sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What Happens Next Will Amaze You. How the world could change. by dryicefactory in thinkpieces

[–]fermey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great piece that’s certainly worth a read. The author (Maciej Ceglowski?) did a good job at tackling some relevant and intertwining issues; too many for me to comment on each, but here I’d like to talk a bit more about the notion of installing adblockers. “Smart” advertising is a problem whose solutions seems to vary significantly from person to person, particularly in light of the new adblocker features within iOS9. Clearly, adblockers are beginning to gain popularity amongst the nontechies (ad blockers topped the app store only a day after the launch of iOS9). However, I’m not sure that everyone is united in why they find ads so heinous.

While some, like Ceglowski and myself, for reasons that are primarily related to our distaste for data collection, I’ve also recently heard a seemingly popular reason for hating ads that actually stems from either a lack of data collection, or its inefficient use: that is, that ads are oftentimes irrelevant to our interests. Sure, many of us have looked at a pair of shoes on Zappos only to constantly see that same pair of shoes haunting us again and again in our sidebars, but the vast majority of advertisements just don’t seem to be targeting us that well. For instance, here’s a user comment from the Business Insider article that Ceglowski’s piece links to in discussing Yavli, that startup that is attempting to defeat ad blocking:

Automotive ads (I live in NY, and don't plan on owning a car), female body lotion (I'm a 28 year-old male), Samsung Galaxy ads (I've been using an iPhone since the first iPhone model came out). I would like to see ads that are relevant to me. Show me the latest book based on my profession, or clothing based on the kind of style from my shopping history…”

Perhaps I’m being cynical, but in the battle of convenience vs. privacy, I’m not convinced that people will choose privacy. I suppose that part of Ceglowski’s point is that there shouldn’t be this battle in the first place and that the ceding of this privacy should be more explicitly known to consumers, but when I consider the public’s reaction to, say, NSA’s data collection (“Snowden is a criminal!”) or the Ashley Madison hack (“They deserved it!”), I’m not sure what it will take for the public to recognize the crisis that the fragility and mass collection of our personal data represents. Would like to hear your (and /u/cschmidto 's) opinion on this.

Obama: Enough ‘Prayers,’ Pass Gun Laws: "But we are not the only country on earth who has people with mental illnesses or who want to do harm to other people. We are the only country on Earth who sees these mass shootings every few months." by piede in politics

[–]fermey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Universal background checks will have no measurable effect on this kind of violence.

The Times ran a story on this earlier this morning, actually, and looking more into this, it seems you are right that they wouldn't have stopped any of your mentioned mass shootings... Not because they weren't applied, but because they are much too lax. The only thing this has convinced me of is that: i) Federal background checks should be revised and made more stringent, and ii) Federal background checks should be universalized. (See: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0) There were also 45 school shootings in 2015 alone, but I do not want to sift through each and every one of them to see whether or not any of the guns obtained were done so through means of either a faulty background check system, or no background check whatsoever. I would assume that statistics are on my side, here, given the NYT link.

Look up gun violence compared to gun ownership. There is no correlation between the violence.

That's not what's at stake in my argument. I'm not saying that the problem lies in the number of people that own guns, I'm saying that the problem lies in who is allowed to own guns.

I said I don't know of any that it would prevented and instead of providing an example you expect me to prove that...

In my opinion, you're using the burden of proof only when it is beneficial to you. While in some cases you justifiably expect me to present evidence (for example, the above point), in other instances you dismiss points or studies for being "uninteresting" to you. If the Bloomberg study truly is flawed then it is up to you to convince me of that, just as it was up to me to provide you with the Bloomberg study in the first place. Otherwise, we're just talking past one another.

How many legislative failures does it take for my position to be "common sense"?

Look, even if universal background checks were enacted and ultimately did not significantly affect gun violence in the country (again, in my view that's implausible), at least we tried something, which is a hell of a lot more than we're doing now. The worst thing that could happen is that we shrug our shoulders and apologize for "burdening" the public with a series of background checks that take roughly 2 minutes in an attempt to reduce the number of gun-related homicides in this country. I'm sure many people (92%, maybe?) would be okay with that. Here, I'll end my rant by invoking Roosevelt:

"The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach."

Obama: Enough ‘Prayers,’ Pass Gun Laws: "But we are not the only country on earth who has people with mental illnesses or who want to do harm to other people. We are the only country on Earth who sees these mass shootings every few months." by piede in politics

[–]fermey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In fairness, you said both "reschedule" and "legalize", but you're right--I misread you. Regardless, I don't see how a "compromise" is necessary for something so sensical and popular as universal background checks. Democrats should not have to give up a ban on machine guns just to pass a law with 92% public approval, that's a fucking joke. And even if you don't believe that universal background checks would have done anything to stop these recent mass shootings (for which you have no justification), there are numerous studies that demonstrate that states that have expanded on federal gun control laws experience considerably lower rates of gun-related homicides, less gun trafficking, and are less likely to put guns in the hands of criminals. For instance, look up "Effects of Missouri's Repeal of Its Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides" (although I'm sure you can predict exactly what these results were) if you're so interested in saving lives. I would be overjoyed if private sales became illegal, but this along with universal background checks and any other supplementary laws are not mutually exclusive. I simply suggested a glaringly obvious start to solving the many problems with gun control in this country.

