Slashdot Mirror

That caricature exists for a reason. Labor movements in the US lead the country into prosperity. While an individual business owner can benefit in the short term from working his laborers to the bone, the systemically the economy suffers because they are too busy working to buy stuff, eventually get sick, their acquired skills go to waste due to death and sickness, and they're a drain on the healthcare system.

Ah yes the evil caricature with the cigar

And it's *YOURS*!

Say, do tell us ... do you see anti-EU people everywhere in your dreams, or when you close your eyes?
Need a therapist?

Relax. It's just Nazis VS Fascists. And you were confused and thought you had to pick a side, because the propaganda machine told you that otherwise you are a $literallyHitlerDuJour. You just happen to fall for the bigger propaganda machine of the Fascists instead of the smaller one of the Nazis. Not that it mattered.

In reality, there are no sides. You're a human. I'm a human. I haven't met you, so I can neither hate nor like you. So I'm cautiously open.

Cause who would have thought, that the sane spot of normal decent human beings is somewhere in the middle, between those.two insane caricatures extremes that both don't exist in reality.

[Now let's see who does not read the entire comment and gives me a hateful knee-jerk reaction... :D]

INB4 somebody calling you a "conservative" name caller.

Ho the hell do supposedly grown-up "people" in the US "think" in such obvious divide-and-control propaganda caricatures? And only binary rigid one-dimensional ones too!

Whatever one thinks of the law, it is good to understand how the European Parliament is promoting it, as at that link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

This is not in any way to defend that law, just to say it is useful to try to understand the mindset and world view behind it -- and how it was spun and sold.

While I agree a tax to link to something risks breaking the web (or at least the European part), here are some positive spins from the article about other aspects of copyright reform in the EU probably used to help sell the rest of the restrictions that otherwise seem to favor big publishers: "Uploading protected works for quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche has been protected even more than it was before... It also stipulates that copyright restrictions will not apply to content used for teaching or illustration. Finally, the directive also allows copyrighted material to be used free-of-charge to preserve cultural heritage. Out-of-commerce works can be used where no collective management organisation exists that can issue a license."

Of course, what those sentences really mean in practice however they may seem to sound, I don't know.

Hyperlinks to news articles, accompanied by “individual words or very short extracts”, can be shared freely

As sharing snippets of news articles is specifically excluded from the scope of the directive, it can continue exactly as before. However, the directive also contains provisions to avoid news aggregators abusing this. The ‘snippet’ can therefore continue to appear in a Google News newsfeeds, for example, or when an article is shared on Facebook, provided it is “very short”.
Uploading protected works for quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche has been protected even more than it was before, ensuring that memes and Gifs will continue to be available and shareable on online platforms.

The text also specifies that uploading works to online encyclopedias in a non-commercial way, such as Wikipedia, or open source software platforms, such as GitHub, will automatically be excluded from the scope of this directive. Start-up platforms will be subject to lighter obligations than more established ones.

From the official press release http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

The issues that you may have to face is how much of your work would be free to use by platforms like google. After all, the press release says nothing about images. It only talks about hyperlinks, which are allowed and short texts. But of course for your case that won't be helpful. You'd like previews of your art to be displayed. What category would that fall under? I can't say. If you're in doubt you'd probably have to declare somewhere that all your stuff is free to use by anyone.

Texas has open borders with several US states. They also have felt the effects of illegal immigration. But as well the benefits if you know something of Texas history.

But you seem not to know much about anything except you can drive across state lines freely. Maybe look at a map sometime and pick up a book on Texas history before you accuse. Also visit sometime and bask in the cultural diversity and not the caricature you probably picked up on television.

Ignorance is not bliss.

Yep, it's obviously a waste of time for you to claim that the phrase "men can be women" is a caricature, then engage in multi-paragraph obfuscation which doesn't actually answer anything, and finally close off your performance by saying "Kaitlin Jenner can be a woman if she wants to be and anyway it all depends on how you define man". You didn't really expect that to persuade anyone, did you?

I also knew that you were going to waste your time, but I looked forward to the show. You did not disappoint. This whole "you don't want to talk to me even though I'm totally dishonest!" bit seems to be the final routine of the jester as the curtains fall down on top of him.

First off, how do you define what is even means to be "men" vs. "women"?

