Zero7

But coming in here and insulting an entire generation without even knowing if that's the case is OK, though?

I don't agree that white people in general are anywhere near being like they were in 1870. Those articles from 1870 were blatantly prejudiced and disgusting, and nothing today even comes close to that in newspaper articles. To make a general statement that nothing has changed because a comparatively small percentage of white people are still like that is what people think is unfair. I think there is a perception that things are equal to what they were 150 years ago but in reality they are far from being that way today. Back then a majority of white people were prejudiced to a very horrible degree that we thankfully don't see today save for a much smaller minority of the white population. That's why I don't feel it's fair to say that nothing has changed. It only hasn't changed for a small percentage of people. Most people today find that deplorable. I didn't personally see any comments on the FB page from white people that showed that they wanted to justify mistreating people in 2018. I don't doubt that there were, but maybe they were removed from the site. But just because there is a relatively small percentage of white people that hold those views is no reason to make a general statement that can be taken as inclusive of all white people. That's the only thing I or anyone I saw post on that page would say, not that there's any justification whatsoever for mistreating black people in 2018 or 19 or ever. I know I was not alone in taking her comment that way. Perhaps you didn't, but that's your opinion which I don't share. For example, there are still people out there that believe the world is flat or the sun revolves around the earth. I don't think it would be fair to say that "nothing has changed" since Copernicus just because of that group of people. A lot has changed. Focusing on the injustices alone only keeps people in the mindset of victimhood. And Regina is far from a victim in my opinion. Her wealth and fame plus the great advances in civil rights in this country have made that possible. I understand looking at the past and seeing the similarities to the present, but I would have preferred she used a different way to express it. The way she worded it made it sound like she's blaming all white people for a situation that's caused by a smaller subset of the white population.

I think what set those people off is her statement that "nothing has changed" since the time of her great great grandfather. Injustice against blacks still exists, but she didn't seem to want to acknowledge that anything is any better now. All white people today are not the same as they were 150 years ago. A lot of whites are not racist today but are tired of the blanket insinuation that they are. No because no Jews have come on the show saying that nothing has changed in Germany towards their people since WWII. There has been a recent rise of antisemitism in Germany and elsewhere, but still nowhere near the level that existed in Nazi Germany, as in millions of Jews being killed, etc.

This is so far reminding me of "Hunting Hitler" and that very recent show about Amelia Earhardt. Lots of smoke but no fire. Also, so far there is no reason to believe based on "modus operandi" that Mudgett was the Ripper and the criminal profiler even said that. They're going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to keep me interested. The fact that the show's premiere date was postponed for a couple of months makes me wonder if they did find some conclusive evidence.

Atheists believe in the mind because there is evidence for knowledge being stored in the brain and brain = mind. Most don't believe in souls or spirits that can't be tested and experienced. I have known many atheists and all of them remain skeptical about nebulous things. Energy created when mind and body interact is very nebulous and unproven. It would be just as nebulous to say that spirits exist and are the energy created by all the minds in the world together. Just because you think it could have a scientific basis doesn't make it testable and provable. Atheists like objective proof for things before they accept them. I agree with the above that spirits and spirituality are in the realm of religion, not atheism.

I think they're leaving out a lot of stuff that goes on between the participants. Ashley repeating over and over again that she can't open up so easy with a stranger seems out of context to me. David may be moving in too fast too soon and they're not showing us all of it. Ashley might have every reason to want to back away from him.

If Sam is basing her living money on 25% of her income I think the $14,400 is the 25% and her total annual salary before taxes would be 4 times that at $57,600. That sounds more believable and would be almost the same as Neil's.

This is so true. Toxic managers in business are everywhere. Sam's lack of people skills is not unique. http://www.examiner.com/article/managers-often-lack-people-skills https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_12.htm http://www.businessweek.com/business_at_work/bad_bosses/archives/2008/06/why_are_there_s.html

I don't think telling her he isn't attracted to her would be "being an asshole back". I think it's quite appropriate and par for the course under the circumstances. She needs to learn the impact her words have on other people, and what better way to do that? Plus why on earth should he be attracted to her at this point after what she told him? So it's probably the truth anyhow. And after what she told him I think she deserves to hear it back. Nothing assholic about it as far as I can see.