Jump to content
Jerriess

Is it time to rethink 'Pride Month' in Second Life?

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I just said those other places were around about 2000,3000 years ago..A drop in the bucket compared to how long we have been over here..

I am genuinely confused by this, Ceka. You referenced the Romans being 2,000 years ago and the Babylonians 3,000 years ago and appear to be comparing this to early Native cultures in the Americas, circa 16,000 years ago.

(Edit: Phil says it was someone else who put in the 16,000 years and I know that you, Ceka, will be all over the "I didn't say that" part and ignore the rest. Perhaps the question then is what kind of time frame are you using there then? How long we have been over here suggests something on par with the human re-population of post-glacial Europe.)

Early modern humans were present in Europe 43-45,000 years ago. Glaciation pushed them downwards circa 22,000 years ago. Humans were moving back up into Europe about the same time as the movement into the Americas. There's evidence of human settlement and activity in Italy 12-13,000 years ago, including the Palatine Hill in Rome.

There's a lot of history going into the people who became the Romans.

I don't know how to make sense of what you're saying.

Edited by Bitsy Buccaneer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

There's a lot of history going into the people who became the Romans.

About 600,000 years of it, but thoughts of Paleolithic Europe are almost always swamped by the rich cultures starting with Bronze Age history

However - being an Aussie and knowing the history of our Aboriginals - I can see the point being made. If you are talking about a single culture then the Europeans are not so old as Native Americans (Arctic, North and South) or Aboriginal Australians - who predate the Native Americans. The culture of the Magdalénien is long lost, while the story telling of the Wurrindjerri remains as a solid unbroken stream.

 

Generally I feel everyone has a right to be proud of their heritage, their beliefs, and their outlook on the world as it stands now. I am very happy to acknowledge and celebrate the many tens of thousands of years of continuous stewardship of the land that indígenas of all races have formed over millenia. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phorumities said:

   The left will never compromise on their stated goal of world domination. Any compromise a leftist makes is just an attempt to confuse and deceive. 

This is actually true of the extremes on BOTH sides.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

This is actually true of the extremes on BOTH sides.

 

The hilarity of this statement becomes apparent when you realize that the US hasn't had a left wing to it's politics for generations, but does have a very active far right. Extremist lefties want healthcare, college tuition and less military, the extreme right wants what it always has, right down to adopting fascist iconography.

Sure you will get a few on the long lost old school left, but none of them are anywhere near mainstream politics or elected office. Even individuals online who self identity with communism are unlikely to have actually studied it. The far or alt-right on the other hand are currently running the show and making actual policy based on demonizing race & religion.

This is False equivalence 101 and not representative of the actual situation. There weren't good, fine people on both sides in Charlottesville, there were actual fascists with tiki torches & swastikas, one of whom drove a car into a crowd.

There is no parallel between putting Mexican "murderers and rapists" in concentration camps at the border and wanting modern healthcare, however the far right would like you to think there is because it gets them to the table.

There is no middle ground with someone who wants you dead because of your race, religion or sexuality, nor is the political debate undermined by denying them a platform.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I wonder why Philo T. Farnswoth got credit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth

Radical concept here I know but... Maybe you could READ the pages you link to before linking toi them...

"In 1932, while in England to raise money for his legal battles with RCA, Farnsworth met with John Logie Baird, a Scottish inventor who had given the world's first public demonstration of a working television system in London in 1926, using an electro-mechanical imaging system, and who was seeking to develop electronic television receivers. Baird demonstrated his mechanical system for Farnsworth."

"Farnsworth designed and built the world's first working all-electronic television system, employing electronic scanning in both the pickup and display devices. He first demonstrated his system to the press on September 3, 1928"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logie_Baird

"In 1928 the Baird Television Development Company achieved the first transatlantic television transmission."

Who gives Farnsworth credit as "the inventor of television"?

Certainly not your wikipedia page...
 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Who gives Farnsworth credit as "the inventor of television"?