I stopped reading there. You say that "men can be women" is a caricature ... and then drop this gem. Wonderful. "More complex" my shiny metal ass.

"Men can be women" is established left-wing dogma these days

While you're right that support of transgender rights is a left-wing position, the issue is more complicated than simply insisting that "men can be women." In fact, all of the positions listed in the original post are gross oversimplifications of complicated positions designed to appear stupid. This is, at its heart, the very definition of caricatures.

For the sake of trying to illuminate some of this complexity, let's just try to unpack this single issue, shall we? (I assume that I'm probably wasting my time, as conversations on the internet rarely change people's opinions, but I'm bored at work.)

First off, how do you define what is even means to be "men" vs. "women"? We all have some basic common-sense ideas, but none of them work as solid definitions. If we try to define things at the chromosome level, you can try to say that XX is a woman and that XY is a man, but what about XXY or XYY or XXXY? There are more, but you get the idea. If we then say that is complicated, but we can define based upon external genitalia, things get even more complicated. For one, there are hermaphrodites - where do they go? Also, some people have the standard XX or XY genotypes yet have external genitalia consistent with the opposite sex. I work in biotech and a colleague of mine tells a story of working for a prenatal genetic testing group that found an expecting mother had an XY genotype with a pure female phenotype.

Already, just trying to define terms, we are forced to abandon any kind of simplistic binary gender identity. It turns out that things are more complicated, even if we only focus on concrete issues like genotypes and external physiology.

Next, we turn to the even more complicated issues of sexual identity. In other words, how does any given person identify their own gender? I know very little about you personally, but I'll guess (based upon /. demographics) that you think of yourself as a man. (I also am a man, FWIW) When is it that you made this decision? Have you ever considered yourself or thought of yourself as a woman? Personally, I haven't. I'm a dude, and I've always seen myself that way. In other words, my gender identity was not a choice, but rather something that is intrinsic to who I am.

Now, imagine that you have this same sense of being a particular gender, but the organs between your legs don't match your particular sense of self. Most people's identities match their genitals, but for some people, they don't.

The current "left-wing dogma" is that people should get to decide for themselves their own gender identity, based upon the same intrinsic sense that you are using to identify your own gender, regardless of their genitals.

The statement "men can be women" misses this complexity. Instead, it tries to mix up various terms and frames the whole issue in a way that tries to deny all of the complexity mentioned above. That is what makes it a caricature.

As a side note, why should anyone else even give a shit about my gender? In a great many ways, allowing a flexible gender identity should be considered the right-wing, libertarian position. After all, unless I'm trying to have sex with someone, I really don't give a rat's ass how their clothing, etc. relates to what is under the clothing.

The discrepancy is probably due to the fact that the "right wing nutjob" accurately named several left-wing dictums, while the left-wing but job just named a bunch of left-wing caricatures of what they apparently think the right wing believes.

Wow. BOTH of the posts were simple, one-dimensional caricatures of the other side. If you think that the first post "accurately named" any left-leaning policies, you need to get out of your bubble.

Seriously, I'm about as left as they come, but none of those statements was even close to something I'd claim as a valid position.

Oh, shut the fuck up you gaslighting shit stain.
Slimy little trolls like you are why this whole thing has gotten so out of control.
You know damn well those are misleading caricatures.

Everything I said in the OP as leftist positions can be demonstrated as mainstream, mostly from the 2020 Democratic candidates who have said literally what I did, not even paraphrased.

The examples of the Right are ridiculous caricatures that nobody espouses, except for maybe trolls like Milo, or edgy teenagers on 4chan.

Specifically which leftist positions do you deny? I will find supporting quotes from mainstream Democrats who proudly assert them.

Sure, those are legit left wing positions. Absolutely no caricature or hyperbole or misrepresentation or outright lying there

The discrepancy is probably due to the fact that the "right wing nutjob" accurately named several left-wing dictums, while the left-wing but job just named a bunch of left-wing caricatures of what they apparently think the right wing believes.

Anyway don't worry, it'll lead to a mod-war and who knows what the eventual scores will be. It's a crap-shoot.

"Oh, Europeans prefer China search engines, instead?"

Nope. Thanks for matching the caricature of the ignorant full-of-himself Trump-like American.

The Europeans prefer https://www.qwant.com/ "The search engine that respects your privacy."

