civil dialogue

6

Ah, seems Grandpa Shade is still a little sensitive ; 3;

Heading into headcanon territory here:

Since Ganondorf still retains his memories from his past selves, he remembers Time and the battle they previously had. When Time became Hero’s Shade, he was given the memories of all the previous Links, as well as maintaining his own (I wrote out a prompt about this, but you guys won’t get to see for a while). I’m pretty sure Ganondorf must have taken some part of the Hyrulean Civil War, whether it was actually participating, or just sitting back and watching. But, he had to have been there. So, it’s no surprise that he knows what happened to Time’s poor momma, and it seems Time still holds some grief about it.

I wonder if he ever got to see his parents again in the afterlife…

More Hero’s Shade

anonymous asked:

Can you share your resources for learning french? (books, websites)

These are the resources which helped me to learn and improve my French.

Books:

  • Vocabulaire progressive, Grammaire Progressive, Communication Progressive by CLE International
  • Grammaire en dialogues (currently working with this book, and I love its exercices), Vocabulaire en dialogues and Civilization en dialogues by CLE International
  • Latitudes by Didier

Dictionaries:

Phonetics:

Apps:

  • Lingvo
  • Duolingo
  • Memrise
  • Busuu

Vocabulary:

Listening and other useful websites:

problematic fave ajay ghale
  • ajay: [slaughters countless amounts of people]
  • ajay: [slaughters countless animals to use their skin for slaughtering more people]
  • mr. chiffon: can you kill this out of control, hazardous rhino?
  • ajay: ...but..mr.chiffon...arent..rhinos....endangered?!!?!
This movie though....

-Spidey acting like a starstruck fanboy in the middle of the epic battle

-Ant-Man chanting “I’m the boss i’m the boss i’m the boss”

-Falcon refusing to move up his seat and Bucky moving to the other side

-Iron Man screaming “give me my Rhodey!”

-Wanda : What are you doing here?
Hawkeye : Disappointing my kids

-Spidey having homework

-Tony’s “conscience” aka Scott

-Spidey yelling “You have the right to remain silent!”

-Tony Stank

Do i need to go on?

I think we should be very clear on this… this country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment… It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back.
—  Wesley Clark

im so fucking tired of this shit. im so exhausted of defending my humanity. im honestly done with yall.

you sit around and talk about how like “we’re haram” and that “we’re sin” but ~oh~ wait!! you still “hate the sin not the sinner” and still are so ~gracious~ to ~accept us~

WELL GUESS WHAT. I dont need ur fucking bullshit idea of acceptance. yall might as well admit to how bigoted you truly are.

did you know that we are LITERALLY DYING BECAUSE OF YALL??!?!! we are literally KILLING OURSELVES because of you. we are lonely. we are isolated. we are abused. we are victimized. we are faced with violence. we are faced with marginalization. we are faced with exclusion. every. fucking. day. and yet we are the same people that will fight for all yall when it comes to institutionalized racism and islamophobia. we defend the same people that wouldnt lift a fucking finger for us.

I have had depression and anxiety all of my life because I have been fucking policed for just my innate being every fucking day of my life. my parents think im literal trash because im not the straight man he wanted.

so honestly? SHUT THE FUCKING FUCK UP! This is not a debate. this is not a discussion. I am not having a ~civilized dialogue~ about you about my HUMANITY. this is real and you better fucking embrace it 100% or jump the fuck out of my life.

save me the bullshit. please. just admit how much you hate us. at least be honest. I respect that a whole lot more than fake ass tolerance. shit.

~ramadhan mubarak~

Court Conservatives Prevail

By JESS BRAVIN

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ended its annual term with two deci­sions uphold­ing free-speech pro­tec­tions, cap­ping a year that saw con­ser­v­a­tives largely pre­vail over the court’s lib­eral minority.

Jus­tice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Rea­gan, played the cru­cial role this term, join­ing the con­ser­v­a­tive block to shield busi­nesses like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and AT&T Mobil­ity from class-action suits, and sid­ing with lib­er­als in such areas as indi­vid­ual lib­er­ties. Six­teen cases this year, about one-fifth of the total, were decided by a 5–4 vote, with Jus­tice Kennedy join­ing the major­ity 14 times.

