Our emotions are the fickle aspect of out short human existence. They override rational judgement and throw our minds into chaos, for good or ill. They make us feel love, hate, happiness, sorrow, satisfaction, and anger. Controlling those feelings is often one of the greatest tests in endurance that one can face.
How we react to a situation is a major test in character, especially in one with negative connotations. Those emotions throw is into more chaos and dig deeper into our emotional well being; as well as how others react to you. In the heat of the moment, there is almost no good way to burn them out, and they linger for the longest time.
However, there are times where they do need to be confronted with the offending party. It's not always a pleasant experience, and may not you the way you want, but it's better then letting it build you like an over inflated ballon.
I would say though that this often a two-fold circumstance. Whether or not you believe your words are offensive and that other person is over reacting, if behooves you to understand their side of it. Your reaction is just as important as theirs; and because this has often been over looked, we can find the seeds of much of human conflict.
I write, not just as a means off getting this discussion off my chest, but as an idea people should look closer at. Our reactions, without thought, have been the source of many of problems (though not all). And don't damn yourself for having a poor response to a situation, life is about learning, and not learning from our mistakes is the greatest failure of them all.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
A Quick Thought: YouTube, The Discussion is Over
YouTube, once the haven for creative minds, an open space where one could create and share, has finally begun closing the last doors on that dream. Just this week, YouTube has rolled out new regulations restricting "gun" content on the site. Instead opening the door to discussion, they have closed it and has made it quite clear that there will be no debate.
To make it clear, gun channels aren't the only ones effected by YouTube's new regulations. These include both Liberal and Conservative channels that YouTube likely deems too controversial. It is clear that they are trying to push a new image, an image to attract advertisers. This isn't some giant conspiracy by the left or the right, it's about setting an image, and that image is one that is safe and makes them money.
Guns are their newest target line stretching back to their fist efforts to wipe out copyright infringement. The later was a noble goal, copyright is important to respect, but their efforts (and lack of oversight) often negatively effected reviewers who were covered by Fair Use (more on that at a later date). As for guns, the vast majority of these channels (which vary greatly in format) are enthusiasts, many provide education both in safety and history, not encouraging gun violence.
While the recent shooting in Florida is definitely the catalyst for this new assault on gun channels, again it is part of YouTube's rebranding. This effort is likely to be their downfall, when your try to build interest in your product, the last thing you should do is alienate your audience. Instead of working with these people, they've been branded, in essence, villains are and slowly being pushed off the boat.
One part of this new regulation prohibits links to sites that sell firearms. Many gun shops are small businesses, not large corporations like Google. Many don't just sell guns, but also provide education in gun safety, hunter courses, self-defense courses, and some even have indoor ranges. They also support sporting leagues and shooting competitions. I would encourage anyone to go to a gun store and inquire about the services they provide and you would be surprised about what actually goes on there.
However, YouTube will continue to alienate it's user base and kill the soul that once made it great. Other sites will rise up and fill the gap. They've made it quite clear, through their algorithms and inability to converse with the people who made them great in the first place, the discussion is over.
YouTube's new Policies:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en
To make it clear, gun channels aren't the only ones effected by YouTube's new regulations. These include both Liberal and Conservative channels that YouTube likely deems too controversial. It is clear that they are trying to push a new image, an image to attract advertisers. This isn't some giant conspiracy by the left or the right, it's about setting an image, and that image is one that is safe and makes them money.
Guns are their newest target line stretching back to their fist efforts to wipe out copyright infringement. The later was a noble goal, copyright is important to respect, but their efforts (and lack of oversight) often negatively effected reviewers who were covered by Fair Use (more on that at a later date). As for guns, the vast majority of these channels (which vary greatly in format) are enthusiasts, many provide education both in safety and history, not encouraging gun violence.
While the recent shooting in Florida is definitely the catalyst for this new assault on gun channels, again it is part of YouTube's rebranding. This effort is likely to be their downfall, when your try to build interest in your product, the last thing you should do is alienate your audience. Instead of working with these people, they've been branded, in essence, villains are and slowly being pushed off the boat.