The Europeans use https://tutanota.com/ "Tutanota is the world's most secure email service, easy to use and private by design."

The Europeans use https://tresorit.com/ for cloud storage "Tresorit's automatic, built-in end-to-end encryption safeguards confidential documents from unauthorized access and guarantees that only you have access to them."

The Europeans use https://soundcloud.com/ for music "SoundCloud lets people discover and enjoy the greatest selection of music from the most diverse creator community on earth. "

The Europeans use https://www.ovh.com/ for their cloud applications, "A global hyper-scale cloud provider"

The Europeans phone with https://www.fairphone.com/en/ "We’ve created the world’s first ethical, modular smartphone. "

etc.

How do you verify that the money was spent on its intent? You don't. There was no mechanism.

There was also no mechanism to transfer the money in the Paris accord either.

It was a plan, mostly aspirational. Implementation details were intended to be worked out later. Presumably, there would be specific deals that fall under the effort, such as building a particular photovoltaic plant.

It was just a transfer of money from us, who need it badly for our own people

If you actually believed this, you wouldn't keep voting for people who keep cutting aid to the poor.

Bahaha, like the far left gives a shit about working class Americans. They voted for Trump! You think they're racist fascist deplorables, remember?

You do realize that Clinton is a centrist, right? The "far left" candidate in 2016 was Sanders.

Who's better: you educated people or the people of walmart?

Neither. But that's a bit problematic for you, isn't it? Those egg-heads have to be worse for some reason, right?

The cultural distance between progressives and working class people is now vast and I see little reason why that should change.

You believe this because you're unwilling to find out what progressives actually think. Because you've spent a long, long time getting your news and entertainment from sources that attack a caricature, in order to get you to keep voting to cut the spending you keep saying we desperately need.

You have the option to stop being played for a fool, and look at what people are actually proposing. To find out what those evil libtards actually think about you.

And we both know you will never take that option.

How do you even hold such idiotic rigid one-dimensional binary friend-or-literally-Hiter false dichotomy mindsets??
As a freaking *grown-up*?! Holy hell!

Face it: You and your imaginary enemy, as well as anyone despising "right-leaning" people, and their imaginary enemy, are pawns in a very simple, very big and very old game of divide-and-conquer, that was literally exactly what the Nazis used aswell als the Soviets under Stalin, and the NSA (against 43 groups in a single year, including Occupy, Wikileaks, Anonymous and the Tea Party!) according to the leaks.

The *actual people* behind the caricature of "left-leaning" or "right-leaning" or Russian or Chinese or American or Middle-Eastern, are far closer to being your allies and fighters for your cause, than the totalitarian traitor facists on a those "sides" that washed their brains with propaganda.

So go ahead: Fight with your allies, to defend your common enemy. GREAT FUCKIN' JOB! A+!

TV in the garden? How can he even tell the difference between giggling fan girls anymore with his focus so scattered? He is a caricature probably jumps up and down gleefully in unison with his chief garden officer when they find a blackberry

to me "half-caste" has a horribly imperialistic/colonialistic connotation

I can see now how it could convey that. A friend explained to me that the use of the word "half" was in some way diminishing/demeaning to the described person. That was not the way I had looked on it, I saw it as a simple and unimportant statement of fact that the colour (the "caste") was "half and half", but I learned to accept that others might not see things the same.

And as a USian, "colored people" has a direct connotation with Jim Crow and segregation.

Well thanks for the pointer - I had never heard of Jim Crow, but I've googled, and now I'm considerably wiser about the stupidities of my fellow humans. Well sort of - it's not clear whether "Jim Crow" was an actual person, or a caricature rhyming word for "negro". Doesn't matter really - the point is that I see how "coloured people" was used in an oppressive way on segregation paraphernalia.

Jesus, what a mess of racial prejudice you folks have gone through in the US. In terms of the US history of prejudice I'd seen "Mississippi Burning" and that was about all; the epicentre of apartheid while I was growing up had been white South Africa, which we saw off when Nelson Mandela was released. Racial prejudice / racism always seems to me so old-fashioned and deluded that I don't even consider it ... "Surely we were over and done with that crap 100 years ago? Can we move on and get on with the future please?". Yes, white privilege. But every now and again I get a rude awakening to the reality that the crap still infests our planet. Sigh.