The court’s free-speech rul­ings illus­trate the ide­o­log­i­cal split among the jus­tices. While broad majori­ties of the court have voted to affirm pro­tec­tions for such long-recognized forms of expres­sion as pick­et­ing, movies and now videogames, con­ser­v­a­tives have out­voted lib­er­als to con­fer First Amend­ment rights on busi­ness and void campaign-finance reg­u­la­tions that advo­cates say pro­mote fairer elections.

“Change on the Supreme Court hap­pens in long slow arcs, but the direc­tion of this arc seems pretty clear,” said Stan­ford Law School Dean Larry Kramer. “The court has been mov­ing in a pretty strongly con­ser­v­a­tive direc­tion, and I don’t expect it to change.”

The court voted Mon­day to strike down a Cal­i­for­nia law ban­ning the sale of vio­lent videogames to minors, hold­ing by a 7–2 major­ity that it vio­lated the First Amend­ment. Ear­lier this term, the court voted 8–1 to deny a griev­ing father’s right to sue pick­eters who cel­e­brated his son’s death with obnox­ious plac­ards out­side his funeral.

But vir­tu­ally every campaign-finance deci­sion involv­ing free speech, like Monday’s rul­ing against the Ari­zona Clean Elec­tions Act, has come down to a 5–4 vote along ide­o­log­i­cal lines.

The Ari­zona campaign-finance law, which offered extra pub­lic fund­ing to state polit­i­cal can­di­dates who faced well-heeled oppo­nents, was ruled uncon­sti­tu­tional for infring­ing on Amer­i­cans’ right to express them­selves freely in elec­tion campaigns.

The opin­ion, by Chief Jus­tice John Roberts, found that a pro­gram that gives match­ing funds to pub­licly funded can­di­dates, who agree to lim­its on their spend­ing and to take part in a can­di­date debate, was unfair to their pri­vately financed opponents.

The major­ity is reach­ing these results, said North­west­ern Uni­ver­sity law pro­fes­sor John McGin­nis, because it views free speech not only as a tra­di­tional civil lib­erty, but also as some­thing akin to a prop­erty right. “Con­ser­v­a­tives are much more com­fort­able under­stand­ing the First Amend­ment as a lib­erty right that’s not so dis­tinct from rights of prop­erty,” he said.

In both of Monday’s cases, dis­senters argued that state laws were rea­son­able responses to legit­i­mate pub­lic concerns.

Nearly half the court’s mem­ber­ship has turned over since 2006, when Pres­i­dent George W. Bush pushed the court to the right by appoint­ing con­ser­v­a­tive Jus­tice Samuel Alito to suc­ceed mod­er­ate San­dra Day O’Connor. Although the four eldest jus­tices are in their 70s, none has indi­cated inter­est in retir­ing, sug­gest­ing that today’s lineup could remain in place at least into the next pres­i­den­tial term.

The 2010–2011 term lacked the kind of block­buster deci­sion that spurs law pro­fes­sors to rewrite their case books. The next term, which begins in Octo­ber, is likely to be dif­fer­ent. The court already has slated high-stakes cases involv­ing broad­cast inde­cency, union dues, food-safety reg­u­la­tion and gov­ern­ment track­ing of sus­pects by GPS device.

Even more dra­matic cases are in the pipeline, includ­ing chal­lenges to California’s ban on same-sex mar­riage and the fed­eral health-care law cham­pi­oned by Pres­i­dent Barack Obama. If recent pat­terns con­tinue, Jus­tice Kennedy likely will cast the decid­ing vote in the most con­tentious of those cases.

This term, Jus­tice Kennedy joined con­ser­v­a­tives to block a wrongly con­victed man from suing the pros­e­cu­tor who sent him to death row by with­hold­ing excul­pa­tory evi­dence. Yet Jus­tice Kennedy drew on lib­eral votes for his major­ity opin­ion requir­ing Cal­i­for­nia to release inmates if it failed to raise prison con­di­tions to con­sti­tu­tional standards.

