Slashdot Mirror

What it "actually represents" is Maxwell's demon, a mindless automaton tirelessly going about its task of sorting molecules without free will.

The mascot is a caricature of a mythological demon (neither good nor evil), the likeness of which was co-opted by Christianity from pagan religions to represent Satan and his minions. You probably think Christmas trees and the Easter bunny are exclusive Christian symbols too.

Get an education, you dumb brainwashed hick.

Oh, I'm sure demons everywhere are on the march, protesting their being stereotyped and caricatured...

Did you seriously just compare a cartoon demon with the Redskins and Little Black Sambo?

That sounds. Dumb. Disparaging someone's descendant name because they want strong immigration enforcement. Did his descendants immigrate illegally? When is it okay to want strong immigration laws and enforcement while expecting immigrants to follow those laws?

I don't understand modern "liberals". His immigrant name is an insult because he wants to enforce immigration law. Sounds like "liberals" are filled with too much hate when they do crap like that because it's no longer about policy or position or any thing relevant. It's about some evil caricature and any policy that caricature has is obviously evil.

I don't care about the rest of your comment because I just asking about the damn Drumpf insult and don't want to read your 5 minutes of hate.

Must be hard to draw those caricatures and burn those strawmen. It is much easier to criticize a stereotype than to understand the nuance of an opposing idea.

Maybe you're right. Democracy is a failed experiment. Why bother with federalism and democracy when no one is happy with it and we can't agree on anything? We need The Party to force agreement to solve our problems. Those problems can only be solved by government force such as global warming and AI.

Meanwhile in the real world

Having a photograph of a dead person doesn't make them any less dead, but provides some comfort to those that are left. The same is true of tape recordings of their voice. This is just the next step in that.

The photograph is actually a faithful representation of how the person looked, at least from one angle. The tape recordings are a faithful representation of how they sounded. A robot stringing recordings together and maybe twitching spastically is not anything like that. It's a freakish horrorshow caricature.

"The essence of globalization is: labor is commoditized as mobile capital is free to roam the globe for the lowest cost labor."

You forgot to add: and prices go down for consumers. That is, everyone.

However, if you are an average working class American, then your incomes and your throats are being cut by the huge influx of cheap labor. Working class jobs are being destroyed by low income labor at one end and automation at the other, leaving working class voters angry and broke and with no place to go.
That's where the backlash is coming from, and that's why so many upper income people can't see any problem with it. It's the old old problem of the landed gentry and the nobility looking down their noses at all of those stinking whining peasants, all over again.

I don't know what you think "average working class American" really is, but:

http://www.ranker.com/list/mos...

Seems to indicate plenty of semi-skilled services fields. You are correct that at the very low-end, workers are displaced by open trade and open border. But I suspect those jobs are going to be replaced by automation anyway.

The US simply is a much more service-oriented economy now. And in the coming decades, it'll be even more so. Notice how so many of the most common jobs in the US are things like sales, education, healthcare (nurses, pharmacists, clinic workers) and restaurants? That's your *real* "average working class" nowadays.

The caricature of the displaced grunt laborer as the "real American" and everyone else as "uppidy landed gentry" is just that: a caricature. It was unfortunate that it also happens to resonate with a (small) demographic who were in key voting districts in 2016.

But let's dispel this myth that the displaced coal miner or factory worker is the "real average working class American" who are the majority being oppressed by the greedy minority of "white collar workers".

That hasn't been true in 2 decades. The US is *mostly* white collar workers today. And it benefits hugely from open trade (and would from open borders).

The one that made it feel like you werte being lectured by your mother every episode?

yeah, when women go out of their way to be "strong" they end up focusing on the worst aspects of male stereotypes and amplifying them, in the same way that gay queens copy the narcissism of women and end up with these fragile hysterical basic caricatures that suck all the air out of the room.

The poor have two separate "rich man" mythos. One is the interminable rags-to-riches story, for which president Trump does not embody. The other is the basically the "aristocrats" joke: people who are born to wealth and consequently insular and prone to perverse ideologies and behaviors. The Democratic party members will likely attribute the latter description to Trump. Their problem (for Democrats) is that the typical poor person views Democrats as the embodiment of this caricature.