Most will say he invented the "electronic television" as Baird's version was mechanical. But these days, is a scanning electron beam any more in use then Watt's (or Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont's) steam engine? 

Today's TV is OLED displays and compressed video over WiFi, often to our phones.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea of pride month is to celebrate being different. Celebrating pride is about being who you are and being proud of it. For the longest time and even in current political and social times, being LGBT is considered a sin even though it is who we are. The right for LGBT to celebrate pride was earned.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hyperpartisanship is always bad no matter which political spectrum you're on.

This also applies to the ideologies; I'm a capitalist, as it is the most sensible and human system for a non post-scarcity civilization that we are now, but we totally have non-capitalistic elements in our capitalistic society and I can see why that makes sense and humane to a certain degree, as absolute hyper-capitalism can be bad, so would the other way around.

As for the OP, I think pride month is okay as it is. Sure some might identify it as a regressive far-leftism thing (which can be as bad as alt-rightism), but essentially it was conceived to say "it's ok to be different" in a society that generally does unnecessarily condemn people for diverting from their sometimes illogical beliefs.

Too much political labeling is just bad and it's tearing our society apart.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Radical concept here I know but... Maybe you could READ the pages you link to before linking toi them...

"In 1932, while in England to raise money for his legal battles with RCA, Farnsworth met with John Logie Baird, a Scottish inventor who had given the world's first public demonstration of a working television system in London in 1926, using an electro-mechanical imaging system, and who was seeking to develop electronic television receivers. Baird demonstrated his mechanical system for Farnsworth."

"Farnsworth designed and built the world's first working all-electronic television system, employing electronic scanning in both the pickup and display devices. He first demonstrated his system to the press on September 3, 1928"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logie_Baird

"In 1928 the Baird Television Development Company achieved the first transatlantic television transmission."

Who gives Farnsworth credit as "the inventor of television"?

Certainly not your wikipedia page...
 

If we're going to go into the "things are invented by societies" place you could very quickly develop a school of thought that says that "Europeans invented things first, and Americans then developed the equivalent things that actually worked."

Baird's "television" system involved tiny screens, extremely low resolution and giant spinning disks. It was basically a curiosity and the technology was a dead end. Farnsworth's electronic scanning was the basis of television for the rest of the 20th century and also made things like the computer monitor possible.

You can give Europeans credit for developing the electric telegraph - of course, it involved multiple wires that shorted out between each other, dancing needles that needed to be interpreted by an operator and had very limited use. Then, a few years later Samuel Morse in the United States invented the type of telegraph system that connected the world and was the direct ancestor of the telephone, radio, and electronic data transmission.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

If we're going to go into the "things are invented by societies" place you could very quickly develop a school of thought that says that "Europeans invented things first, and Americans then developed the equivalent things that actually worked."

Ah!

So that's why American aircraft firms STILL put Rolls Royce jet engines in their products... They crave that inferior non Murican dead-end technology over superior Murican tech that works...

That's why the Murican Abrams M1 MBT has a German 120mm gun and British composite armour, and it's most unreliable component is... The Murican engine...

 

Oh wait...
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Ah!

So that's why American aircraft firms STILL put Rolls Royce jet engines in their products... They crave that inferior non Murican dead-end technology over superior Murican tech that works...

That's why the Murican Abrams M1 MBT has a German 120mm gun and British composite armour, and it's most unreliable component is... The Murican engine...

 

Oh wait...
 

And British aircraft and automobile companies use...

Oh, wait...

(Oh, by the way... https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/14/rolls-royce-jet-engine-flaws-spell-opportunity-for.aspx)

Edited by Theresa Tennyson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not the first television system was all-electronic, scanning, spinning discs, electro-mechanical, or whatever else, is completely irrelevant. At some point in time, somebody (or somebodies) conceived the idea of transmitting and receiving pictures without wires. If that person created a means of doing it, then s/he is the inventor of television. Anything that came after it was merely a development of the original invention, or a different method of doing the original invention. It has nothing to do with television as it is done today. Of course, different methods are patentable, but that's nothing to do with the invention. For instance, somebody can rightly claim to have invented the plasma screen method of displaying images, and somebody can rightly claim to have invented an improved television camera by using a different method, but those are not inventing television, and it's the invention of television that changed the world, not the improved methods of doing it that were later developed.

To the best of my knowledge, there were three independant inventors of television. Baird (UK), Marconi (Italy), and Tesla (U.S.). I'm not aware of any others, but that doesn't mean there weren't any. Baird's turned out to be a rubbish system (not at the time though), but that doesn't take anything away from him being one of the independant inventors of television.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Whether or not the first television system was all-electronic, scanning, spinning discs, electro-mechanical, or whatever else, is completely irrelevant. At some point in time, somebody (or somebodies) conceived the idea of transmitting and receiving pictures without wires. If that person created a means of doing it, then s/he is the inventor of television. Anything that came after it was merely a development of the original invention, or a different method of doing it. It has nothing to do with television as it is done today. Of course, different methods are patentable, but that's nothing to do with the invention. For instance, somebody can rightly claim to have invented the plasma screen method of displaying images, but that's not inventing television, and it's the invention of television that changed the world, not the methods.

To the best of my knowledge, there were three independant inventors of television. Logie-Baird (UK), Marconi (Italy), and Tesla (U.S.). I'm not aware of any others, but that doesn't mean there weren't any. Logie-Baird's was a rubbish system, but that doesn't take anything away from his independant invention of television.

I agree with most of what you're saying; I was deliberately speaking in Flapdoodle to communicate with specific posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand, Theresa. The only way I see anything she posts is when someone quotes it :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trivia:

The BBC was the first to broadcast television to the general public, albeit in a very limited area. They had Marconi and Baird go head-to-head, each broadcasting a bit, and then the other - alternating. Televisions had a switch to switch between the systems. There was only ever going to be one winner - Marconi. That's because the Baird system couldn't synchronise the sound with the pictures, and the person speaking had to be cued to speak quite a long time before the pictures so that they would appear to be in sync. It was in the order around 20 or 30 seconds delay. In fact, if I remember right, the speaker's images were filmed and, had to be processed, as in developed, etc. That's what the delay was about. Looking at it today, it was a very Mickey Mouse system, but, at the time, it was thought to have potential. At least Baird thought so.

The other bit of trivia about the invention of television is that the BBC genuinely believed that it wouldn't take off, and that radio would continue to reign supreme. They only did the competition against their better judgement :D

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

I am genuinely confused by this, Ceka.

I understood Ceka to mean that native americans were using all manner of medications long before 3000 years ago, and she gave no indication of meaning they were doing it upon their arrival in north america. It was someone else who (intentionally) wrongly jumped to the 16,000 years thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

About 600,000 years of it, but thoughts of Paleolithic Europe are almost always swamped by the rich cultures starting with Bronze Age history

However - being an Aussie and knowing the history of our Aboriginals - I can see the point being made. If you are talking about a single culture then the Europeans are not so old as Native Americans (Arctic, North and South) or Aboriginal Australians - who predate the Native Americans.

Perhaps it isn't appropriate to make these comparisons in terms of single "cultures" then. Europeans are at least as old as Native Americans, even with glaciation-related displacement and repopulation. IMO it would be a more accurate reflection to consider it on the basis of "when was X first developed in Africa, in Asia, in the Americas, in Europe, in Oceania" instead. The best I can make of it is that Ceka is combining all of the Natives peoples of the Americas with the time of their ancestors' arrival and comparing that to politically-based groupings in a rather crowded and fractious Europe and Levant. It seems apples and oranges to me.

I'm not for a minute trying to downplay the cultures and achievements of Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians or anyone else. I don't see this as a zero-sum game, where some have to be degraded in order to elevate others. But if we are going to make comparisons, it does seem sensible to me to make them on a fair and equivalent basis.

