It wouldn't be the first time a study turned up something completely counterintuitive, but I’d love to see the data first. 😁

Larry Walker24 said:Yeah, I am; those PBS links are always weird.

Just some guy from Index.

The UN Security Council has threatened sanctions against Sudan and South Sudan if the violence continues.

A unanimously passed resolution calls on both countries to continue negotiations regarding disputed issues over the next two weeks, as recent fighting has spiked fears of an all-out war breaking out, according to the BBC.

As a reminder, South Sudan gained independence last year following a secession referendum, but several territorial disputes and disagreements over how to split oil reserves remain unresolved.

The resolution, drafted by the USA, supports the African Union's border divisions. This division is intended to end the conflict and push both nations back to the negotiating table. It also calls on both sides to unconditionally withdraw their troops to their own territory and cease fire. Both parties must also provide written confirmation that they will stop fighting within the next 48 hours.

The resolution includes a section urging Sudan and South Sudan to settle their disputes through talks and reach an agreement within the next three months. If either side fails to comply with the resolution, the UN will respond with "additional measures," meaning sanctions that exclude military intervention.

Anyway, I finally figured out that quote thing! To be honest, I haven't even been paying attention to those symbols at the top before.

I'm a biologist and a chemist; the only thing I actually know how to do on a computer is launch a game, hop on YouTube, or browse the web. Everything else is basically sci-fi to me.

🤣

So, have you been retired for the last ten years or something? 😬

hiddenpanther56 said:In what way would honey actually be more beneficial?

It’s got extra nutrients; it isn't just pure sugar. Now, whether there's enough in there to make a real difference or if it has other benefits is a whole different conversation. At the end of the day, sugar is sugar, even when it's in honey. I'm not entirely sure how much of a practical difference it makes, but it occurred to me that it could be an alternative for certain syrups, assuming the author prefers that kind of option.🤷

Carl Cox3 said:I don't buy the idea that they are more intelligent. I know several liberals, and just one of them could arguably be called smart, though even he isn't anything special. The rest are failures who barely scraped through high school before dropping out of college; you can tell from talking to them that intelligence isn't their strong suit. It seems like liberals become liberals because their brains are wired backward. Essentially, what we consider left-brain functions are right-brain for them, and vice versa.
As for those supposedly highly intelligent liberals, I think it's nothing more than a coincidence.

That's not necessarily true. I was talking about things like the language center. In right-handed people, it's always on one specific side. In lefties, it might be on the opposite side, but it doesn't have to be. As far as I know, science hasn't actually settled that debate yet.

Do you have any actual research to back those claims up? 🤔

From what I understand, the whole left-handed phenomenon isn't exactly a settled science. In the specific studies I've come across, there's a notable difference in how language centers are organized compared to right-handers. It’s not just about them being on the opposite side of the brain; unlike right-handers, their language processing isn't always localized to one specific spot—it can shift 🤔 I'm sure there's plenty of more detailed material out there...

The differences you're pointing out feel a bit too much like "common sense" to be scientifically grounded. Even when differences do exist, they're usually nowhere near as extreme as the claim that everyone has a 140 IQ. Honestly, the whole thing sounds like an urban legend to me. I’d need to see something more concrete than just assumptions; surely this is a phenomenon that's been studied enough to yield some real data 🤷

Can you swap it out for honey? At its core, it's still just sugar, but let's pretend we're being a bit more health-conscious 😁Only if you don't boil it, otherwise it's no good 🤔

Henry Edwards33 said:Let's just hope that training didn't end up doing some permanent damage 😢

Well, I haven't started shaving or wearing lace underwear yet, so... 🤣

ruggedcyclist74 said:Thanks for the heads up. 👍

You can clearly see how feminine it looks. 😂:lotl::lotl:

🙂:

ruggedcyclist74 said:Ozzy, how about you ditch that feminine avatar so you can stop misleading everyone? 😉 🙂

🙂:

Your old man is the one looking feminine. 🙂

ozzy 😍

ruggedcyclist74 said:And wouldn't you just love to go into hiding right about now? 🙂

Nah, I can't say that. I've got too much respect for the working class. 🤣

Henry Edwards33 said:What are you still doing up at this hour? 😳

ruggedcyclist74, bluemason3 is a guy. 😉

And now I'm off to check if they actually answered the question. 🤣

Man, I wonder how much of a person can actually be left after years of being broken down by the grind. 😢
🤣

Henry Edwards33 said:

Going green is always a nice sentiment, provided you can actually pull it off... 😍

😍

Linda Price5 said:There is also such a thing as politically incorrect satire—the kind that is actually intelligent, witty, and far from primitive. 🙂

The problem is you're trying to force political correctness based entirely on your own subjective idea of what counts as "crude" or not. That doesn't work. If you insist on a rigid interpretation of the rules, you can't just arbitrarily decide to draw the line whenever something happens to rub you the wrong way. 😉