Seriously, you're taking your cues from Bill Burr? Look, Bill Burr is certainly a very funny guy but the humor is coming from the fact that he's an every-man commenting on the world around him. You think he sits around reading books and newspapers and watching C-SPAN? You think he honestly knows anything about any politician, even one with as much press exposure as HRC, beyond sound bites and the vague general impression most Americans have of most people in the public eye? You think his statement is coming from some deep reservoir of knowledge about specific politicians and not just from general cynicism about all politicians? Does Bill Burr making a positive endorsement of anyone even register as a possibility in his style of humor? He's a celebrity commentator remarking on other celebrities.

Look, feel how you want about whichever politician, but you are living in a fucking insane bubble man. You're so cynical that you can entirely write off a person as having zero competence with the backing of a single poor analogy from a comedian? A quick google search tells me that HRC was: top 5% in high school, departmental honors at Wellesley, JD from Yale Law, National Law Journal 100 most influential lawyers in America, etc etc as we move to more familiar history of her public service. She didn't come from money, so she must be like a Forest Gump or something to have done all that as an incompetent boob.

But you just go on believing that Ds are bad and Rs are good, or vice versa, or all politicians bad, or big gubment bad, or Obamacare bad, or whatever stupid shit it is that you believe by reducing people to simple caricatures and ideas to bleatable slogans. Go ahead, succumb to 50 years of political propaganda from two parties pushing a culture war, buy in to whatever silly political ideology reinforces your cognitive biases, and keep up with the ad hominems instead of—god forbid—having arguments about policy. I'm sure the partisan rancor and vitriolic tribalism that's taken over America over the last few decades will subside once your guys finally win and successfully oust the "other" (gonna happen real soon now!). And once you're able to implement your perfect policies based on pure ideology without all that icky compromise and pragmatism? Utopia, I'm sure.

(PS please don't respond and make this an argument about HRC. I don't want to talk about Romney or Dukakis or McGovern or Ross Perot either.)

Who is Donald Trump, if not a poor man's caricature of a rich man?

CNN, et. al. could start by not making it so hard to distinguish between real and fake news themselves.

Seriously, if those newspapers didn't consistently present such a distorted caricature of the people they oppose, while giving a pass on corruption to those they agree with, people wouldn't even look for a different source in the likes of Facebook.

Has anyone ever bothered to count the number of caricature troll videos, gifs, and pictures that troll political leaders such as GWB, Obama, Clinton, and yes Trump?

None of them have ever previously had their work endorsed by the president himself. This is nothing to do with some random on the internet mocking CNN. In fact the video could be seen just as easily to be mocking Trump, if not for the context of who retweeted it.

It's the fact that the president endorsed it, and by implication appearing to condone violence against journalists, that made this newsworthy. The creator of the video, along with anti-semitic and other comments, is now irrevocably linked to the story as well. Perhaps somewhat unfairly, unless it turns out that Trump is knowledgable of more of his "work" than this video.

Has anyone ever bothered to count the number of caricature troll videos, gifs, and pictures that troll political leaders such as GWB, Obama, Clinton, and yes Trump? What's _shocking_ is that CNN actually went out of its way to locate the source of the video. What's next? They're going to intimidate anyone who is going to mock them? I think the result is going to be the opposite of what CNN intended. We're going to see more memes and videos making fun of CNN, the biased news network.

I certainly believe that Tolkien wasn't pushing a message but 'merely' telling a story, but it really isn't difficult to see he was drawing on certainly topical themes to build that story upon.

Mainly, an idealized pre-industrial past vs. an evil caricature of the disruption of the industrial revolution. I think every generation uses a similar theme of 'better days' in its stories, it's hardly unique.

I think a lot of reactions here are a bit caricatured.
Evil journals are restricting the access to science. Every researcher is against them, but cannot fight the maffia system they established. The peer review is a flawed process, and unreproducible results are published. Let's destroy them !

Yet...
If authors are so much against the journal system, why don't they all publish preprints of their articles ? Most of the journals allow it.
If the peer review system is so worthless, why are articles changing so much between the initial submitted version and the final published version ?

