Cushman

45 ms·

211.
by Cushman 13y ago
Male sexuality is not about violence, and repression of violence is not repression of male sexuality. Signed, a man.
212.
by Cushman 13y ago
This "defense" misses the point. The gist of the controversial advice is "Don't wait for signs before you make your move. Let her be the one who rejects your advances. If she says no, stop immediately and tell her you d
213.
by Cushman 13y ago
Everyone doesn't agree the Holocaust happened, either. It's not hard to understand why.
214.
by Cushman 13y ago
No. This is ludicrous revisionism, and you should be ashamed for saying it. You do not get to treat a group of people as property for thousands of years, and then when they finally claw a measure of autonomy back from you say, "Well, t
215.
by Cushman 13y ago
> Also, would all women who have seen the full story and context call it assault? Would they call it assault in real life? Probably not. The point of this exercise is to be proactive about not hurting people. "Would they call it ass
216.
by Cushman 13y ago
Just to be clear, because this is something misogynists like to pick on, both matter. The point of this is that you can't assume their consent just because you do. Of course, men who don't have experience with not having the power
217.
by Cushman 13y ago
Women have been the target of systematic oppression for millenia, of which sexual violence has been a primary tool. Are you open to the possibility that that might not be over quite yet? That that might actually be deserving of a little sen
218.
by Cushman 13y ago
What's the inverse of this? "If we cut welfare, the homeless will go somewhere else." Seems legit, but not everyone thinks it's right to export your problems like that. Especially when your problems are poor, sick human
219.
by Cushman 13y ago
No, it's pretty silly. It's effectively saying that the proper way to respond to strain placed on services by the homeless is to reduce the services the homeless have access to. Pragmatism can still be wrongheaded.
220.
by Cushman 13y ago
And? There's a huge gulf between "maybe China will find out if he leaks stuff to the public" (duh) and "maybe he's a Chinese spy." (huh?) Are we supposed to believe that Chinese intelligence has been wringing i
221.
by Cushman 13y ago
Just for people like you: No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists. The things you can learn if you click the link, huh?
222.
by Cushman 13y ago
The term you're looking for is "quote mining". If you take only the most opinionated parts from a large enough corpus, you can make almost anyone seem like an obsessive radical. It's all the more dishonest for that it cl
223.
by Cushman 13y ago
We have come to a weird point in the evolution of the web when people will sincerely say something like, "I was pleasantly surprised to click on that ridiculous link and find no actual content."
224.
by Cushman 13y ago
No. I'm sorry I can't be who you want me to be. You'll just have to find someone else to argue with.
225.
by Cushman 13y ago
Here's a standard for you: Complete honesty. No secrets, period. No classifications. All activities and policies related to national security are a matter of public record by law. What? The intelligence agencies can't operate with
226.
by Cushman 13y ago
Oh, I don't believe you are either-- apologies. But I also believe you see more here than you're letting on, and I'm happy to leave it at that. I think my complaint, such as it is, would not productively be addressed anywhere
227.
by Cushman 13y ago
I never claimed to speak for anyone else. But "I'm just talking about a random blog post" strikes me as rather feeble. I mean, respond to whatever you like. But you would have to be very shortsighted, or very partisan, to loo
228.
by Cushman 13y ago
It's all posturing. There is no way that Snowden is guilty of treason under the Constitution. Bradley Manning under the UCMJ hasn't been charged with treason. It's all posturing. "Authority"? Hell, this entire deb
229.
by Cushman 13y ago
Snowden has also taken "credit" for leaking the Verizon order, though there is speculation on that front. We are to believe there are many more to come. In any event, this isn't about PRISM. This is about what the government
230.
by Cushman 13y ago
> What kind of assurances would you like from the NSA? How can the NSA prove to you that the systems aren't being abused? Frankly, and not to devalue the difficulty of that problem, it's their problem . "It's hard so
231.
by Cushman 13y ago
Again, so? Those people are participating in a sideshow and only matter insofar as they can be used to distract from the conversation we should be having: Public: So, can you not give us any assurances that these systems aren&#x27
232.
by Cushman 13y ago
Your original argument, as I understand it, was that since Snowden made a claim in an interview that was not backed by evidence, and that claim was reported as news by others, current and future accusations against his personal credibility
233.
by Cushman 13y ago
You keep repeating that you think it's relevant. You still haven't actually said how . What difference does it make? Does the public deserve less of an assurance that these systems aren't being abused because one source ma
234.
by Cushman 13y ago
Are you quoting that out of a belief that I haven't seen the interview? I have. I also remember the part, I think immediately after, when he said "I think the public is owed an explanation." Aren't we? How, again, is Sn
235.
by Cushman 13y ago
I think Cincinnati is OH-1/2, Boehner was elected by suburbanites. That aside, they elected him their representative . All of America, through their representatives, elected him Speaker. He's as close to the opposite of a &quot
236.
by Cushman 13y ago
Are you really calling the Speaker of the House, the representative of arguably the most powerful political bloc in the world and second in line for the Presidency, a "random Congressperson"?
237.
by Cushman 13y ago
Has he been asking anyone to take those claims at face value? He claims to want to start a public discussion, and explaining his own motivations is a part of that. So here's how that might go: Public: Is it true that an arbitrary a
238.
by Cushman 13y ago
It makes sense if you realize those statements are (obviously) not written by lawyers to prevent legal challenges, but by Internet users to prevent annoying comments by other Internet users. Although for what it's worth intentional cop
239.
by Cushman 13y ago
If this: > Vocal fry is just another manifestation of "I'm cool because I don't care." is in the spirit of scientific inquiry and not a value judgment, then I probably need to get some fresh air.
240.
by Cushman 13y ago
Absolutely, and I would take jargons as an example. American Legal English is a kind of English, but it's not "real" in the sense that there are ideas in English that it can't properly express, and vice versa, and even skilled legal practit

More ›