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

I understood Ceka to mean that native americans were using all manner of medications long before 3000 years ago, and she gave no indication of meaning they were doing it upon their arrival in north america. It was someone else who (intentionally) wrongly jumped to the 16,000 years thing.

I've added an edit to reflect this, Phil. I should have stuck to Ceka's language "I just said those other places were around about 2000,3000 years ago..A drop in the bucket compared to how long we have been over here.."

Thank you for pointing this out. It doesn't really change the substance of my question though. 16,000 years is just a more specific way of saying the same thing. (And I'm going to leave off examining how good an estimate 16,000 years is right now because that's not my area of study and I really should get on with the rest of the day. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Klytyna said:

So that's why American aircraft firms STILL put Rolls Royce jet engines in their products... They crave that inferior non Murican dead-end technology over superior Murican tech that works...

In Recent news, Rolls Royce engines are having issues in certain planes, and plan is to use some other engine if needed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

A drop in the bucket compared to how long we have been over here.."

Who is "we", and where is "here"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

I understood Ceka to mean that native americans were using all manner of medications long before 3000 years ago, and she gave no indication of meaning they were doing it upon their arrival in north america. It was someone else who (intentionally) wrongly jumped to the 16,000 years thing.

Learn to read...

It was the claim that Native Americans invented pharmacuticals, petrochemical refining and apartment buildings BEFORE anyone in the old world because... They arrived in Alaska 16,000 years ago and are ethnically not european, and that arrival being earlier than old worlders inventing things PROVED that Native Americans did it all first.

Please NOTE that she still hasn't actually presented ANY information to back her claims of original invention (before old worlders) of the pharmacuticals industry, the petrochemical industry, apartment blocks, etc...

She never said anything about "Native Americans learned to use herbal remedies based of the plants they found in their new home" EVER.

If she had, I'd have ignored her post, as that statement wouldn't have been "flapdoodle" in need of a slapdown.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CoffeeDujour said:

 

The hilarity of this statement becomes apparent when you realize that the US hasn't had a left wing to it's politics for generations, but does have a very active far right. Extremist lefties want healthcare, college tuition and less military, the extreme right wants what it always has, right down to adopting fascist iconography.

Sure you will get a few on the long lost old school left, but none of them are anywhere near mainstream politics or elected office. Even individuals online who self identity with communism are unlikely to have actually studied it. The far or alt-right on the other hand are currently running the show and making actual policy based on demonizing race & religion.

This is False equivalence 101 and not representative of the actual situation. There weren't good, fine people on both sides in Charlottesville, there were actual fascists with tiki torches & swastikas, one of whom drove a car into a crowd.

There is no parallel between putting Mexican "murderers and rapists" in concentration camps at the border and wanting modern healthcare, however the far right would like you to think there is because it gets them to the table.

There is no middle ground with someone who wants you dead because of your race, religion or sexuality, nor is the political debate undermined by denying them a platform.

 

so there were no antifa present at Charlotteville? the far left is generally present at any and every social justice protest. they are the losers wearing the face coverings.

there is no far right running the show in america, but every time democrats take power they sink america deeper and deeper into the cesspool of socialism

their rallying cry is "its not fair" and "make the rich pay" , the whole time promoting class hatred and envy.

the democrats have created the mess we are in today, and even President Trump can do nothing but slow the destruction of this once great land, once a beacon of hope and freedom to the world but rapidly becoming just another socialist s**thole

 

Edited by Phorumities
spelling
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Yes, this is what I was referring to in my response to Klytina.

You still need to learn to actually READ web pages before linking them in support of a claim. That article does not state that RR engines are NOT used in American aircraft, nor does it state that RR engines will cease to be used. In fact...

"In theory, it's straightforward to replace a Rolls-Royce engine with a GE engine on a Dreamliner. That said, airlines generally sign long-term service agreements when buying engines, making it impractical to switch after a few years. Additionally, airlines that have equipped their existing 787 Dreamliner fleets with Trent 1000 engines may be reluctant to switch for future orders, due to the added complexity of managing multiple engine types."


 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...