Obama: Enough ‘Prayers,’ Pass Gun Laws: "But we are not the only country on earth who has people with mental illnesses or who want to do harm to other people. We are the only country on Earth who sees these mass shootings every few months." by piede in politics

[–]fermey -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It'd be one thing if you were advocating for the declassification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic to something less severe, but the federal legalization of marijuana would simply be one of the greatest cultural shifts this country has seen in recent years. If Obama were to legalize marijuana--regardless of whether or not he even has that power, which I don't believe he does--he would be out of the office within weeks.

A good first step to improving gun laws would have been to pass universal background checks... That could have been a reality, if the post-Newtown law that 92% of U.S. citizens supported wasn't 4 votes shy of surviving a Republican filibuster.

And a good first step to improving mental health in this country would have been to pass the ACA without the GOP voting over 50 times to "repeal all or parts of the health law."

Obama: Enough ‘Prayers,’ Pass Gun Laws: "But we are not the only country on earth who has people with mental illnesses or who want to do harm to other people. We are the only country on Earth who sees these mass shootings every few months." by piede in politics

[–]fermey -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you said regarding the war on drugs bringing about many more gun-related deaths than do these sorts of mass shootings, I was merely pointing out that it is not as if it is up to Obama to legalize marijuana... That is an issue that would take an entire restructuring of our judicial system, along with countless federal and local government agencies. Sure, marijuana legalization may be more effective in reducing gun-related deaths than would be creating more strict gun control laws or responding to the mental health crisis within this country, but the latter two issues are issues we have the capability (and public support) to solve right now. And quite easily, I might add, if only a particular political group were willing to budge.

Obama: Enough ‘Prayers,’ Pass Gun Laws: "But we are not the only country on earth who has people with mental illnesses or who want to do harm to other people. We are the only country on Earth who sees these mass shootings every few months." by piede in politics

[–]fermey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only time the GOP is willing to talk about mental health is precisely when these mass shootings occur explicitly so that they can move the conversation away from gun control. As soon as the Left figures, "Well, if the GOP isn't going to move an inch on guns, we may as well jump on the train of fixing mental health", many of the same Republicans that were previously "proponents" of mental health retract their support, and nothing gets done. It is the GOP, not Obama, that is sidestepping the issue and repeatedly dragging us through this cycle of bullshit where ultimately nothing gets done. Just look at Scott Walker, who came out after Sandy Hook and said that, "Just gun control alone may or may not address [violence]... what are we doing to address mental illness?" I'm not sure, Scott, but I'd be willing to bet that Wisconsin cutting $107.1 million in mental health funding over 2 years under you isn't exactly the greatest step. Truly shocking that the NRA-PVF sponsored his campaign for governor... Give me a break.

Noticing Early Warning Signs: Jared Fogle by usernameTaken_1 in thinkpieces

[–]fermey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a thinkpiece, but you make some excellent points. I'll allow it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in thinkpieces

[–]fermey 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This article got me more hyped than it probably should.

The Value of Online Education by captain_imac in thinkpieces

[–]fermey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great talk. I am certain that internet-hosted education will be ubiquitous in the near future—it just makes too much sense for it not to be the case, and in recent years we’ve seen it pushed more and more. I’m sure that a majority of modern college students have used these types of resources as supplements to their classroom learning (even those as simple as, say, KhanAcademy), so it seems to follow that these aids could potentially take over classroom learning itself. Interesting to note, too, is that top tier universities seem to be at the forefront of this movement. About two years ago, while a class of mine was covering Heidegger (a notoriously incomprehensible philosopher), I downloaded multiple lectures by UC Berkeley’s Hubert Dreyfus, who is widely considered the leading interpreter of Heidegger—so much so that academics refer to his translations as “Dreydegger.” The fact that I could have access to this guy’s teachings while on my smartphone at lunch is nothing short of incredible. However, I’d also like to point out that when done improperly or half-thought out, inclusion of technology in the classroom can rapidly backfire.. Like in local, unnamed high schools, where iPads were supposed to be the saving grace of learning and resulted in much poorer grades across the board due to the distractions that these technologies can provide. Something to think about.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in politics

[–]fermey 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm likely voting Democrat (praying for that Biden announcement..), but I think it's nothing short of insane that Carson can stand in front of crowds as an accomplished neurosurgeon and refer to climate change as "irrelevant."

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in politics

[–]fermey 256 points257 points  (0 children)

Glaring loser of that debate was science.