A lot of people here are acting as if an article with results which have not been reproduced yet was worthless. Have they really been in any contact to the field of sciences ? One of the points of the peer review is to make sure that enough details are given on the experimental conditions and analysis methods, so that the experiment can be reproduced. But this might be the point of another article, by another team, at another time... Progress works like this.
If most articles have a "prior work" section that reviews the state of the art, it is not just to fill pages so that the journal can charge more. This is to present if the findings are new, and by definition have not been reproduced yet by other teams.

Not a misanthrope, just a murderer. Ok.

The synopsis of the story suggests a prejudiced view of men and not one that matches the reality I live in. Which caricature were you trying to apply to the person to whom you responded?

Clearly you support women killing men - a theme in the story and the reality of its author. So why all the bitching in this discussion about when a man merely fucking flirts with a woman? Bigoted much?

Go and kill yourself then. You are so unimportant. I will not miss you one bit, the world will not feel the effect in any way of your leaving (except maybe some fertilisation of plants, and a few other positive effects). If the position you take is that humans are worthless, stop living. You're a human.

But, no, you're a godbotherer trolling with your caricature of atheism "we're just another animal, a mistake of nature, there's no god and we have no purpose". If your purpose is to worship god, then go and fight in some pointless war and get killed and go to heaven to sing praise to god. Do it now.

From the trailer @ 1:29, the Klingons are a racist black caricature. Smooth move CBS.

If you create a stigma of shame around certain disrespectful behaviors or beliefs, all you do is drive it underground. It's still there, people just become better at hiding it. I was hopeful this would become obvious after Trump's election - where Trump supporters were shamed by the media to the point that they lied to pollsters about who they were going to vote for, causing the the polls to inaccurately predict a Clinton victory. But instead the media has gotten sidetracked with blaming the whole thing on Russia (probably because that would absolve them of any responsibility).

If you want to get rid of prejudice and discrimination, you have to do it through education and exposure. First you counteract the bigoted prejudices by teaching people that these other people who look or believe differently than you are more like you than they are different. They have feelings, hopes, dreams, desires, failings, make mistakes, and are just trying to make a better life for themselves just like you. Then you expose people to these other people for long enough so they can see these things with their own eyes (short exposure causes them to only pick out things which confirm their prejudices). I come from a conservative religious background. But one of my childhood friends turned out to be gay. Becoming friends with someone from a group you're supposed to be opposed to is the best way to gain perspective. It's no longer "would I scream slurs at some anonymous person?" It becomes "would I scream slurs at my friend?"

The entire SJW tactic of trying to change society via shaming is misguided, and arguably harmful as people will perceive shaming to be an accepted tactic. People are learning that it's OK to disrespect and behave rudely towards other people with certain beliefs (religious or atheist), from certain areas (the Bay Area or the deep South), or with certain characteristics (black or rich). Basically it's the same discrimination SJWs are purportedly trying to stamp out, just directed at different groups. You're not stamping out hatred, you're just swapping it for a different hatred.

Don't assume the caricatures - the criminal black, the privileged white male, the self-entitled Millenial, etc. - are true. Each person is a unique blend of feelings, thoughts, abilities, and beliefs. And you have to learn that person's unique blend before you have the right to criticize them. Judging them based solely on their appearance, where they're from, what event they're attending, etc. is prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry. Doing so under the guise of stamping out prejudice is hypocrisy.

Unbelievably high values for something that doesn't actually have any intrinsic value are generally followed by crashes. This is obviously a conspiracy theory, and I have no evidence, but the shady origin of Bitcoin (nobody really knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is) could mean that it was engineered by a national actor to crash national economies. It is, after all, a caricature of fiat currency.

The fantastical is rarely true when a much less more mundane explanation would suffice. It would be extremely hard for one man to bootstrap a crypto-currency, it's like printing your own monopoly money and asking other people to believe it's worth something. My guess is that he's a fiction created by a cabal of the first bitcoin miners who pretended the strange creator came and left, now it's an egalitarian free-for-all so join the mining you too. I also wouldn't be surprised if many of the first trades were in fact fictional, with dollars also changing hands under the table to try creating the impression it had trade value. Once they sold the narrative and mining went viral they could sit almost at the top of the rocket, while pretending to just be one of the lucky few that heard of it early. I think you give Bitcoin way too much credit, it was almost certainly started to make money from thin air. And it looks like a success at that.