One part of this new regulation prohibits links to sites that sell firearms. Many gun shops are small businesses, not large corporations like Google. Many don't just sell guns, but also provide education in gun safety, hunter courses, self-defense courses, and some even have indoor ranges. They also support sporting leagues and shooting competitions. I would encourage anyone to go to a gun store and inquire about the services they provide and you would be surprised about what actually goes on there.
However, YouTube will continue to alienate it's user base and kill the soul that once made it great. Other sites will rise up and fill the gap. They've made it quite clear, through their algorithms and inability to converse with the people who made them great in the first place, the discussion is over.
YouTube's new Policies:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en
Thursday, January 11, 2018
A New Year Reintroduction
It's New Year, so let me reintroduce the blog the world...
Welcome to the "Mental Rambler", a blog were we discuss topics from religion and politics to video games and movies, and everything in between. Feel free to discuss the topics in the comments section or on the Facebook page; https://www.facebook.com/Blacksword4/ ; please be thoughtful and respectful with your comments.
This blog is opinion, I provide facts to back up those opinions, but please that in your mind while reading. My goal is to get people to think and consider other view points on a wide verity of topics. In this day and age of social media, it is important to think clearly and objectively, rather than letting your emotions run wild, and too often, that is is case on places like Facebook and Twitter.
I do apologize for the random schedule of posts, however with a full time job at my family's print shop; http://gatewayprinting.org/ , and a novel, the frequency of which I post is a bit... random... However, I should have at least one article posted per month.
Also, check out my art blog, "The Printed Rambler". I don't post there with the greatest frequency, there are some interesting topics there. I also plan to start posting some of my photography there in the near future.
http://theprintedrambler.blogspot.com/
If your interested in more in depth discussion about film, check out the "The Movie Musers". A burgeoning YouTube channel started by me and some friends where talk about movies.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEwXnCkj7_s6ljBCi8bfDSA
Once Again, Welcome to the Mental Rambler and Happy New Year!
Welcome to the "Mental Rambler", a blog were we discuss topics from religion and politics to video games and movies, and everything in between. Feel free to discuss the topics in the comments section or on the Facebook page; https://www.facebook.com/Blacksword4/ ; please be thoughtful and respectful with your comments.
This blog is opinion, I provide facts to back up those opinions, but please that in your mind while reading. My goal is to get people to think and consider other view points on a wide verity of topics. In this day and age of social media, it is important to think clearly and objectively, rather than letting your emotions run wild, and too often, that is is case on places like Facebook and Twitter.
I do apologize for the random schedule of posts, however with a full time job at my family's print shop; http://gatewayprinting.org/ , and a novel, the frequency of which I post is a bit... random... However, I should have at least one article posted per month.
Also, check out my art blog, "The Printed Rambler". I don't post there with the greatest frequency, there are some interesting topics there. I also plan to start posting some of my photography there in the near future.
http://theprintedrambler.blogspot.com/
If your interested in more in depth discussion about film, check out the "The Movie Musers". A burgeoning YouTube channel started by me and some friends where talk about movies.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEwXnCkj7_s6ljBCi8bfDSA
Once Again, Welcome to the Mental Rambler and Happy New Year!
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Quick Thought: A Discussion On the Tolkien
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.” - J.R.R. Tolkien
The quote above is one of the more famous lines written by Tolkien in his writing. The meaning of the phrase, in simpler terms, is a love for a cause that someone stands up for, not the weapons with which they fight. One could this attribute to a writer to stands up for a cause; "I do not love the pen for it's fineness, nor the computer for it's speed, nor the writer for his language, I love only that which they defend." A simple and easy to understand sentence, but with great depth and meaning.
However, recently a friend of mine called the quote "bull#*!@" in a conversation over my own fascination with the history warfare and weapons. Tolkien himself put great detail in his stories on the weapons used, giving them names and unique histories, and describing their connection to major characters. If you read the "Lord of the Rings", "The Silmarillion", or "The Hobbit", is the focus on the weapons or what they do with those weapons?
In those stories, the characters are defending their homes, friends, and loved ones against tyrannical foes who would destroy them or force them into slavery. We read about their acts of heroism in the face overwhelming odds, fighting for the freedom of others. We admire their weapons and their courage, and love what they fight for.