Sim­i­larly, Jus­tice Kennedy joined con­ser­v­a­tives to limit a taxpayer’s right to sue over gov­ern­ment sub­si­dies of reli­gious insti­tu­tions, vot­ing 5–4 that an Ari­zona law pro­vid­ing a 100% tax credit for con­tri­bu­tions to sec­tar­ian school orga­ni­za­tions could not be chal­lenged for vio­lat­ing the con­sti­tu­tional ban on estab­lish­ment of reli­gion. But Jus­tice Kennedy pro­vided the fifth vote for Jus­tice Sonia Sotomayor’s opin­ion but­tress­ing Miranda rule pro­tec­tions for juve­nile suspects.

Big wins by cor­po­ra­tions in the class-action cases have fueled crit­i­cism from Democ­rats that the court tilts against con­sumers and work­ers. But not all cases have gone business’s way. Last month, the court voted 5–4 to uphold an Ari­zona law that puts out of busi­ness employ­ers that repeat­edly hire ille­gal immi­grants. The U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce, which chal­lenged the law by argu­ing it inter­fered with fed­eral immi­gra­tion pol­icy, per­suaded only the court’s liberals.

The deci­sion, by Chief Jus­tice Roberts, rec­og­nized a state role in enforc­ing immi­gra­tion laws, sug­gest­ing that an even tougher Ari­zona mea­sure that requires local police to appre­hend sus­pected ille­gal immi­grants, cur­rently blocked by the lower courts, could find a sym­pa­thetic hear­ing at the Supreme Court.

The court peri­od­i­cally con­founds pre­dic­tions, and no jus­tice can be neatly assigned to a lock­step ide­o­log­i­cal cat­e­gory. Last week, for instance, the court voted 5–4 for a robust read­ing of the Sixth Amend­ment right to con­front pros­e­cu­tion wit­nesses. The major­ity opin­ion, by Jus­tice Ruth Bader Gins­burg, held that a defen­dant in a drunk dri­ving case was enti­tled to cross-examine the tech­ni­cian who per­formed a blood-alcohol test.

While the court showed its “hos­til­ity to big lit­i­ga­tion” like the Wal-Mart class action and a mul­ti­state suit seek­ing caps on power-plant emis­sions, Wash­ing­ton attor­ney Carter Phillips said sev­eral areas remain where the new justices’s views remain a mys­tery. For instance, the ques­tion of puni­tive dam­age lim­its cre­ated unusual coali­tions in the past.

“We don’t know where [Jus­tices Elena] Kagan or Sotomayor or Roberts or Alito” stands on the issue, said Mr. Phillips, who fre­quently rep­re­sents busi­ness before the court. “That’ll be a block­buster one of these days.”

Source: Wall Street Journal

My friend Rey wrote a rebuttal to my comments on a particular post evolution. He spent a lot of time on it, and I think it’s worth a complete and thorough read.

Christians, know what you believe and why it’s true and don’t take some guy on the internet’s word for it.

God has changed my life and He’s real. His Word is truth and will always withstand every assault made by scientists, philosophers, rulers and skeptics.

He created this awesome world and is responsible for all of the life and beauty it contains.

academicatheism, thanks for the effort you put into it and I hope we can keep having civil dialogues that present truth and fact.

All right, dudes. I am usually very much of the don’t like it, don’t read it feeling about fics; it’s way easier to close a tab than it is to make yourself miserable and then complain about it, after. But this fic, by septemberpoems, has crossed my dash a bunch of times, now, and I feel like we need to have a conversation about it. Because my issue with it isn’t a taste thing, per se; it’s the way that it uses history and culture– specifically my history and culture– to do what it’s doing. 

Standard disclaimers apply: the author isn’t a bad person for having written it, you are not a bad person if you liked it, and everyone has blind spots we can’t see until someone points them out to us. My hope is that I can point out one, and we can have a civil dialogue about it. To be clear, though, I find conversations around the Holocaust fairly triggery, and will not hesitate to delete/defriend/disappear if this comes close to getting ugly.

So, first things first: if you’re going to write about the Holocaust, please tag for it. It was a campaign of state-sponsored murder that nearly wiped out a generation of Eastern European Jews. I know it’s become a pop culture product– a Spielberg film that’s the punchline to a Seinfeld joke– but that doesn’t change the fact that it was genocide, and it deserves the gravity we give to any other kind of violence. 

