HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » beam me up scottie » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »

beam me up scottie

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: The Green Mountain State
Current location: Red state in the bible belt
Member since: Sun Oct 10, 2004, 07:05 PM
Number of posts: 57,349

About Me

Journal Archives

Honeybees let out a whoop when they bump into each other

You can hear them on the video!

"By placing cameras inside the hive, the researchers discovered that the signal often happens when a bee bumps into another bee near the accelerometer, and not when bees are waggle dancing or exchanging food.

“We suggest that, in the majority of instances, it is bees being startled that produce the signal,” says Bencsik. The team propose that instead of the “stop” signal, it should be called the “whooping” signal."

Posted by beam me up scottie | Wed Jul 12, 2017, 08:38 PM (8 replies)

You can characterize pointing out his bigotry as "attacking" him all you like

but those are his posts and no amount of denial is going to make them go away.

Let's review the posts of the Democrat you want me to support unconditionally because he has D behind his name:

Here's where Jon admits he "disagrees with homosexuality":


He refers to transgender girls as 'lady boys', a homophobic slur:


And here is just one of several posts where he refers to black people as 'oreo' which is a racial slur:


And lastly here's the one where he calls Condoleezza Rice an 'oreo' and wants to see her hanged:


Oh and this one is really eye opening, he posted a meme from a tea party website (he seems to like right wing websites and often reposts their articles) that was anti-Democratic and anti-abortion, accusing Dems of being "Brave enough to kill our unborn children but not brave enough to kill our enemies":


Are you really going to pretend those links aren't from Svitavsky's Facebook account? That's an interesting tactic but not very effective when anyone can do a simple search and see for themselves they came from his personal account. The man is a bigot and his views about transgender people and black conservatives are quite clear.

If you don't find Svitavsky's use of bigoted slurs against minorities a good enough reason to oppose him that's fine, its a big tent, but ignoring facts and calling others bigoted simply for pointing out his faults isn't going to dissuade us from posting about them. His posts on social media are fair game and his supporters need to realize they're going to get reposted here and elsewhere. It's not unfair to repeat the man's own words, in fact it's our duty as informed voters to vet our candidates.

I don't tolerate homophobia and racism and I won't apologize for having higher standards than others. I expect more from candidates but I also realize not everyone thinks racism and homophobia are deal breakers.

Enjoy your feisty challenger! Let the vetting begin!

Posted by beam me up scottie | Wed Jul 12, 2017, 07:15 PM (1 replies)

Wait, are you *actually* going to ignore the fact that your candidate used those slurs recently?

Lemme post them again so there's no confusion:

Calls transgender girls 'lady boys' in 2016:


Refers to black people as 'oreo' in 2015:


You said:

"A Facebook post years ago could be disqualifying?

Your standards are...well, extreme. "

I just proved that his use of slurs occurred more recently, your reposting of something he said in 2012 doesn't change that fact.

Personally I don't think expecting a Democratic candidate to NOT USE racist and homophobic slurs on social media is "extreme" but you're welcome to characterize it that way. Not everyone thinks bigotry is a good reason to refuse to support a candidate.

Posted by beam me up scottie | Tue Jul 11, 2017, 04:30 PM (1 replies)

I have no idea what you're talking about. What does abortion have to with this thread?

But as long as you asked, I think pro-life men who shame women by defining abortion as the "taking of another life" (murder) are self-righteous, judgmental, fundamentalist asses.

I also think pro-life men who opine at length about how they are "personally opposed" to abortion and expect us to be grateful because they say they'll 'allow' us to make our own decisions are condescending blowhards. They believe they're entitled to judge us even though they've never known what it's like to worry that a pregnancy might ruin their health or kill them. They're completely clueless and incapable of understanding how terrifying the thought of having a child can be when you're alone and poor.

Pro-life men never attack other men who destroy fertilized embryos because as we all know it's not about the sanctity of life, it's about controlling women's bodies.

I don't think pro-life men have the right to lecture us about our opinions or our decisions. I really don't care about their moral objection to certain medical procedures and I wish they would shut the hell up about it.

Lastly I think it's none of these pro-life men's damned business what we do with our bodies and they should focus on their own reproductive organs. If pro-life men have an overwhelming urge to lecture others about morality they can go after legislators who oppose sex education, easy access to birth control and funding for family planning. Because women who need abortions aren't the ones who are behaving immorally.