Tolkien fought in the First World War, in that war he probably saw horrors one couldn't imagine. He could admire the bravery that a soldier showed in the face of battle, or the technological advancement of the weapons; but love that they fought for their friends and a cause they believed in. When you think about that quote in that context, as well as his work as a whole, the quote's meaning comes to light. Just like Frodo and Sam marching through Mordor to save their home and loved ones, or Glorfindel defending his people from a balorg during the Fall of Gondolin. They did heroic deeds, but it was what they defended we love.
Tolkien's legendarium was clearly inspired by the horrors of World War I, not just his love of norse mythology. In his writing, the wars of Middle-Earth and Beleriand are not glorious, but bloody, disgusting, and horrifying, not glorifying battle. The weapons in his writing have names and descriptions, but that is to provide depth and history, his real focus is on the characters and their sacrifices, drawing inspiration from his wartime experience; the Fall of Gondolin, was written after fighting at the Battle of the Somme, and the "Dead Marshes" are directly inspired by battlefield in it's aftermath.
In my own opinion, this quote encompasses all of Tolkien's works, not a glorification of swords and battle, but a love of ones fellow man. Calling it "bull#*!@" is an act of ignorance and lack of understanding, the swords are part of the story, but they are not the meaning of the stories. However, we should also look at this quote along side another of his, perhaps encompassing the entirety of his world view; “If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.”
Tolkien's legendarium was clearly inspired by the horrors of World War I, not just his love of norse mythology. In his writing, the wars of Middle-Earth and Beleriand are not glorious, but bloody, disgusting, and horrifying, not glorifying battle. The weapons in his writing have names and descriptions, but that is to provide depth and history, his real focus is on the characters and their sacrifices, drawing inspiration from his wartime experience; the Fall of Gondolin, was written after fighting at the Battle of the Somme, and the "Dead Marshes" are directly inspired by battlefield in it's aftermath.
In my own opinion, this quote encompasses all of Tolkien's works, not a glorification of swords and battle, but a love of ones fellow man. Calling it "bull#*!@" is an act of ignorance and lack of understanding, the swords are part of the story, but they are not the meaning of the stories. However, we should also look at this quote along side another of his, perhaps encompassing the entirety of his world view; “If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.”
References:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/inside-first-world-war/part-two/10356085/jrr-tolkien-war.html
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Fall_of_Gondolin
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Glorfindel
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5686-if-more-of-us-valued-food-and-cheer-and-song
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Fall_of_Gondolin
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Glorfindel
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5686-if-more-of-us-valued-food-and-cheer-and-song
Monday, October 16, 2017
Is the Prime Directive Good or Terrible
Star Trek's "Prime Directive", also known as "Directive Number One", is one of, if not the most important rule within Starfleet and the Federation, in the series. The idea was that of noninterference with civilizations at a lesser state of cultural and technological development. It stems back to points in human history when interference by European cultures made contact with technologically less advanced cultures in the Americas with results. As well as also being a way prevent the exploitation of those people for selfish means, such as resources and labor. Even in the modern day this is true, when a nation's belief in it's own morally superiority resulted in them forcing political and economic ideals on another nation without understanding its people's culture or history.
In the Next Generation episode, "Symbiosis", Picard (Patrick Stewart) is quoted; "The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous" (Memory Alpha).
When Columbus came to the Americas in the 1400s, it set off a chain reaction that would result in war, disease, death, and enslavement of the native peoples. The "Columbian Exchange" brought European diseases such as Smallpox, which the native people had no immunity to. Eventually these colonies would rebel and win their freedom from Europe, but only after years of blood shed and death, and exploitation of their natural resources. In a modern example, our support of rebel forces opposed to Muammar Gaddafi during the Libyan Civil War resulted in a fracturing of the country and another civil war that has lasted since 2014. While trying to rid a country of a brutal dictator is a noble goal (though a root cause of the intervention was oil), but without an understanding of the culture, people, and history, you may be opening the proverbial "Pandora's box."
Probably the worst example of American interventionism, and the reason behind the "Prime Directive" was the Vietnam War. This was a war that was the result of our Cold War foreign policy to halt Communism and contain it. As a result, we fought a war that lasted over a decade, resulted in numerous atrocities on both sides, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. With an understanding of the Vietnamese people's desire for freedom, as they had been subjugated for centuries by the Chinese, French, and Japanese, the war may have been avoided.
In the TNG episode "Justice", Picard is quoted saying, "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions" (Memory Alpha). Indeed, the Prime Directive is not entirely absolute, exceptions have been made. In the TNG episode "Pen Pals", Data plays a distress signal from an alien child whose home is threatened by a volcano. Because of that, Picard determines it can’t be ignored, and they interfere.
The Vietnam War, once again, is a great example of the merits of the rule, and the exemption. Asking for help is different than forcing help because you believe that you are morally, culturally, and technologically superior. What right do we have to enforce our ideas upon another people, even if we believe it will be beneficial? Had the U.S. understood Ho Chi Minh's plea (he even read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence) and not blinded by fear of Communism, and as a result backed the French, the outcome might have been different. Like in Japan after WW II, the U.S. could have provided equipment and economic support that may have helped create a more modern society. It would have prevented the ineffectual and corrupt program of "Pacification" in the South, and the brutal land reforms, that left thousands dead, in the north, as well as the war.
I have heard the idea of “what if” considered stupid, however, not considering the possibilities is a sign of ignorance. Taking risks is not bad and may yield beneficial results, but you should consider the consequences. You may help a Medieval level society cure a plague, but soon they may become dependent upon you. You can tech them how to prevent disease, but you have stunted their own technological and cultural growth. You may change their entire identity as a people, destroying a unique idea that may have come later in their history and benefited many. You may also give technology to a people who use it to commit acts of violence.
The "Prime Directive", like all human laws, is imperfect, but tries to curb human behavior that might be devastating if left unchecked, even if it is benevolent. Our history has countless examples of people being devastated as a result of human greed and ignorance. The worst example of this was known as "The White Man's Burden", creating the horrors of 19th Century Colonialism. The law is based on the idea that people have the right to determine their own destiny, should they ask for help, we provide to the extent they desire, and freedom of self-determination is the most sacred right of any human.
References:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Directive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%93present)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Exchange
In the Next Generation episode, "Symbiosis", Picard (Patrick Stewart) is quoted; "The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous" (Memory Alpha).
When Columbus came to the Americas in the 1400s, it set off a chain reaction that would result in war, disease, death, and enslavement of the native peoples. The "Columbian Exchange" brought European diseases such as Smallpox, which the native people had no immunity to. Eventually these colonies would rebel and win their freedom from Europe, but only after years of blood shed and death, and exploitation of their natural resources. In a modern example, our support of rebel forces opposed to Muammar Gaddafi during the Libyan Civil War resulted in a fracturing of the country and another civil war that has lasted since 2014. While trying to rid a country of a brutal dictator is a noble goal (though a root cause of the intervention was oil), but without an understanding of the culture, people, and history, you may be opening the proverbial "Pandora's box."
Probably the worst example of American interventionism, and the reason behind the "Prime Directive" was the Vietnam War. This was a war that was the result of our Cold War foreign policy to halt Communism and contain it. As a result, we fought a war that lasted over a decade, resulted in numerous atrocities on both sides, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. With an understanding of the Vietnamese people's desire for freedom, as they had been subjugated for centuries by the Chinese, French, and Japanese, the war may have been avoided.
In the TNG episode "Justice", Picard is quoted saying, "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions" (Memory Alpha). Indeed, the Prime Directive is not entirely absolute, exceptions have been made. In the TNG episode "Pen Pals", Data plays a distress signal from an alien child whose home is threatened by a volcano. Because of that, Picard determines it can’t be ignored, and they interfere.
The Vietnam War, once again, is a great example of the merits of the rule, and the exemption. Asking for help is different than forcing help because you believe that you are morally, culturally, and technologically superior. What right do we have to enforce our ideas upon another people, even if we believe it will be beneficial? Had the U.S. understood Ho Chi Minh's plea (he even read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence) and not blinded by fear of Communism, and as a result backed the French, the outcome might have been different. Like in Japan after WW II, the U.S. could have provided equipment and economic support that may have helped create a more modern society. It would have prevented the ineffectual and corrupt program of "Pacification" in the South, and the brutal land reforms, that left thousands dead, in the north, as well as the war.
I have heard the idea of “what if” considered stupid, however, not considering the possibilities is a sign of ignorance. Taking risks is not bad and may yield beneficial results, but you should consider the consequences. You may help a Medieval level society cure a plague, but soon they may become dependent upon you. You can tech them how to prevent disease, but you have stunted their own technological and cultural growth. You may change their entire identity as a people, destroying a unique idea that may have come later in their history and benefited many. You may also give technology to a people who use it to commit acts of violence.
The "Prime Directive", like all human laws, is imperfect, but tries to curb human behavior that might be devastating if left unchecked, even if it is benevolent. Our history has countless examples of people being devastated as a result of human greed and ignorance. The worst example of this was known as "The White Man's Burden", creating the horrors of 19th Century Colonialism. The law is based on the idea that people have the right to determine their own destiny, should they ask for help, we provide to the extent they desire, and freedom of self-determination is the most sacred right of any human.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Directive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%93present)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Exchange
Friday, October 6, 2017
Shootings & Gun Control
In every tragedy, we look at something to blame, we want something tangible to take our anger out on. After the Columbine Shooting in 1999, one of the scapegoats was the video game "Doom", a violent first person shooter (FPS) released in 1993. The perpetrators of the horrific crime were known fans of the game, and supposedly even created a custom .WAD file that was a complete layout of the school with the monsters modified to look like students (this turned out to be no more than a myth). Evidence would later reveal that bullying played a major role in their motivation, yet an inanimate object with no malicious intent was still blamed.
Why do we look to blame entertainment, guns, flags, ect... as the cause of these tragedies? My theory is that we humans don't want to look inward, we don't want to face the darker recesses of our minds, we want to pretend that, that side doesn't exist in most of us. We want to believe that an inanimate object influenced an action and removing that item will eliminate the threat. All that does is put a bandaid over the problem, banning guns might lower the statistics of gun violence, but it doesn't provide a cure.
The discussion of Gun Control shouldn't be looked at as a dirty one. The left needs to stop the "ban all guns" rhetoric and the right needs to stop the "don't take my guns" rhetoric. The result of those arguments being shouted is a partisan and emotional situation that goes nowhere and doesn't create a solution, a true solution comes from compromise. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, anything removed from that part of the Constitution would set a precedent for modifying other parts of those scared rights, including the 1st. The likeliness of it being removed is nil, so take that off the table. A licensing system would be a good compromise, and while one shouldn't have to pay to exercise a right, we need a solution that doesn't punish people who did nothing wrong.
Even that is only a temporary solution, violence will only be curbed, not stopped. Again, we to travel to those darker parts of our mind to find a solution. When we look into the eyes of these criminals, do we not just fear them for their actions, but do we also fear them because we fear we may also be capable of the same thing? The vast majority of us have a moral code, we think about doing something bad, but that little voice in our head tells us, that is wrong. This code may vary from person to person, but the basic concept is there. Without it, we're no different than animals, acting on impulse rather than reason.
We are also the sum of our experiences, and those experiences influence how we react to situations, they influence that internal moral code. If someone commits a crime and you look at their background, you'll probably be able to trace back and figure out why they committed that crime, what influenced them.
Trying to improve education, helping people out of poverty, prison reform, and greater awareness of mental heath, along side curbing the sale of illegal firearms are solutions, but not one that is 100%.
The unfortunate truth is, even we come to an understanding of those darker places, we won't even have a full solution to the problem. Humans are unpredictable creatures and we can not calculate how each individual person will turnout. That is not to say we should just give up, that would be foolish. But for us to go on blaming inanimate objects, even guns, is also foolish. We're just putting a bandaid over a scapegoat so that we feel better. We need to look at out culture and assess if what we're doing is right, and maybe then, we'll find a solution.
Why do we look to blame entertainment, guns, flags, ect... as the cause of these tragedies? My theory is that we humans don't want to look inward, we don't want to face the darker recesses of our minds, we want to pretend that, that side doesn't exist in most of us. We want to believe that an inanimate object influenced an action and removing that item will eliminate the threat. All that does is put a bandaid over the problem, banning guns might lower the statistics of gun violence, but it doesn't provide a cure.
The discussion of Gun Control shouldn't be looked at as a dirty one. The left needs to stop the "ban all guns" rhetoric and the right needs to stop the "don't take my guns" rhetoric. The result of those arguments being shouted is a partisan and emotional situation that goes nowhere and doesn't create a solution, a true solution comes from compromise. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, anything removed from that part of the Constitution would set a precedent for modifying other parts of those scared rights, including the 1st. The likeliness of it being removed is nil, so take that off the table. A licensing system would be a good compromise, and while one shouldn't have to pay to exercise a right, we need a solution that doesn't punish people who did nothing wrong.
Even that is only a temporary solution, violence will only be curbed, not stopped. Again, we to travel to those darker parts of our mind to find a solution. When we look into the eyes of these criminals, do we not just fear them for their actions, but do we also fear them because we fear we may also be capable of the same thing? The vast majority of us have a moral code, we think about doing something bad, but that little voice in our head tells us, that is wrong. This code may vary from person to person, but the basic concept is there. Without it, we're no different than animals, acting on impulse rather than reason.
We are also the sum of our experiences, and those experiences influence how we react to situations, they influence that internal moral code. If someone commits a crime and you look at their background, you'll probably be able to trace back and figure out why they committed that crime, what influenced them.
Trying to improve education, helping people out of poverty, prison reform, and greater awareness of mental heath, along side curbing the sale of illegal firearms are solutions, but not one that is 100%.
The unfortunate truth is, even we come to an understanding of those darker places, we won't even have a full solution to the problem. Humans are unpredictable creatures and we can not calculate how each individual person will turnout. That is not to say we should just give up, that would be foolish. But for us to go on blaming inanimate objects, even guns, is also foolish. We're just putting a bandaid over a scapegoat so that we feel better. We need to look at out culture and assess if what we're doing is right, and maybe then, we'll find a solution.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
An Apology for my Comments
Yesterday was a whirlwind of emotion for everyone, one of the worst shootings in American history. When I see a disaster happen, I will always look for the truth, and try to assess the situation to it's fullest, however I am subject to the emotions caused by and my political leanings, as much as I try to curb.
My apology is for those who were offended to my reactions to an Onion article posted by "Star Trek". actor Will Wheaton. The article (linked below) entitled "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens", uses the same text four times with changes in image and names in the text.
To me, the Onion, is a news site used for humor, not for real news and political commentary. To me, it appeared insulting to use one of their articles during a tragedy (this is the site that posted pieces on Biden selling Pot and Tim Kaine shoving crackers into a voting machine). The addition of blaming the NRA (who I've seen yet to even issue a statement or mentioned in the Onion piece) by saying "Fuck the NRA" just seemed like unwarranted attack, even against a group I don't support.
My response to this is not in keeping with my own personal rules on discussing politics and lowered myself to the level the troll. It also is not in keeping with the message of this blog, which is to provide my opinions in an eloquent manor and promote intelligent civil discourse.
Again, I apologize, my comments were offensive, and,I was error in my interpretation of the article; I have since deleted those posts.
Thank you.
Link:
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
My apology is for those who were offended to my reactions to an Onion article posted by "Star Trek". actor Will Wheaton. The article (linked below) entitled "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens", uses the same text four times with changes in image and names in the text.
To me, the Onion, is a news site used for humor, not for real news and political commentary. To me, it appeared insulting to use one of their articles during a tragedy (this is the site that posted pieces on Biden selling Pot and Tim Kaine shoving crackers into a voting machine). The addition of blaming the NRA (who I've seen yet to even issue a statement or mentioned in the Onion piece) by saying "Fuck the NRA" just seemed like unwarranted attack, even against a group I don't support.
My response to this is not in keeping with my own personal rules on discussing politics and lowered myself to the level the troll. It also is not in keeping with the message of this blog, which is to provide my opinions in an eloquent manor and promote intelligent civil discourse.
Again, I apologize, my comments were offensive, and,I was error in my interpretation of the article; I have since deleted those posts.
Thank you.
Link:
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)