-

I am the daughter of a Polish Jew; my father’s mother emigrated between the wars, and I am lucky not to have to know how many relatives I lost to the Holocaust, back in the country where they no longer lived. I grew up in a community of Russian-Jewish emigres, not a few of them survivors of the camps. They were not, by and large, doddering old ladies leaning on strong young men to help translate the stories of what they’d gone through, looking for ways to talk about the hope it had given them. They didn’t talk about it much at all. One of them told me a story, once, of taking a shoe from the Holocaust Museum in DC, from the piles of slippers prisoners were forced to wear, which are now part of what’s on display. A guard yelled at her. She yelled back. These shoes don’t belong to America, she told him. They belong to every Jewish child. They belong to me.

I might be wrong about this, but I am pretty sure I’m right that the author isn’t Jewish. That’s fine. We all write fiction about things we know nothing about. But there’s a clear lack of research or understanding about what the Holocaust was and is to the Jewish community in that story that I found personally deeply painful. My father’s parents spoke Yiddish at home– not Polish. If Stiles’ mother had been a Polish Jew she likely would have, too. It’s a dying language. I don’t speak it. I worry about that fact a lot. We’ve managed to take a lot back from Hitler, but he murdered an entire language, with music and poetry and literature. He murdered a vibrant, sophisticated culture. It wasn’t Polish culture. Polish Jews had been ostracized from their countrymen long before the fact of the camps. That’s why my grandmother had to flee– because pogroms predate Hitler.

Then there’s the fact that Stiles has apparently never been given any kind of Holocaust education– that he has to have a gentile explain it to him, to sit him down to watch Schindler’s fucking List. I mean. I get it. The Sheriff wasn’t Jewish, he didn’t go to Hebrew school, fine. But does he have to sit around passively receiving wisdom from Derek, being spoon-fed his own culture, in which he had no interest until it became a means to a (fucking) end? White Savior Derek the Linguist gives me the creeps. The Jewish thing is complicated, I know, not precisely racial, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is a damaging and problematic trope. 

It’s not precisely germane, but there’s also the Stacy issue: an original character who’s just a vile bitch designed to get in the way of Derek and Stiles’ Deep True Pure Love. Using women to keep them apart and the Holocaust to bring the together: not everything is a set piece for your OTP’s romance. If there were a more nuanced consideration of the role of the Holocaust in modern Jewish life, the way it made my grandparents’ generation rightly terrified of passing anything down to mine– that would be one thing. But instead the implication is that Stiles never learned because no one bothered to teach him, I guess because there were no Jews in his life, to speak for themselves. 

-

I went through years and years of Holocaust education in school. I hated it. I argue all the time, now, that the modern Jewish community needs to abandon the insular paranoid obsession with it, as if we were the only people ever massacred. We weren’t. We aren’t. It was awful; it doesn’t make us special.

But it is ours. It is not your plot point to deploy casually; it is not your generic stand-in for diaspora angst. Every culture has its own lost lands and tongues and stories. When you try to tell them, you need to be sure you’re respecting those who can no longer speak, and those who are left, to listen. 

You know what’s really cool about writing for tumblr? I actively want to read the comments because we get good contributions and civil critique and interesting dialogue. Now that WADTT posts are getting shared off of tumblr I have to remember that not everyone is as cool as y’all and not to read the comments. 

It was so annoying that the media completely missed the point of the Stewart/Colbert rally to restore sanity and/or fear. “False equivalency,” “wasted opportunity,” “incoherent message” was the gist of the criticism, but what Jon was advocating for was civility, moderation, respectful dialogue, all of which have very little to do with ideology and nothing to do with partisan politics. People will always have strong, fundamental disagreements, but the point of peaceful co-existence isn’t agreeing on everything, it’s finding ways to disagree and still be able to talk to each other, treat each other with respect, try to see things from a different perspective, compromise and get things done. I thought it was a point well worth making, shame it went over so many people*s heads. And Colbert was satirizing the fear mongering tactics that the media so abuses, another relevant point.

I study communication. I know how to have a productive and civil dialogue with people whose views aren’t my own. I also know that this doesn’t obligate me to be in productive and civil dialogue mode 100% of the time.