I say this as a woman who's had an abortion and refused to allow anyone to shame me for making that decision.

I hope this clears up any confusion about what I think of pro-life men who shame women for having abortions.

You're welcome.
Posted by beam me up scottie | Fri May 12, 2017, 07:21 PM (3 replies)

I recently encountered a bigot who referred to atheism as my "particular religious belief".

Is it worthwhile to engage someone like this or it ultimately futile? On one hand if others are paying attention it might be beneficial to try to discuss this subject but on the other I'm so damned tired of trying to reason with bigots.

How do you handle it when someone deliberately misrepresents atheism just to piss you off?

*Standard disclaimer: This is posted in the Atheists and Agnostics group, a safe haven where we can discuss religion and its effects on society and criticize fundamentalists who are not part of our coalition. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.
Posted by beam me up scottie | Mon May 8, 2017, 02:23 PM (16 replies)

"As my ancestors are free from slavery...

What an amazing woman.

Disclaimer: this is posted in the Atheists and Agnostics group where we're allowed to criticize religion.
Posted by beam me up scottie | Sat May 6, 2017, 11:35 PM (2 replies)

Our "populist senators" haven't been silent.


Posted by beam me up scottie | Thu May 4, 2017, 07:02 PM (1 replies)

Correct - the alt-right, Fox and Trump use it to pretend the left is just as bad as they are.

Introducing the ‘alt-left’: The GOP’s response to its alt-right problem
By Aaron Blake
December 1, 2016 at 1:34 PM

On Wednesday, the conservative-leaning advocacy group One Nation released a statement on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

“Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders Lead Alt-Left in Hijacking of Bipartisan Medical Research Bill,” the subject line read.

Wait. “Alt-left?”

You may have heard of the alt-right — especially in recent weeks as former Breitbart News head Stephen Bannon has been given a top role in shaping President-elect Donald Trump's administration and agenda. There remains plenty of disagreement about what exactly “alt-right” means, but it's a loaded political term carrying connotations of white nationalism and even racism. And thusly, Democrats are gleefully attaching the term to the Trump administration and the Trump-led Republican Party.

The GOP's response: I know you are but what am I. Yep, apparently they're going to start calling what they view as more extreme Democrats the “alt-left.”

The term isn't brand new, but it has just now gradually worked its way into the mainstream. It started with alt-right websites like World Net Daily and has graduated to the airwaves of Fox News and Sean Hannity, who has been using it for a couple of weeks now. And Trump, who has distanced himself from the alt-right term, may have played a major role in pushing it into the conservative lexicon.


Posted by beam me up scottie | Wed Apr 26, 2017, 04:29 PM (1 replies)

Outstanding response!

Posted by beam me up scottie | Tue Apr 25, 2017, 10:56 PM (0 replies)

You're actually claiming that anyone who owns a corporation and sells it is a corporatist?

I posted this up thread but it's worth repeating:


the control of a state or organization by large interest groups

That would mean that a corporatist supports corporatism and it's obvious to anyone who's been paying attention that Ben and Jerry don't fit that definition. But don't take my word for it, let's hear from Ben Cohen himself:

Join Our Co-Founder, Ben Cohen, and Help Get The Dough Out of Politics
March 10, 2015
By Ben Cohen

I remember reading Abe Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in my high school civics class. We were taught that we had a representative democracy, in which elected officials went to Washington to work for the people back home, and our representatives transcended their self-interest and worked together for the common-good. As Lincoln described it, “A government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

But the system is broken; or fixed, depending on how you look at it. No matter which issue you care most about—the environment, education, healthcare, poverty, Wall Street banks, student debt—it’s unlikely that our representatives will listen to you unless you have a million dollars to spend on advertising, campaign contributions and high-priced lobbyists.

That’s because in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech. They then went even further in Citizens United v FEC, saying that corporations are people and therefore can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence laws and elections. In other words, the Supreme Court perfected a system of pay-to-play politics in which corporations and billionaires spend big bucks on elections, and lobbyists and are awarded with cushy government contracts. According to a new study by the Sunlight Foundation, between 2007-2012, the nation’s 200 most politically active corporations received $760 for every $1 they donated to influence politics.


Words mean things, George. Calling Ben and Jerry corporatists is an alternative fact. It has no basis in reality.
Posted by beam me up scottie | Mon Apr 17, 2017, 02:05 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »