Slashdot Mirror
What You Can't Say
dtolton writes "Paul Graham has an excellent article posted on the subject of things you can't say. His article explores what ideas are generally considered heresy, and whether or not those ideas might be true nonetheless. He also presents advice for handling heretical ideas. Considering that many of the ideas in technology in general and Open Source specifically are near heresy, it's well worth a read."
i dont wanna say anything about the article :)
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Mr Hitler was a fantastic orator? (who would doubtless have made a great comedian).
While I'm on the topic, its interesting that an entire moustache can be effectively banned around the world due to the actions of one man.
Unless you happen to be Robert Mugabe (anyone notice his chosen moustache style?).
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Pointing out the evidence implicating Israel in 9/11.
Pointing out that the war on drugs is genocide.
Pointing out that feminism has ruined America.
I'm sure there are others, but I expect this is enough to score me -1, Heretic.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Obviously, this guy has never seen a slashdotter putting the moves on a lady!
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
So if the slashdot system removed these shackles and opaque moderation system we would have a better discussion, instead of having karma whores, slashbots, and other sheep here.
For all the Canucks in the house, here's something that's true but you can't say:
Two-tier, user-fee health care is the way of the future.
There, I said it.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Ya know, I think SCO might have a point there . . .
----
"Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so."-Lawrence Lessig
As always, Paul is a smart guy and has some important things to say. However, he could be more succint. The article does tend to ramble on a bit.
Things you can't say, hmm? Ironic that this should be slashdotted, since ./ is more-or-less the last bastion of the kind of free-speech, open-debate that exists. In ancient Greece, there would be many places where the population would gather to discuss the matters which were of consequence to them, but such places no longer exist. It is of course from such places, I believe, that we derive the term 'forum' which is widely used on the internet. ./ claims to be just about tech and geeky stuff, really it covers such a wide range of issues, when the debates digress, that it's the closest thing to a community that I think most of us have got now. There are very few things that you cannot say here, and while you'll get flamed by anonymous cowards and trolls, if your statements have any merit, that will be recognised. That's why I continue to visit, despite not really being as much of a techie as I once was. :-)
Back to my point, such places no longer exist, and while
I like my free speech, and here is one of the only places I can be the heretic that I am, and not suffer unduly for it.
Soluzar __PROUD HERETIC SINCE THE EARLY EIGHTIES__
ObDisclaimer: My heresy doesn't extend to thinking I'm a God, or wanting to sacrifice people to one, so please don't take that to mean I'm a dangerous looney.
Sign the FSF's Anti-DMCA petit
. . . that you don't agree with whatever zealotry is current in your time.
XML and OOP suck big, fat, hairy monkey balls.
There, how'd I do?
KFG
I can think whatever the hell I like, and he can't stop me. If I'm having bad and naughty thoughts considered "heresy", he doesn't know I'm having them and neither does anybody else, so why should he be bothered? Also, some thoughts my considered "heresy" by him but not by others.
My thoughts, my life! Who's with me?!
):
Warning:
This article has nothing to do with current technology sans a single 1 sentence reference to the DMCA.
"Belgium," said Arthur.
"Raaaaaarrrchchchchch!" screeched the pterodacyl.
"Grrruuuuuuyyyghhhh," agreed the seven-toed sloth.
~Life, The Universe and Everything
Are you sure people sould be allowed to say anything?
Because I think all Muslims should be wiped out, they kill far too many people. Killing them first would be a very good thing.
But, you won't catch me saying this in public too often.
Any while on the subject I think all homosexuals should go back in the closet - I don't care what you do at home, but don't let anyone know about it.
What else....
People who preform abortions for convenience (i.e. not including danger, or rape, etc.) should be executed for murder.
I really do believe these things, but I don't dare say them.
There is a possibility for change, though. With enough people or atleast someone powerful enough to influence, herecy changes. The idea of what is blasphemous is a morphing entity, and popular thought drives it and consent from those with power and money is a catylist.
Save Sam and Max!
My eye was caught by this part:
Scientists go looking for trouble. This should be the m.o. of any scholar, but scientists seem much more willing to look under rocks.
Why? It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics.
Why, then, was the membership of my church at university drawn about 80% from the sciences and only 20% from the humanities? In fact my experience suggests a general trend here - scientists seem more likely to have strong religious views than artists.
I thought strong religious views were supposed to be signs of closed minds and credulity, not open minds and intelligence!
My favorite example is why some African-Americans can & do use the term "nigger" to describe themselves without inpunity or shame, but if a white person does so, they can/will be fired and their lives ruined. Why is it a double standard, and it's a negative hateful word. Why do blacks in certain circles constantly use it?
(and there's no need to mod me down for *actually* saying things you cant say - if thats the case then /. is worthless.)
Or to point out the CIA and state department cant agree on how many Kurds were actually killed at Halabja or in the the other Iraqi WMD attacks.
I can't say the following on the radio... What you can't say
It's not "Funny", it's merely one of the options
I kinda drifted through the article swiftly =\. Replace all the things about thinking and stuff with saying. eg:I can say whatever the hell etc. you get the picture. Thank you!
):
It might just get you fired
This guy takes a pretty obvious statement -- that certain ideas are unpopular at some times and popular at others -- and confuses this with fashion.
He uses Galileo as an example as an example of someone who expressed unfashionable ideas. But Galileo was starting a new fashion. He popularized and provided evidence for a new truth of which the world was unaware and generally unprepared to accept.
The difference between Galileo's writings and an unfashionable idea is that Galileo expressed a TRUE statement. Many unfashionable statements are unfashionable precisely because they are wrong.
There's a time and place for non-conformism, and this isn't it.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Well, you can't threaten the first lady (or a previous first lady) cnn article without facing some time in prison.
howard dean sucks
This is going to turn into a debate about conservatism vs. liberalism real soon. There are many people that believe thinking outside the box is a bad idea. Sucks, but people are stupid.
Windows really isn't all that bad.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
is actually possible.
2.5 + 2.5 = 5
Enterprise is the best series ever.
A Slashdot subscription is money well spent.
BSD isn't dying.
Windows XP is okay.
The Matrix is mediocre.
Slashdot editors are workaholics.
Although it's worthwhile to examine and criticize the existing orthodoxies of your society/timeperiod/family, the question is whether one truly examines one's own deeply held beliefs (i.e., the ground from which you're throwing bombs at the "establishment"). I've spent a lot of time around people who have a staggering degree of certainty that they're in the minority and an astonishing level of belief in their own victimhood and the heretical nature of their opinions.
The fascinating thing about those folks is that most of them were highly-educated white men (as am I) who thought that the deck in the US was stacked against them. They took the academic intellectual critiques of the existing society to mean that they were personally under attack and could never get a fair break, so that their boorish behavior was actually "speaking truth to power."
I guess my point here is that just because one fancies oneself a heretic doesn't mean that one is. A lot of self-styled heretics are just rude people looking for someone to blame outside themselves.
Point and Counterpoint: The Tick - "Spoon!" Neo - "There is no spoon."
"I made the switch!... from Linux to Windows XP! (true story actually...)
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
^^^ OK Who went and made that yellow...
- Masturbatory habits ("Hey Chuck, what'd you do last night?" "Oh, I stayed home and surfed for porn - had two great orgasms!")
- Fetishes ("So Julie, what did you get for Christmas?" "Oh! A batman cape? I can't reach orgasm unless my lover is wearing one!")
- Adultery (although this might be legitimate)
Violence:- "Sure I hit my wife - when she deserves it!" (this is probably less of a taboo than it should be)
Religion:- In most of middle america, announcing that you're an atheist is pretty eyebrow-raising.
Language:- You can't say 'nigger', unless you're black.
- You can't usually use a racial slur at all unless you're either kidding or in a particular bigoted crowd.
You know, most taboos are only taboo in a particular circle you're in. For example, announcing that the War on Drugs is destroying this country would be applauded in one circle I travel in, and ignored or shrugged off in several others.The linked article seems poorly written, with few relevant pieces of supporting evidence. When there is supporting evidence it is sometimes ill suited or off-topic.
It's all conjecture and hypothesis with incomplete support and transitions.
Therefore his conclusions are hersey.
It's a double standard and it's called reverse discrimination. It's idiotic, and the black people who continue to behave like this are only hurting their cause. If you don't practice what you preach, how can we take you seriously?
* I refuse to put a disclaimer on this message. I feel that the continued use of that word by black culture is absolutely sickening. I am white.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
America's heresy is to suggest that Bush hasn't exactly been honest regarding the Iraq war. To question our motives, you're immediately branded a liberal, a Saddam lover, or unpatriotic. Dissent is the sign of terrorist.
Well pfffffffft. The emporer has no clothes.
The idea that the term "divisive" came from the Right and the current Administration is hilarious. Doesn't anybody remember Newt Gingrich being attacked for his divisiveness?
And you want heresies? How about:
"The Kyoto Protocol is an expensive boondogle that won't solve a problem that doesn't actually exist."
"The United Nations is an illegitiamte entity that should be shut down immediately. Anyone who says we should listen to it should be turned out from political office."
"To refuse to execute murderers is immoral. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life is the soul of justice."
"Jesus, Gandhi, and everyone else who advocates nonviolent resistance are morally complicit in the depredations of every police state."
"Homosexuality is immoral, disgusting, and dangerous, and should be illegal."
"Wives should obey their husbands."
"The divorced-and-remarried should be shunned as sinners."
Post it on /. and see if you get modded down!
[I realise your post was intended as humour, but it sparked the flame :-]
:-(
This is after-all a site for "stuff that matters". What the author is trying to express is that blind obedience to society norms is a bad thing. Effectively, he's saying "distrust Authority", an old maxim, but one that needs reiteration from time to time.
I have to say that I identify closely with a lot of his ideas, nothing depresses me more than the continued conversion of people into "consumers" told what to "consume", when to do it, how much to do it, and presumably when to stop.
The only way out of the cycle is education - but not facts and figures, instead the freedom to think and postulate, debate and conclude. The sort of education that we (at least in the UK) tend to reserve for the 18+ year-olds who go to college.
We live in an ever-more complex society, with ever-more subtle distinction between right and wrong, between do and do-not. It is a crying shame that most are incapable of distinguishing those distinctions. The "system" has failed these people.
I wonder if we are indeed moving into the "Corporate state" governmental model (anyone who played 'elite' will know that these are the most stable of governments), which simply exist to exist. Life should be more
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Not because people agree with me, which I can find 9 of 10, and maybe even 10 of 10 who would disagree, even greatly, on something.
I'm not uncomfortable, because I am confident in my opinions. As a Network Engineer, I will gladly discuss why I do not like VPNs and QoS. As an economist, I will gladly discuss why the Federal Reserve is an abomination and must be abolished instantly. As a citizen, I will gladly discuss why welfare must be abolished instantly, both for the poor and for the rich.
As a mortal being, I will gladly say that I believe humanity is on track to repair its damages already done, and to improve its condition in the future, so long as this absurdity called "government" is restrained from causing yet more harm.
As a male, I'll gladly say that Japanese women are the most beautiful in general.
Confidence, not agreement.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Being able to express unpopular topics or even matters deemed to be too taboo by a restrictive society and even being able to discuss them is what makes (semi-)anonymous systems such as Freenet and Mute so important these days. In a way, it's this centuries' way of doing what Hans and Sophie Scholl did in the 1940s.
Without freedom of though, freedom of expression and freedom of the press, conformity is pretty much the only way. Look at it this way - all great men (CEOs as well as philosophers, politicians; the list goes on) were special in their thinking or understanding of things. That's what made them truely stand out from the "regular" masses, and that's often what made them a success.
Why is it a double standard, and it's a negative hateful word.
Same reason your wife can say "I am so fat", but you get in trouble if you say "honey, you are fat". I don't see why that is so hard to understand why the difference.
Grammar Nazis are bred in Cambridge... nuke it now.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
After reading the article, I have the strong feeling, the author shouldn't have written 90% of the article - the long and boring part without real message. But unfortunatly, boring your audience isn't a taboo these days.
Calling something x-ist, as the author suggests, is often used to suppress ideas, even true ideas. But that doesn't mean that the concept of racism or sexism is just a form of censorship, as this article seems to imply. In fact, such labels are very useful for discussing implications as well as the truth value of a sentence.
That's pretty vague, so how about an example. If someone says, "Girls are bad at math", it can mean a lot of different things. One of the meanings might be, "Girls tend to do worse on math tests than boys of the same age," which if the age in question is high school, as opposed to elementary school or junior high, would be true. And yet, I can hear the cries, even though it's true, it gets labeled as sexist!
Well, there's a good reason for that. If what our hypothetical speaker really meant to say was, "Girls in high school perform worse on math tests that boys in high school," then why didn't he say that? The main difference in the two sentences, or in the general approach behind the sentences, is twofold: the implications of the sentence; and the assumptions behind it.
Those things need to be addressed, and it's not enough to say, "That's not true!" as the author of this article would have it. Because the sentence *is* true, but at least one implication -- that girls are naturally worse at math than boys, and there's nothing to be done about that -- is *exactly* the kind of idea that the author wants to avoid! It's pervasive, it's hard to get rid of, in most places in this country, people believe it implicitly. But it's also hard to talk about the general phenomenon without bringing up the concept of sexism.
So be careful of just rejecting x-ism and y-ic. They exist because they can be useful tools for uncovering the exact "fashions" which the author claims they hide.
Most of these things you "can't say", there is lots of money to be made in saying.
Snoop Doggy Dogg says all the "offensive" words there are and becomes a popular success among people who want to look "bad".
The Skeptical Environmentalist violates all of the scientific community's taboos in one book-- beginning with the taboos concerning poor research and use of logic and statistics, and ending with questioning things that practically every branch of science points toward-- then shoves this in everyone's face until he finds people who attack him for it, and makes lots of money off of appearing "repressed".
Can't say? Hmm..
Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.
There is a relationship between race and intelligence (think "Bell Curve").
Female circumcision, like male circumcision, is needed for the health and happiness of the girls upon which it is practiced.
People are easily swayed by slick advertising. That doesn't mean other people, that means you.
Children have a developed sexuality, and children under the age of 18 are capable of informed consent.
That's not to say that I personally do or do not believe in any of the ideas expressed above, just that if one were to express those beliefs in a public location they would be promptly shot.
SCO is akin to gelatinous pig shit.
DRM must mean Dickless Retarded Microsoft.
Napster went from Superman to Lex Luthor.
Guns don't kill people, it's the small hard metal projectiles that they release at supersonic speeds piercing through peoples soft body tissue and exploding through the other side in a spray of blood, guts, excrement, brain matter, liver tissue that kills people.
Sadaam Housein should be tied to an ant mound (fire ants) naked and have his balls smeared with honey because he is a goat flucking gizz gargling bitchbastardbuttdongdildoshitlipped rooster sucker.
I want to have sex with Paris Hilton in ways that are illegal in most countries.
So, I can't say any of the above? Ok, at least I was told before I offended anyone. Whew!!!Dude. Dude. Dude. Dude. DUDE!!!! Duuuudde. Yeah, I guess you have a point there. (Baseketball)
Still at high (orange) alert.
Ooops... I can't say that.
Sadly, universities are becoming the places where free speech is the *least* tolerated. Orwellian indoctrination classes and speech codes are the norm. Punishment for controversial speech is becoming more severe. College newspapers exposing "dangerous" thoughts are being stolen or banned. Anyone who speaks up is labeled a "racist conservative Nazi facist".
If you want detailed specifics check out the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
Brian Ellenberger
1. Religion is the greatest folly of mankind.
2. Reproductive human cloning is a desirable technology.
3. Liberal and conservative are both worn-out and obsolete political philosophies.
4. A greenhouse effect ehanced by man-made pollutants is the only thing currently holding back a return of the Ice Age.
5. Greater availability of firearms tends to reduce the incidence of violent crime.
Hmmm. . . . Although I wouldn't normally do so, I think I better most this one anonymously.
Here's where a bunch of folks who didn't read the article try to show us how open-minded they are by doing exactly what the article recommends they not do: keep their mouth shut and their minds open.
There are only 6,863,795,529 types of people in the world.
Just finished reading it. Very interesting. He covers what we know we should do, but we often don't.
Much of his story is quite true. Another thing I might point out, is that while Graham does note that the current administration throws around the words "divisive" and "inappropriate" I can think up one more: "patriotic", where suddenly anyone who criticizes the war in Iraq is unpatriotic*. I really see how this guy earned his Ph.D.
*I supported the war in Iraq 100%, and support it to this very day, but I still find it a little disturbing that my opponents qualify for the title of "unpatriotic"
About the $1 Billion Telescope
About XFree86
If everyone wasn't so politically correct there wouldnt be a need for an article like this. It appears that everyone has become so sensitive to anything that comes out of peoples mouths, that we all have to watch what we say otherwise the PC demons will come and take our souls back to buzzword land. A joke is taken out of context and suddenly you find yourself in court for slander. What's the point in speaking when you have to watch what you say all the time. What's the point in activism when people get offended so easily.
Paul
would
let me
decide
how wide
the page
should be.
I hate
skinny
columns.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
for the overly sheltered like myself who had no idea what coprophile meant... it's just another troll
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
...who published the book "Ten Things you Can't Say In America".
To summarize his points:
* Blacks are More Racist than Whites
* White Condescension is as Real as Black Racism
* The Media Bias: It's Real, It's Widespread, It's Destructive
* The Glass Ceiling: Full of Holes
* America's Greatest Problem: Illegitimacy
* The Big Lie: Our Health Care Crisis
* The Welfare State: Helping Us to Death
* Republican v. Democrat: Maybe a Dime's worth of Difference, One's for Big Government, One's for Bigger
* Vietnam II: The War on Drugs, and We're Losing that One Too
* Gun Control Advocates: Good Guys with Blood on Their Hands
How about this one:
We exist purely as vehicles for our genes; our consciousness, our imaginations, our creations: all these are simply manifestations of our genetically-implanted instincts for survival. We believe we exist because it makes us better replicators. There is no other reason for existence, no god, no destiny, no karma. Our lives are neither random nor controlled: choice is an illusion, but so is fate. We simply operate, like the very intelligent automatons we are. Our minds are exquisitely adapted to solving large and complex problems, the bulk of which come from our intraspecies competition with each other. Our societies are hives, built through the collaboration of thousands and millions of minds. As a species we are genetically so similar, due to near-extinction around 50,000 years ago, that we are practically clones. All our notions of "ethnicity" and "color" are as meaningful as separating people by hair patterns or toe size. Our species is incredibly successful mainly because we have managed to turn our technological prowess onto ourselves, creating a feedback loop that has not stopped since we invented fire and freed our jaws to shrink and make space for a larger brain. Finally, although we all feel unique, we are in fact designed as team players, male and female, young and old adopting clear and comfortable roles that are so inate they are universal in all human cultures. Men solve technical problems, women organize social networks. Young men learn and work, young women dance and like to look pretty. Old women gossip and old men accumulate power."
These truths, though self0evident, are heresy because they seem to imply (wrongly) that life has no meaning and personal endeavour has no value. Au contraire, life is filled with meaning, and personal endeavour all that makes it possible.
Just because you understand fluid mechanics does not mean you cannot enjoy surfing a great wave.
OK, flame me now...
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Emacs is a better editor than vim. :).
There, I said it
The good part: turn every idea on its head to see if it looks better
The bad part: everyone thinks their personal opinion is worthwhile. Hm... some things really are stupid!
I have never understood why society, experts or the media seem to believe that nudity harms children. Children see themselves naked everyday, why should it harm them to see someone else naked? It is absolute heresy in this age to claim otherwise.
What is worse than holding unpopular opinions is the reaction many people have to them. We jump all over those that hold opinions in the margins of society, however right or wrong they might be, and never seek to learn the reasons they hold such opinions or if there is any truth in them.
Humanity has come a long way, but as a society we seem as unreceptive to new ideas as ever.
I don't see why that is so hard to understand why the difference.
He didn't say there was a difference.
Niggers like kiddie porn.
Nope. Odds are I'm picky about who I consider my peers. Just picking age group and occupation just doesn't cut it.
Cheers,
Ian
Dr Howard Dean
The MacDonalds Coffee lawsuit Lawyer
What is, of course, also true, is that there are many things that could be said - both which are considered acceptable or indeed 'gospel', and which are not - which are blatantly wrong.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", as Voltaire may have said - and equally, just because it has been said, doesn't mean anyone has to listen. That includes listening to the conspiracy-theorists who will no doubt be having a field-day here all evening...
-Chris
No, it is not called reverse descrimination. That's a different thing, nigga.
To see fashion in your own time, though, requires a conscious effort.
I read this statement, and I thought to myself, "Oh shit, I'm reading a blog."
What sort of things would get you beat up if said in public...? - Blacks and Mexicans are more likely than Whites or Asians to be murderers, rapists and criminals of every variety. Any others?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
My favorite example is why some African-Americans can & do use the term "nigger" to describe themselves without inpunity or shame, but if a white person does so, they can/will be fired and their lives ruined. Why is it a double standard, and it's a negative hateful word. Why do blacks in certain circles constantly use it?
I think if you were friends with a black guy and said it jokingly then they would have to be really uptight to get upset about it. The problem is that white people rarely use the word nigger in this way, which is why some people (white and black) seem to be so hypersensitive to it's use at all.
Antibiotics are obsolete. Electricity does a better job with fewer side effects.
f cg i?artid=172457
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.
This has been known for a VERY long time.
I'll tell you what I can't say: "Supercalifragilisticexpialiousdoouscousious". If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious. Even just the sound of it is something quite atrocious.
Looks like we found another thing you can't say on slashdot.
HIV does not cause AIDS illnesses.
AIDS is currently defined as presence of HIV antibodies (not live virus necessarily) plus any ONE of about 30 other illnesses, from low t-cell counts to pneumonia to kaposi's sarcoma. So through a miracle of circular reasoning, yes, HIV causes AIDS - but only because that's the definition.
Scientists who dispute that HIV causes all AIDS illnesses (pointing out that HIV, if responsible, acts differently than any other virus known to man in about a dozen ways) and postulate other hypotheses - for instance, that drug usage, including the chemotherapy drugs like AZT used for AIDS treatment, causes the immunodeficiencies, are barred from conferences and their papers are blacklisted.
This is exactly why I like Slashdot. Only rarely do I find myself agreeing with the group opinion, but it tends to open my mind to options and ideas that I hadn't otherwise thought of. Likewise, although my first view of a story will always be 3+, I frequently turn it down to -1 (when I have some extra time) to see what "the trolls" have to say.
It's also interesting to note that when I Meta Moderate (every couple of days), I find lots of anti-BSD or anti-Linux posts moderated as Flamebait. Being the heretic that I am, I always categorize such moderations as incorrect. In doing so, I've pretty much figured out that many of my opinions about copyright (WRT music) and software development (OOP and XP) are considered ignorant and uninformed.
IMHO, it would benefit many of us to spend more time in the company of people we disagree with, and not so much time just finding people to reinforce our already-formed opinions. I've feared for some time that one of the worst things about the Internet is that it allows someone whose ideas are dangerous to find others of like mind, and decide "I'm normal, because there are others out there like me who believe in gouging other people's eyes out for complaining about Joe Lieberman." It's OK for someone like that to feel the societal pressure that says "YOU ARE A WEIRDO."
Tim
I was under the impression that the sociable /.er is a myth, like Bigfoot but without the plausibility.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Would it be heretical to point out that this piece makes Graham seem simultaneously like a master of the obvious, AND a self-important windbag?
At least I didn't catch any references to Copernicus or Galileo in the text, but I admit not reading very attentively after the first 4 paragraphs.
I'd expect something like this from a starstruck freshman (oops...I mean first-year student), but from someone who is actually past 30....shudder.
ObHeresy: Emacs sucks!
Gator is spyware.
He didn't say there was a difference
? double+standard ....note the word "differently").
He said it was a double standard. That clearly implies a difference (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
There. I said it.
The scary thing is, this will most likely be modded down...
I dare say this:
- Is Holocaust and the '6-million-legend' true?
- Where is the concrete evidence?
- Was Nuremberg a fair trial?
- Was Hitler right?
-1 Troll&Flamebait, remove this comment...
Post on slashdot, and you become a raving homosexual deviant, intent on sodomizing little boys and sucking off gay men in truck stop restrooms.
I doubt anyone other than yourself is interested in hearing about your personal problems...
I just finished reading the article and already I'm starting to say things I'm not supposed to.
This reminds me of one of the core ideas that Robert Anton Wilson presented in _Schroedinger's Cat_. The idea as he put it was all great intellectual breakthroughs (I don't think he qualified the statement any more than that) came from breaking established taboos. Of course this was a crazy work of fiction so in the story the scientists are all screwing animals, but RAW's point was made nonetheless.
So Paul Graham makes some good points and considering the topic it's good to know that this wasn't the first and god willing not the last time it will be talked about.
Joe just gave the following press release.
"Dear voters. While I agree with some of the core Democratic values, I have to admit that I have found myself aligning my self more often with Republicans and the Bush Administration. Civil liberties are not very importantant when compared to security and putting away bad puppet dictators like Saddam. I have decided to remain in the Democratic party for now to help cause division and pave an easier path for a Republican re-election. I hope that all Americans will join with me and vote for four more years of security and peace through war. -Joe Liberman"
Chomsky's brilliant work "The Manufacturing of Consent" is a look at the influence of monopolistic media outlets on our culture. It's a two tape video and usually available from a well stocked public library. It's a nice fit for furthering the ideas presented in this story.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
to the stupididties of the world, unlike the little boy in the "Emporer's New Clothes."
Because we cannot remember our own childhoods, we are divorced from our true selves and put on the mask of personality to get on in the world.
This is the true meaning of the Oedipus myth: that we abandon the knowledge that we are (pieces of) God to take on the cultural biases and perceptions forced on us by family and culture.
Of course this "confortable disease" (to quote e.e.cummings) is widespread and throughout history -- because we are not humans in search of the spiritual, we are spirits in search of the human experience.
We just forgot.
And you might want to reread the Emporer's New Clothes to remind us what happens to children who expose reality. Or read about the life of Jesus for the same lesson. (Virgin birth == Metaphor)
It's all discrimination, the word reverse is unnecessary. That said, I agree with the principle if not with the wording.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
To quote the original poster.:
"My favorite example is why some African-Americans can & do use the term "nigger" to describe themselves without inpunity or shame, but if a white person does so, they can/will be fired and their lives ruined."
If it puts his job on the line for using the phrase, yet it doesn't put other people's jobs on the line then it very much IS reverse descrimination. I admit it depends on the context it's used, but it's nevertheless a valid point.
Anyway, you dear sir are a fool for using that word.
"Was this made in Israel?"
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
Michael Crichton has a fine article about the sacred cows of science. It gets better after the attack on SETI. Read Aliens cause Global Warming.
Scott Draves
Mmmm....Anyone have more?
-Jerald_Hams
It used to be that religion trumped science (ala Galileo).
Now religion is trumped by science, and science is trumped by political correctness.
If you doubt it, just try to start up a conversation on how Darwinism might apply to different races of human. Or look at the backlash against scientists that write articles debunking global warming.
Today, as in the past, who trumps whom has little to do with the certainty of what is being argued.
I put the 'fun' in fundamentalism
This site would really suck if it weren't for the trolls, not the goatse and page wideners, although they mostly switched over to the journal/zoo system a while ago. There is a whole lot less noise there than at -1.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
...is that an awful lot of those "heretical" ideas are nothing more than outdated *majority* opinions of the past, rather than new ideas worth considering, which it what real heretics like Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein gave the world.
For example, in any bar you'll find some middle aged white guy who will try to tell you "The problem with this country is the blacks/asians/jews/hispanics, but you can't say that anymore because of political correctness". There's nothing *original* about such ideas -- when such guys were young those were typical opinions.
Implication: he doesn't yet have kids.
"...and they're all trying not to use words like "fuck" and "shit" within baby's hearing, lest baby start using these words too. But these words are part of the language, and adults use them all the time. So parents are giving their kids an inaccurate idea of the language by not using them. Why do they do this? Because they don't think it's fitting that kids should use the whole language. We like children to seem innocent. [7]"
Nonsense. There's a saying I know from a film, don't know if it has any other derivation, "rules are for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of the wise". In this context, the children are (figuratively) the 'fools' - they haven't yet gained enough wisdom to know the implications of what they're saying. If they have, well then they're old enough to use the words. If they haven't...they're still the children being referred to.
I have two children, one just months but the other coming up to her second birthday and with her use of language exploding all over the place. She doesn't yet know enough to check herself, has little conception of context - if she starting using swear words now honestly, would I have done that kid a favour? At some point in her life she's going to start swearing, but at two? No. She'll do so when she learns about them, at first way too much and then later with a bit more understanding of context. And that's why the parents are self-censoring themselves - to help their children, not to molly-coddle them from reality.
Cheers,
Ian
Yeah, tell that to the countries who cared to criticize GWB's "search for WMD" in Iraq. Of course their position is considered improper !
So should people conform on this issue. Conform to which side? How far? Can diseases evolve? Strict christian teachings would say they can't. Good luck then predicting what will happen if we saturate our enviroment with anti-biotics.
Non-conformist are what drives society. We need the adventures just as much as we need to homebuilders. To say we don't need non-conformists now is extremly short sighted.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Let's try:
We wouldn't need a war on terror if we allowed palestinians the right to vote, didn't fund and militarily defend the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and stopped supporting oligarchy and theocracy in return for massive campaign bribes (aka contributions). The Moslem world hates us because they are intelligent, not because they are crazy. (No, I am not Moslem, so this does qualify as heresy for me.;-) ) Our money would be much better spent on developing swamp land in Florida than on Israel.
KDE UI is a Windows Wannabe interface, and the world would be better if Microsoft sued us for copying their look and feel so that we would have to show some originality.
Staroffice is mostly just an inferior buggy stripped down ripoff of MS-office, which itself wasn't very original. It contains not one single original idea, which is remarkable for a program that large.
Most of Linux is based on ripping off Unix design, not crediting the original authors, and then mindlessly repeating what has been done before with hordes of insignificant changes that are kind of nice but....
The Linux credo of incremental improvements reflects a particular group of people doing what they are capable of, not people pursuing a better methodology. Plan 9 was superior in its design, but failed for social/licensing reasons. If more Linux developers were architects, Linux would be better.
Open source collaboration tends to lead toward imitative results because looking just like the proprietary solution is the viewpoint that finds consensus most easily. Software needs to be directed using the mad director methodology of the movie industry if it is to be original, and the mad director methodology requires that people on the project get their paycheck all from the same inspired mad dictatorial asshole or else they will just ignore him.
You can talk about SCO's positive points on Slashdot and sometimes get a rational response (usually not though).
Specifically, if you look at SCO's claims about errno.h, ioctl.h, and signal.h, Linus's first version of these files (from Linux 0.0.1) really is a verbatim copy of older files (from Version 7 Unix, available from SCO Ancient Unix).
I think the key is to frame the controversial statements in a non-threatening way, like "you don't have to chnage your mind about SCO, but here's something interesting that runs against the bulk of opinion here."
There's a lot more things that you can't say in New York City than you can't say on Slashdot!
Windows 2003 really isn't all that bad as windows 3.1.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I've seen plenty of models that show companies that package the work of these developers and sell services based on them making money.
Sometimes the developers and the packagers are the same, but that's different.
This is a serious post... Notice I post it anonymously: it's one of those things that would probably get me ostracized amongst a large group of people I know.
I like women who don't shave. I prefer it to the norms of our society today (which is going more and more towards the removal of every hair on both the male AND female bodies). I find the woman's body attractive the way it is. Why is this such a bad thing? Why should I be ostracized for my tastes in women?
Keep in mind, I still prefer women who "groom" themselves. There's a difference between taking care of yourself and just not caring. The same way I would prefer a women who takes a bath every now and then over one who doesn't, I would prefer one who takes the opporutnity to groom herself every now and then over one who doesn't. However, that doesn't mean she absolutely must conform to the ideals set forth in Playboy.
And before some of you immature fanboys get too crazy, notice I am not gay (not that I consider it a bad thing, I'm just not). I prefer the female body as is.
Somebody tell me, what's wrong with that?
Just go to the states if you really must. Healthcare's actually still quite good here. Most of the hub bub is just hype just like SARS.
Sometimes thinkers on the political right are correct.
Let's see how many have taken Paul Graham's words to heart.
Fortunately, I am in the UK, and although it does happen here, not nearly as often ^^;
):
The guy claims that, at the start of World War II, "any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy" was labelled "defeatist", preventing any argument. This is strange stuff.
Presumably Churchill's "aggressive policy" was wanting to continue fighting against Germany. Nasty and aggressive, indeed. And how bizarre that the premier of a country fighting for its existence, and without any allies, wanted to prevent defeatist talk amongst his colleagues spreading throughout the country.
I think the entire point of blacks calling themselves niggers is to simply stick it to the tradition of it being a derogatory term. There's nothing more effective in taking the air of a dumb cracker by gladly using the very term he intended to insult you with. I suppose busting a cap into his ass could also do the job admirably, but I digress...
I think it's more akin to someone saying, "I'm a pedophile," versus, "You're a pedophile."
Sorry, I still don't understand why anyone would use the n-word, especially so trivially as some clearly do.
Everybody gets a good laugh out "big fat hairy monkey balls", but I hope you guys are aware that this is a serious problem for monkeys in many parts of the world.
Hypertrophic Testicular Disorder (HTD) is a condition affecting 14% of male monkey populations worldwide. The condition results in large, painfully swollen testicles, which onlookers often call "big fat hairy monkey balls". This condition impacts the monkey's ability to mate, or even to sleep and sit. Laughing at them doesn't help.
I hope everybody on slashdot thinks twice before using this "funny" phrase, and please consider making a donation if you can. Your money will go toward analgesics to reduce swelling and paying the often-expensive fees of "monkey shavers".
I take your point. What is meta data if not just data? Is there meta meta data? Or meta meta meta meta meta data? Or is it all really just data?
:)
The use of the word is the real problem. It's either bad or it isn't. People just need to make up their minds.
Bryan
black americans (especially the sort who usually use the word "nigger" for each other) are not in a position (usually) to make decisions that will affect many people.
My family is from Wisconsin. If we had wine with a meal, I would be given a glass. I can remember attending many picnics with family and relatives in local parks. There was always a keg or two of beer, along with the sausages, hamburgers and other food. Many of the kids would drink a half-cup or cup of beer, although most preferred soda.
What would happen if I tried that today, in another part of the United States? Let's see.
- Alcohol in a public park.
- Drinking in public.
- Giving alcohol to minors.
I'd probably end up in jail and see the kids put in foster care. I've also noticed the large number of "public service" ads on television that portray alcohol consumption, especially by children, as stupid and evil.Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Universities have become islands of repression in a sea of freedom.
Ifind myself in a world where its dangerous to express my innermost fealings out loud. If i feal something its important that i can say so. If society dont like what i think its up to the society to prove me wrong by education and by reasoning. All absence of reasoning behind what is wrong and right breeds hate and terrorism.
Yes thats right, terrorism. What do YOU do when you feel for something more than you feel for life itself? Do you just step aside and let others make your decisions for you or do you fight for your right to think and feel as you like? Most people step aside and hide their fealings but some people like during the slave wars in the USA or in the indian upprising take the fight and stands for their beliefs.
If they are hindered from expressing their beliefs at some point they will resort to violence with a few exceptions. The israeli occupation and ethnic clensing of palestine is one excellent example of what happens when you step on someones rights too much. Anyone can become a terrorist at a point and its nothing that is contained to certain religions or folks.
Just look at your own history and the freedom fighters against england. Im sure they would be labeled terrorists by todays definition by the current administeration, dont you?
HTTP/1.1 400
What's interesting is most people subscribed to Slashdot feel safe enough to post thoughts about moral objections, moral orientations and political views.
Most of America isn't.
On that point, we have a term for those followers, the sheep of America. Joe Sixpack, the nannied people who vote the party line, who do what father did, who is satisfied with the status quo. And with Joe Sixpack making up over 50% of the voting public, its hard to get things changed and not passing thought crime'ish laws.
The article brings up many true concerns and valid points. And luckly, a few of us more open minded people have a place to talk about ideas without political or moral backlash. (Except Mod points) That article is posted on the web, I doubt will be published in any editoral newpaper or magazine columns around the USA. Are we the lucky few?
-
Secondlife
Well, regarding your wife, you should immediately chime in with, "Honey, you're not fat!"
However, if you're among a group of blacks using the word, it's best just to keep your white mouth shut ;-)
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
For example, "black people are better dancers than white people". Yes, there will always be some pedant showing an example of a given white person who is a better dancer than a given white person, but that does not affect the usefulness of the generalisation.
Another example: next major internation sporting event, compare the relative representation of the various races in the finals of the 100m sprint. Now do it again in the swimming.
So here's a question you can't ask: why is it valid to segregate the 100m sprint into "male" and "female", but not into "african" and "chinese"? In one scenario, we are acknowleding that men tend to be physically stronger than women (even though you can find counterexamples), and in the other we are not.
People are different. Genders are different. Races are different. Short people can't reach the top shelf. Fat people can't fit in airline seats. Some genders can't reverse park. Generalities sometimes have a degree of truth. Let's get over it.
You have to spell it "nigga" if you don't want to get in trouble. Interestingly I'm reading a chronicle of life in the 'hood called "Do or Die" (isbn 0-06-092291-5) which was published in 1991, before the phonetic spelling nigga came along. It's really odd to read all these gangsters saying nigger instead of the now accepted alternate spelling.
The really weak extension of this is online, where people type "ghey" because they want to use the word "gay" meaning lame, sucky, etc. but they don't want to offend any gay people. People who do that are gay.
Slashdot does have biases. But when one of those hot-button topics comes up, I'll see a bunch of +5's on the minority side, as well.
It's a continuum. On the one hand, try going into a PC environment and talking about race&intelligence and see how fast people will literally shun you. Or a conservative group, and talk about gay marriage.
On the other hand, next time a "Linux rulez/sucks" thread pops up, try posting some thoughtful pro-Windows comments, and see if people respond to the actual points you make, or just knee-jerk. I really think Slashdot is pretty good on the rational debate.
Found it amusing that the article lauded the hard sciences (e.g. physics) as the only exception to his arguments, since (paraphrasing) "we're not just disagreeing with the past; they were wrong and we're right". Scientific fact, as well as opinion, constantly evolves over time. It's more proper to say simply that we have different and more detailed theories now. And there's also poorly done science, or science being misrepresented for profit, etc. And as for his side remark that a PHD in physics could likely get a PHD in French or something but not the other way around... er, I've always been under the impression that the process of contributing to academic literary criticism and the process of scientific peer review for journals are fairly similar, in their strengths and flaws.
Also found it interesting that for all that the article rambles about different methods of inquiry to find the things you can't say... the author never actually spells out what he believes can't be said today. It's an interesting thought exercise to take his principles in the article and make some stabs it at it... but I'd like to see what some of his own conclusions are too...
Yeah, but they laughed at Bozo the clown too.
Well, the essence of a multi-party democracy (or anything other than an authoritarian state for that matter) is that people are allowed to have opinions other than the opinion of the party/person in power, and they're allowed to state those opinions, EVEN IN WARTIME.
Now, the people in power can also fight for their position with any words they like, and it turns out that the best tactic seems to be to label dissenters as unpatriotic, defeatist, fifth columners. Sometimes that's true, mostly it's not.
--------
Point and Counterpoint: The Tick - "Spoon!" Neo - "There is no spoon."
Lets be clear on this -- the proper term is sand-nigger. He was a middle-eastern dude, by all accounts.
Technically, Einstein's theory of relativity states that the universe actually DOES revolve around the Earth, and Galileo was wrong after all!
HAH!
(giggle)
So, WHAT ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST?
We're still missing all the evidence you know.
I'd suggest reading some books, like this one:
http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/graf/toc.htm
Robert Faurisson's got good points of views, as has the Institute For Historical Review.
http://www.ihr.org
i think this is an interesting article, and i like how he is trying to come up with a principle... but the only reason he posits for people being upset at "heretical" statements is that people are afraid they might be true. Another reason is that people are hugely impacted by those statements. I am not personally affected by someone talking about how women are not capable of whatever since i have faith in my capacities and those of other women, but that doesn't mean that decisions that make my life worse don't get made based on that fucked up belief. the other problem (connected to the first of course) is context, which has been left out of a lot of the posts here about language. and the third problem, is that everyone who reads these articles always thinks that they (we) are the ones who are brave and heretical. there's an inherent weakness in there somewhere.
I wonder on what that statement was based if not on a fully unfounded but fashionable conviction that somehow the hard sciences are better than the human and social sciences, and the hard (sic) scentist therefore are smarter (and deserve more money and better academic treatment, academic tourism etc.).
The interesting thing about this belief is that it is shared by both the hard scientists and the human/social scientists. But to my experience, confronting a member of one camp with a textbook from the other camp will produce very similar results, just a different reaction: the hard scientist will dismiss the assumptions and terminology as "absurd", "fuzzy", "bad" or "meaningless", while the human/social scientist will be impressed by the wanderful undechiphrable meaning.
You should always try to peek and think out of the box. For that, I find it very necessary for all thinking humans to escape the narrow prejudice of their specialisation: all human/social scientists should trained themselves well in maths at the very least, and all hard scientists should train themseves in philosophy an/or linguistics at the very least.
Obviously, geeks should do both!
-Kvorg
It's all a matter of perspective. Feminism has most definitely changed America. For a lot of people, change is bad, therefore it has had a bad effect.
Regardless, the word "ruin" is far too strong a word top apply to America, since there are still a majority of our buildings standing.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Free speech is good and all, but after I kick the bible thumpers off my doorstep I expect them to leave peacefully. I don't want a goddamn pamphlet, and there is a newspaper that just *arrives* every day whether I want it to or not. Arguing with the mailman does not help at all.
The article talks about cussing and general morality, frankly I censor myself to keep things decent just to be polite, and if someone doesn't agree with what I am saying, I don't jam it down their throat.
There is a big difference in stating an opinion and actively advocating it, and diffrent places are forums for discussion on diffrent topics.
Maybe this should be in the read free-speech-limited-quantities dept. Would that be so bad?
Metropolis was one of Hitler's favourite films.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
When women say "I'm so fat" they are looking for a response something to the effect of, "No, that'd ridiculous."
Here it's practically a stoning offense to say the following:
Without a state income tax, the state coffers will slowly but surely run dry.
Everybody knows we need a state income tax. No elected official can ever say that we do, or they will surely be voted out. The result is, things will have to get a LOT worse before they get better.
Aww, don't talk like that. You aren't black. How can you think such a thing! You're just a little full colored.
..."every time has its orthodoxies"?
Just watching the moderators from a distance...
..but what really amazes me is how people still think were really responsible for Sept. 11th - despite the fact that Al-quaeda, the group western governments claim were responsible, keeps (metaphorically) jumping up and down shouting We did it! We did it! Aren't we great! We're going to have another crack in a bit too! (tapes of Bin Laden + other sources). Unless you think they're working for the Israelis too...
I mean, the Republican Party gained a damn sight more than the Israeli from the whole thing, and I'm not suggesting they did it! Israel never really gave a hoot what anyone else thought anyway... Conspiracy theories are not always necessary.
-Chris
that we should repeal the 14th and 20th amendments, deny women the right to vote and enslave them.
I wonder if I could win an election using that platform...
Ben
Work Safe Porn
You can find people on Slashdot who will support or attack any political idea, any opinion about computers, and just about anything else.
But when the subject is spam, the presumption of innocence, even humanity, goes out the window.
Spammers lie. Spammers are stupid (well, how do they make all that money, then?) Spammers don't deserve human rights. Hell, Carnivore (DCS-1000) would be embraced with open arms on Slashdot if it were targetted at spammers.
Maybe we should hate spammers that much. They really do a lot of damage. Maybe our visceral "spammer witch hunt" attitude is justified.
Now you know how McCarthy felt about communists, and how Bush feels about terrorists. And unlike spammers, communists and terrorists have killed 10^7 and 10^4 people, respectively.
2 != 2.5
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
This is actually as false as it is oft-repeated. You get modded down quicker by saying that Windows sucks, than by pretending that Linux sucks. Just look at this one post as an example. It started out at 2 (due to past karma, mostly funny points), but I'm sure that in less than half an hour from now, it will dwelve in the -1 bottom, among the trolls and other flamebaits.
Social scientists, philosophers, historians, and psychologists--the kind of "soft scientists" Graham would probably not give the time of day to--actually think about these issues long and hard and write essays that are far more probing and deep than Graham's fluff.
What's worse than a soft scientist? A soft amateur, which is what Graham seems to amount to in this piece.
1. That for the most part, the Germans who participated in the Nazi atrocities were fairly normal people who felt they had little choice about what they did, that they could not really influence what happened, that they were not sure what was going on, and that maybe the victims deserved their fate to some extent.
Kind of like the relationship people in the west have to world hunger.
2. That world hunger is a soluble problem that we choose not to solve because other things are more important to us.
But you can quote:
I'm a big fan on crotch shots
: )
You can't take the sky from me...
"If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told."
I smell a logical fallacy! It's absurd to think that the mere social acceptability of something indicates that it does not derive from personal inquiry. Many of the beliefs of the many do come from rationalized though processes, and to dispose of them in such a manner is ridiculous.
See Stephen Pelletiere's Op-Ed article from the New York Times on 31 January, 2003 A War Crime or an Act of War:
0 816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6
An excerpt: "This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle, the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran."
I'm sorry but you can't say that. The correct word is Chinese.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Voluntary celibacy is THE MOST biggest sexual taboo.
You can laugh and tell mastubation jokes. But try to tell that you don't have any kind of sex and you find it very good thing.
One of the things that causes this phenomenon is that most people can't tell the difference between truth and fact. Facts are information that is independently provable, whereas Truths are just what we accept as reality. Most people are absolutely insistent that their Truths are really Facts, and get really upset when you disagree with them.
Oddly enough, the less realistic a truth is, the more likely a person is to get upset at someone who is contradicting it. Look at anybody in history who has been burned, fired, hanged, or crucified for stating a truth, and you'll see what I mean.
While you're at it, you might notice that attempting to repeal laws which support certain popular truths is tantamount to breaking those laws in most people's eyes. Gives you something to chew on, eh?
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Not only that, advocating any of these above ideas will not lead to any reasoned discourse but will result in a ratcheting of emotions and people starting to rant, sputter, leaflet, shout down speakers. I left out UFOs, ESP, and cold fusion because there was a time when science was actually open-minded about each of those topics, but UFOs, ESP, and cold fusion have gotten shot down on the evidence so many times that they are now in the realm of faith for their believers.
The five topics I have mentioned haven't been played out yet (we haven't run out of economic oil yet, the putative anthropormorphic global warming is still small, we don't yet have Mars samples in Earth laboratories). Also, there has to be some sense of doubt in the pleaders for the scientific consensus positions on each of the five topics, otherwise they wouldn't be using the language of taboo around these topics (the notion that taboos form around topics of which we are certain, but not so solidly certain).
Of course, if I am moderated Troll or Flamebait, or if replies to this post call me names, I will have evidence supporting my hypothesis. Each of the five statements is by itself a hypothesis and will be eventually proved or disproved (whether we make it 100 years without exhausting oil or not), and there are arguments to be marshalled on both sides of each of the statements.
What is unclear is how much Israel knew about the attacks from their intelligence sources. Then again it is widely known and reported, at least in europe, that the US itself knew an awfull lot about the planning of the attack. They had received warnings from US citizens, from their own analyst and from foreign countries that something involving hijacked aircraft was going to take place. FBI/CIA even investigated reports of muslims taking flying lessons and not being intrested in learning to land.
However it is not in the current US goverments intrest to tell the public that they knew everything they needed to know and simply refused to act. This would A stop the introduction of new laws and B raise questions why they didn't act and exactly what connection does Bush have with Bin Laden (hint look at companies wich Bush junior has an intrest in and see wich family also has an intrest in the same company).
Blaming Israel for CIA/FBI failures is however a lot easier for a certain kind of people who always need a scapegoat. 2) the war on drugs is one way of dealing with drugs. I live in holland where we have a different approach. Maybe it is better for the drug users. For the average non-drug using person it makes little difference. You get crack addicts breaking into cars. So do we. We spend a lot on wellfare to keep the drug users alive. You spend a lot on prisons. Our cops don't have enough right and manpower to do effective policing, yours are to busy with a kid who has a joint. If you really care move to a different country. 3) Watch some Japanese tv. Then compare those attitudes with your own. That was what the west was like before feminism. Rape of women and childeren punished less then stealing from the company. Women harrased at the office. Most people who anti feminist are people who are very selfish. They don't need it so neither does anyone else.
Just imagine you are a female or that the person is your daughter.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Him who now turneth sick, the evil overtaketh which is now the evil: he seeketh to cause pain with that which causeth him pain. But there have been other ages, and another evil and good.
Once was doubt evil, and the will to Self. Then the invalid became a heretic or sorcerer; as heretic or sorcerer he suffered, and sought to cause suffering.
Thus spake Zarathustra.
Monstromart: Where shopping is a baffling ordeal
ahhh! you said and !
I said "Adolf Hitler".
That got everyone's attention. :-)
I explained that here was a guy who committed huge crimes, that required the cooperation of thousands of people, and he almost got away with it. He must have been very charismatic or persuasive to get so far, and so would probably make a fascinating one-time dinner companion.
That wasn't the only controversial answer I gave on that panel. The prosecutor asked us what we would tell alien visitors who asked us to explain this "drug problem" they had heard of. I said that I would tell them how drugs like marijuana and LSD are fun, safe when used correctly, and much less harmful than the legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and that because we lie about drugs to kids, they learn not to trust us, so when we do tell the truth, about things like crack, they don't believe us. I also gave her a nice flame about how we waste the taxpayers money prosecuting small time drug dealers who aren't hurting anyone, when we let drunk drivers have a free murder before we do anything about them.
Since this was a small time drug dealer case, and I was dressed in hippy-mode, and the defense attorney looked like a hippy in "hippy wearing a suit" mode, and I had basically called the prosecutor a worthless waste of taxpayer dollars, I was pretty sure the prosecutor was going to use a peremptory challenge to remove me, but as they alternated using their 3 challenges each, it was the defense, on his third challenge, that removed me.
The problem with weird opinions is that they are generally not simple ideas. So these complexe ideas, which need complex explanations, are too hard to explain to most people.
Second problem is that these ideas have to compete with really stupid complex ideas.
The real question therefore becomes: how can one determine if an idea is valid, partially valid or if the "direction" of the idea is valid.
My two cents...
nosig today
My favorite example is why some African-Americans can & do use the term "nigger" to describe themselves without inpunity or shame, but if a white person does so, they can/will be fired and their lives ruined.
Nice troll. In most corporate environments, nobody, white or black, can go around saying "nigger" (or "spic" "kike" "cunt" "faggot" etc.) with impunity at the workplace. And off the workplace, how many people do you personally know whose lives have been ruined for saying "nigger" in their free time, or is that fear of yours merely hypothetical?
I'd suggest that if you really feel deprived by somehow not being allowed to say "nigger," if you really want to say it so badly, then go ahead. Shout it to the heavens. The skies won't fall around you.
Or maybe the next time you're chewing the fat with a close "African-American" buddy, e.g. that retired fellow who drives the golf cart at the local course, you should just be straight with him and say, "Hey, listen Quincy, you know...I really feel that I've suffered a deprivation in life at the hands of all of you politically correct blacks. I mean, it's totally unfair and discriminatory that you bruthas get to banter around so casually and say cool words like 'nigger' but I can't. It's almost like you all are free and I'm the slave! Do you dig me, my man? So, from now on, can I call you 'nigger'? Pretty please? It'll make me feel so tingly and transgressive, so deliciously antebellum. I'll even make it worth your while, throw in an extra buck tip. So, whaddya say, Quince ol' boy - (er, can I say boy?) - is it all right? Do we have a deal? Well then, fetch me my putter, nigger!"
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
The real tragedy is that the term "heresy" still has anything other than historical relevance. We haven't advanced as much as we think we have.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
...in a few thousand less words?
Nothing is really good or bad, it's simply popular or unpopular
On
as he thinks he is.
"In a field like physics, if we disagree with past generations it's because we're right and they're wrong."
What a load of BS. If we disagree with the past in physics it's because our theories better fit the currently available data than the theories of the past. Doesn't mean we're right, something physicists often seem to forget.
"It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics"
Huh? Is this from a case study or his own prejudices and unquestioned acceptance of a 'fashionable' nerd belief: You have to be smarter to be in sciences than in humanities. I bet he doesn't know a single professor of French literature, or a thing about it; especially the details of studies at a doctoral level.
For someone advocating clarity and open-mindedness he's rushing to a lot of conclusions. He seems to think that nerds and scientists are somehow more inclined to precise critical thought and openmindedness than others while at the same time demonstrating the contrary.
Oops...this was supposed to be in response to that person who talked about saying nice things about Hitler as an example of something you aren't supposed to do. I hit the wrong reply button. :-)
Yeah, I haven't been threatened with losing my job for that. Nope, no heresy, there.
IMO (and I think I've probably been around /. longer than you), well thought-out pro-Microsoft comments get modded up without such stunts. In fact, Slashdot moderators are often far too kind to ill-informed, poorly-written pro-Microsoft rants in the interests of bending over backwards to appear fair and reasonable.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Easiest way to find taboos is to see what people laugh at.
Comedians talk about the (wrongness of) war in iraq these days.
They used to make a lot of gay jokes, but now it's become more acceptable to be gay and gay jokes have become taboo.
Racist jokes before that, when racism was more of an issue.
I've noticed people laugh most at what is most taboo. These are usually issues in society that need addressing.
None of my Slashdot story submissions were on their list. Where's the Slashdot version? At least the rejections could mention a categorical reason, like "not nerdy", or "not news", or "repost" (right... ;).
--
make install -not war
Another good link on this subject is Students for Academic Freedom
-- Will program for bandwidth
And the beginning of confusion.
Lao Tzu
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
How do you find out what is taboo? Easy.
User preferences -> reason modifier
set insightful, interesting, informative, and funny to -6.
set troll, flamebait, offtopic, and redundant to +6.
threshold=3, nested
Happy surfing!!
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
He copied it from a famous hollywood actor to improve his appeal to the common man... Guess which famous actor had the exact same mustache in the 20's and 30's...
Yes, I think you summed it up rather well.
I have no problem with "feminism", if by the term, one means ensuring that women aren't prevented from doing something they want to do, simply because they're not the "correct sex" for the task.
Today, I see quite a few women working in traditionally male roles, and nobody even questions it. (EG. Road construction workers, maintenance workers, etc.)
Many of society's widely-held beliefs about women just not physically being able to do certain tasks don't hold true for all women. The "weaker sex" isn't so weak after all, once you set them free from society's taboos on letting women lift weights in the gym for other than purely "fitness/staying trim". Look at someone like powerlifter Jill Mills (www.jillmills.com), for example. I doubt there are many men here who can honestly say they're stronger and in better physical shape than she is, and she's married with a kid.
So the question is, what else do "feminists" need to accomplish at this point? I think very little, at least here in the United States. Therefore, the group has turned into more of a "hate group" against men.
he argues that if i don't have any opinions that i don't feel free to express to my peers, i'm somehow a follower... leaving out the possibility that i really don't give a shit what my peers think and will say whatever i want to, or i just don't have peers.
i can't convince myself that this was written to be anything but the ultimate flamebait.
nice editorial... for me to wipe my ass with.
-barton
it's pretty easy to find the things you can't say on slashdot - just change your preferences to give flamebait a +5 bonus.
/. it's "troll" and "flamebait". Crap-flooding aside, seasoned trolls have a fine-tuned expertise in the "unspeakable". Whether a given troll is right or (more likely) not, this article made me realize that they actually have their place within the ecosystem of ideas. Strange.
The author mentions labels such as "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican". On
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
(Note: Hitler himself had a least the good sense to commit suicide. And he was a better orator than Bush too!)
Are you saying black people (or perhaps nonwhite is a better term) doing the discrimination is different in some way?
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Universities haven't become less tolerant of free speech in my experience. More accurately, it's not considered acceptable to voice poorly-supported fringe opinions (you'll be quickly rebutted with the facts), or espouse hate against a group of people. So, racist speech is not acceptable (and shouldn't be), and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure you're going to point out numerous cases where somebody said something that was construed as hateful and was attacked for it, but please make a distinction between a vocal minority of shit-disturbers (who can be of any background/race/religion), the sensible majority (also diverse), and the administration (weasels).
Freedom: "I won't!"
Or when you mention her ass in any context. Try it. One day, say "Honey, is you ass a little bigger today?" Then the next day say "Damn that's a fine ass!"
See if you don't sleep on the couch both days.
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
Sorry but this is like saying the dinosaurs never ruled the Earth because we only find the occasional skeleton.
Simply go ask any older Jewish people about who they lost in the war. You will find most of them lost at least one relative and many more than that. To disprove this method you must then accuse each of these individuals of lying.
The holocaust happened, however we will probably never know the exact number of people murdered.
--- I do not moderate.
Spic, spic, spic, spic; chink; nigga, nigga, nigga, nigga!
than Microsoft SQL server, any day of the week!
Hey, that site you have going on is pretty nifty. Have you thought of breaking the data out from MySQL and storing it into XML? Doing a true heirarchical database (... style) would be quite nice. Great work, if that's your site though. Just wanted to send you some props.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Many universities are private institutions: they have wide latitude in designing their curricula, and they certainly can ban speech they don't like in many venues.
Furthermore, you have a choice in universities. If Berkeley restricts your speech too much, just attend some other school. There are plenty of schools that cater to whatever bizarre philosophies you espouse: Christian, racially pure, extremely right wing, libertarian, you name it. Of course, those schools are also the ones that aren't very highly regarded, and that's no coincidence.
If you want to attend Yale, Harvard, Stanford, etc., you have to put up with their culture. It's your choice.
...no moderator dares to enforce conformism! (In case you didn't notice: I'm aiming for being the only Troll or Flamebait comment in this story...)
I tend to disagree on other points of the issue, but still... good comparison.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
You can't comment on Slashdot moderation policies
If you're referring to the (-1, Offtopic) moderation that such comments get, there's an easy way to circumvent that. Just write about your issues with Slashdot moderation in a journal entry and link it in your sig.
... in After Virtue.
Three is obviously false. Since there has been television, we have had higher taxes and bigger government. Our country is falling apart because of television.
My father is a blogger.
> As for other things you can't say, here are some that I'm going to say...
> *IS NOT NORMAL*
> *your weird way*
> *crackpot parents*
> *offensive to me*
ah but there's a world of a difference between a crackpot yelling at the world and thoughtful discussion of serious topics. All it takes is a few cranks arguing this way and everyone that follows looses their credibility!
people were allowed to have those opinions, and Churchill was allowed to denigrate them for having those opinions. He was right. If he hadn't done that, I might not be here now. You cannot judge Britain in the 1940s by the standards of a Californian university campus today.
Click here for more details.
> Ya know, I think SCO might have a point there....
It has several.
SCO is a prime example of what happens to a company that has gotten rid of all employees except pointy haired bosses.
"It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics."
I knew!!! Suck on that!
Your UID is somehow equivilant to the worth of your post!
A low UID is always more insightful than a high UID
So much for new blood and new thoughts in a closed echo chamber.
But Slashdot is not alone, this happens on all blogs, forums, etc. I am of the old crowd, ergo I am more [whatever] than you, newb so STFU and RTFA!
But saying it on Slashot is a heresy, and this AC will be modded down to -1 within minutes!
Argue with idiots, and you become an idiot.
Well, I guess this is my last slashdot post.
Nigger is Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy's ornate, lively monograph on what he calls the "paradigmatic" racial slur in the English language.
I'll admit to feeling relieved to know that Randall Kennedy is black.
[-- Trust the Monkey --]
it's not reverse discrimination.
it's not even regular discrimination if you say it and your intent/meaning is not to denegrate an african-american or other minority.
but it's already agreed upon by the majority that in many cases that the usage was historically and still today, a Bad Thing.
As the word continues to decline in usage, no matter what your color, you look stupid by using it.
African Americans should not say it amongst themselves and then refrain when in a mixed crowd.
Just not best practice.
Pointing out differences between the races in a phyisical sense gets to much flak. Rush may be an ass but if you go through the NFL white quarterbacks outnumber black ones.
Then there's Dusty Baker getting in trouble for suggesting black players are better suited to the heat.
Also, too many people think being anti-Israel is anti-Semitism. If you complain about Israel tactics in sending helicopters to flatten whole apartment buildings most people would accuse you of thinking maybe Autchwitz wasn't such a bad idea after all.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
A couple of years ago, I tried to come up with a list of invariants of human behaviour. I managed to think of just one :
All human beings will always act with the intention of producing a benefit for themselves.
This invariably causes a ruckus whenever I mention it. Nobody wants to accept that everybody (including themselves) acts this way all the time, but as yet I haven't found too many exceptions.
Some people think this statement is obvious, but it isn't (how about altruistic behaviour, coercion, etc). Others think it is just plain cynical and nasty. Here are a few of the more obvious arguments against the law (with my counter-arguments) and some clarifying thoughts :
1. The law does not preclude acts of altruism. For example, a person donating blood is obviously not deriving any benefit from losing blood, but they do benefit from feeling a pleasing sense of satisfaction and well being after making the donation. They would not make the donation If they did not derive this pleasure from their act, since there would be no benefit to them in doing so. The same argument applies to all other acts of altruism : any benefit experienced by other people as a result of these acts is essentially a 'side effect' of the act. The act itself will always benefit the person doing it in some way.
2. The law does not state that people will act in a way as to produce the maximum benefit. For example, smokers are acting in a way which clearly does not produce a long term benefit (it kills them), but there is a short term benefit to be had from the 'high' produced by the chemicals in the tobacco and the satisfying of the craving caused by their addiction. The law makes no claims about the rationality of human behaviour.
3. People acting under duress still obey the law. For example, a person who is forced at gunpoint to do something which is ostensibly not in their favour is still acting for their own benefit, since they hope to avoid being shot by complying with the gunman's demands.
4. The law does not state that a benefit will necessarily result from a person's actions, only that the intent will be to produce a benefit. For example, a driver braking suddenly to avoid an accident will not necessarily do so, but the intent to produce this benefit is clearly present.
5. Persons who are generally judged as being mentally incompetent still obey the law. For example, someone who believes he is Superman and leaps off a tall building is, from the point of view of any sane observer, not acting in a way which will be of any benefit to himself. The person in question, however, does not see the potential outcome of his actions in the same way, and is instead acting in accordance with the first law from his perspective, i.e. the intended benefit may be an improved view, for example.
6. The law does not apply to accidents. The word 'act' is meant to imply a deliberate action : a person tripping over and injuring themselves is clearly not acting to their own benefit. On the way down, however, the person will generally act to minimise their injuries, thereby producing a benefit of sorts.
7. The law does not require a person to produce a benefit for other people whilst acting for their own benefit. A burglar, for example, is clearly benefitting himself at the expense of other people. The law makes no claims about human morality.
8. People will often claim to be acting for another person's benefit to the exclusion of any benefit to themselves. Any such claims are in contradiction to the law and must therefore be false. The aim of such a device is usually to produce an even greater benefit to the person employing it.
9. The benefit which a person hopes to gain from an action they perform may not always be apparent to other people, being of an intrinsically subtle nature or having been deliberately obscured. Nevertheless, the law dictates that such an intended benefit is always present. It behoves one to endeavour to discover such a benefit, as this knowledge will often clarify one's decisions in dealing with such people.
Nevertheless, the current copyright system is too heavily biased towards creators
I see little inherently wrong with a bias toward authors in general because anybody can be an author and, ideally, compete with other authors. The root of the problem with copyright lies in the broad scope of the ban on derivative works, which heavily favors established authors over new authors. American copyright law has recognized ownership of an extremely broad element of expression, such as a sequence of four musical notes, giving rich authors a cudgel to use against authors with less money to spend on legal representation.
You mean they are merry, don't you ?
McCartney fans pay bus tickets. [...] Lennon fans too, with discretion.
Someone said this. Almost everyone appeared outraged. Anyone who wasn't outraged kept their mouths shut.
Ditto for anyone who suggests that a woman wearing a outfit and walks alone at night is asking for trouble.
There's a difference between 'had it coming', 'asking for trouble' and actually 'deserving it'. But any time someone suggests the former two, everyone seems to think the latter is implied.
Even if you try and explain the difference between 'asking for trouble' and 'deserving it', the person will most likely put their hands over their ears and chant "it's a womans right to go anywhere she pleases at any time of the day wearing whatever she wants without fear of attack" over and over again, without listening.
For some people, it's almost like anything coming even close to threatening someone's idea of a taboo causes a brick wall to close over their mind, and out comes the pre-programmed response.
Bush should make an alliance with Iraq to invade Britain, and smoke Blair out of his spider-hole!
If you doubt it, just try to start up a conversation on how Darwinism might apply to different races of human.
Well, sadly, the topic has forever been tainted by the spectre of genocide/eugenics/colonialism, but more important, some discussions of this topic will be based on VERY shaky data. For example, as far as I know, there are NO un-culturally-biased data comparing intelligence, simply because all intelligence tests are culturally biased. "Races" of humans are so similar in most ways that they are really only different-LOOKING.
There are some genetic disease frequency differences, and I don't think any black person is going to call you a racist for saying that the sickle-cell anemia trait evolved in Africans to help protect them from malaria (an African disease).
Nobody's going to dispute that on the average, Tutsis are taller than Hutus, possibly through centuries of sexual selection where one group thought short was sexy and the other that tall was. There's some Darwinism for you.
It's once you start making culturally-biased arguments about race and inherent ability that people get offended. What do I mean by "culturally-biased"? Well, a crude example is an IQ test which asks you to pick the odd one out from a group of objects: a cup, a bottle, a plate and a hollow gourd with the neck cut off...
Freedom: "I won't!"
The mouse is truely evil!
As an American Vereran and a Staunch Republican, I heartily agree with you. Now show some evidence of war crimes committed by GWB or GHB or any American Serving over there. Come on, spit it out.
Attacking another country is not a warcrime, but an act of war. A war crime is slightly different, like gassing Khurds... But You knew that already.
That was a really scary essay. About a third of the way through I was terrified that I would crack my head open on my keyboard when I fell asleep from boredom. Amazing that anyone could write that many words without saying anything interesting at all.
Terry Layne
Portland, OR
One has to watch what one says on Slashdot, lest one's comments dissappear in a sea of downmods. I'm not referring to crapflodding and Michael-is-a-censoring-bastard, posts. But if someone loves Microsoft and expounds on why they like it, expect that post to die at -1 fairly quickly. Even daring to follow-up a post often needs to be done AC or else it'll be rated -1, Offtopic.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
First, none of the things that 'Bob Robertson' said are heresies anymore - they're all neo-conservative dogma.
'Mark' wasn't trying to censor him, he was just saying, pretty much flat-out, that 'Bob' was wrong. Which is pretty much what Paul Graham is saying - if you're just calling something incorrect, that's fine. It's when you start inventing labels for it (like, for instance, neo-conservative... ;) ) and using just the labels, and not addressing why or what is wrong, that you have left the path of wisdom.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
any better than MS SQL Server (tm), unless carefully tuned by an expensive expert. And this expensive tuning must be repeated for each minor change of schema, or even for a simple change in load.
That's a terrible analogy. Your wife uses "fat" with a bad connotation, something she doesn't want to be. Further, most of the time she says she's fat, she wants you to say "no you're not."
On the other hand, "nigger", when used by blacks to describe themselves, sometimes doesn't have a bad connotation, and sometimes it does. Also, when blacks use that term to describe themselves, they usually aren't looking for the response "no you're not."
Personally, if the world were perfect and without racism, I don't think anyone would have a problem with anyone else using the term because it would no longer have much impact. But racism remains in this world, so it's important, IMO, to still remain sensitive to people who have to deal with it.
It means simply "error". As in a factual error. The reason the Church repeatedly tried to stamp out heresy is because it believed them to be lies about the nature of God and so perilous to souls. The Inquisition-style tactics were a late development that came (in the West) after the Papacy had acquired a great deal of political power. But in combatting the earliest heresies -- gnosticism, Sabellianism, modalism -- the Church was, at least in the beginning, a persecuted minority and could use no such tactics even if were so inclined. Orthodoxy prevailed purely in the battleground of ideas. Even under Constantine and his successors when some political muscle could be flexed on behalf of (although not by) the Church, there was no equivalent to the Inquisition.
And yet it was the later, relatively brief period of the Inquisition that has made "heresy" such a forbidden word that it cannot now be used in its proper sense. It's an anti-euphemism.
And the brethren went away edified.
Well, as a black guy WHO DOESN'T use this word, why shouldn't I be upset when someone uses it towards me?
Yes, it is wrong for some blacks to use it, and it is STILL WRONG for ANYONE to use it.
Also, in my experience, blacks who use that word tend to have negative experiences due to the way they talk... GASP! SIMILAR to what happens to a white guy who tosses words like that around!
.. is someone's half-baked undergradute essay on ethics "news for nerds?"
Personally, I am a die-hard freedom of expressing guy, and believe that you should be allowed to express whatever you want. Just be prepared for the firestorm of response, or worse, the deafening silence. A right to speak is not a right to be listened to.
Crispin
Forgive me while I still consider your post flamebait.
Some good Slashdot labels: flamebait, troll.
There, how'd I do?
Very well, I'd say.
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of Java weenines at my workplace writing 6000 Java classes to do something that would take about 10 lines of Perl.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
It is socially unacceptable to use that term when you are white because, let's face it, our European ancestors have committed one hell of a sin against African-Americans (not mention Native Americans). We are still suffering for the ignorance and atrocities of the last 400 years. And before anyone says anything like, "Hey, I'm Spanish, I didn't do anything." Yes, your ancestors did, too. Hell, European exploration was almost entirely legworked by slaves. Look at what Columbus and his cronies did to the Arawaks (who were nearly eradicated as a people as a result), look at what the English did to Native Americans and later Africans, look at what the Spanish did to the Aztecs. And before you chastise me for using such general terms, understand that in each instance, the taking of slaves by various Eurpoean endeavors was not only viewed with acceptance by their respective governments, it was often encouraged. My point is that we still have much to live down, we are nowhere near out of the woods on all that shit just yet. Yourself may not be to blame, but if your ancestors were here at or near the birth of this nation, then they certainly could be, whether through action or otherwise. We were some racist mother fuckers in the beginning, like it or not. Personally, I abhor the concept of racism and all who subscribe to it. But I can't change the fact that so much damage has been done and neither can you.
;)
For the reasons above, the racial "minorites" of the US (such a stupid term that is, it does much to perpetuate racial tension all by its little lonesome - minorities, that is, not US =P) will always have more liberties in the social acceptance of racial slurs in banter. One might say it's a continued reminder between individuals that are both part of the same group that had been once enslaved that they remember the bond developed among their own people under such diress. It also may be no different than the way us unimaginative white guys incessantly say things like "dude" and "man" and "bro" to each other. All the time.. over and over again.. like you were intentionally trying to annoy every English speaking person across the entire planet, dude. But, I digress...
In any case, it is no one person's place to judge the usage of that word, or any other, around circles in which it is tolerated by both the speaker and the subject. That, believe it or not, would be yet another form of intolerance (and thus the infinite spiral of political [un]correctness begins).
Why is it a double standard, and it's a negative hateful word.
It's not a double-standard for the reasons I stated above. It's not even a negative, hateful word. Words do not convey emotion or intent. The context and speaker make that decision.
Little side note - all the use of that word is starting to make this place sound like the Drudge Report. Oooh, we're talking about racial tension, I can say nigger and sound edgy! Ah well, he's entertaining.. sometimes.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
There were 14-15m forced/slave labourers in Germany during the Third Reich, of whom 2-3 million are still alive.
--- I do not moderate.
The first Slashdot troll post investigation
While Paul Graham's insights are nice, a better article would have offered up a better solution to this issue other than "Act phony in public, and hang out with people who think like you"(I'm paraphrasing...slightly).
Actually it's political conservatives that tend to get labels hurled at them the most these days. Instead of being called a "heretic!" or "blasphemer!" we get called "racist!" or "sexist!" or "homophobe!" based on our statements.
For example, try disagreeing with a liberal on the subject of affirmative action or the concept of slave reparations. If you oppose either, to a liberal, you're obviously a racist. Even if you oppose affirmative action because you want society to be truly colorblind, to a liberal, you are a racist.
And instead of getting better, it's getting worse. Criticize an underperforming black quarterback, and you must be racist.
...since you implicitly want to do a search and seizure on any encypted packets crossing your network which may be hiding illicit VPN tunnels. As soon as YOU are part of the control stucture, your whims and foilbles, like that of persons in control in gov't become mandates for the rest of us.
Leave our packets alone and we'll think about getting gov't off your back.
(BTW, you're right about QoS - I think forcing you to treat some packets as special is unreasonable too)
Wisdom so accepted that none may question it:
Children below X years of age are not sexual beings, and have no sexual desires or impulses.
If you take X as 18 most would agree the statement is false. If you take X as 5 most would agree it is true. If you ARGUE for X as a low number you are a heretic.
In fact, anything involving children and sex is ripe grounds for heresy.
Most of the heresy posts I've seen so far are obvious -- there have been very few points made that are not made repeatedly by others outside Slashdot, from Rush Limbaugh to Ann Coulter to Robert Sheer. I have seen few truely heretical ideas listed in this discussion -- only unpopular ones. I'm much more curious about the unspoken assumptions we all agree on.
(And other than my poor attempt above, I'm coming up empty.)
WTF, how can this in the wildest of imaginations be a troll!
Technically, wouldn't gassing the Kurds and uprooting the Shia in the South of Iraq (both activities the US tolerated/condoned) have been a crime against humanity, or some such, since they were citizens of his own country? Gassing the Iranians would have been a war crime.
And I'm no expert in international law, but it seems to me that ordering an unprovoked attack on another country might be "an act of war" AND a "war crime", at least in the eyes of some.
----------
Point and Counterpoint: The Tick - "Spoon!" Neo - "There is no spoon."
"Black people say nigger all the time but I can't"
Does anyone else notice the ridiculousness of this argument?
1) It leads to a generalization that this only happens with the word "nigger" and black people. Many minorities have decided to weaken the offensive strength of their respective racial slurs by referring to each other as these slurs and eventually rebranding their meaning. I've seen Chinese people call each other "chinks" and I've seen homosexual people call each other "fags". It's the same situation.
2) I can call my mother a bitch all I want. But if you call her a bitch I'll get offended and I have the right to. It's not hypocrisy because the context is different. Context is a very important thing in speech. It means people generally won't be offended if you say nigger while reading from a novel.
3) Some will get mad no matter what; some will get mad depending on the context; some will never get mad. That's the nature of humanity. So lets please stop this "Black people are all hypocritical" mentality.
???
I thought nerds wrote "ghey" to signify you're drawing it out, instead of gaaaaaaaaaaaay.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
There's nothing more effective in taking the air of a dumb cracker by gladly using the very term he intended to insult you with.
Thank you, finally, SOMEONE around here who knows the difference between "cracker" and "hacker."
If it puts his job on the line for using the phrase, yet it doesn't put other people's jobs on the line then it very much IS reverse descrimination.
Well, no, that would be just plain old "discrimination." "Reverse discrimination" presumes that the people who are normally discriminated against are the ones doing the discriminating, i.e., that his black superior would be the one threatening to fire him. In the overwhelming majority of tech environments, this is not the case.
In any event, is there any substantiation whatsoever that this really happens, that blacks are traipsing around AT WORK using "nigger" to describe themselves while whites are cowering in fear of being fired for doing the same? Or are we just all going, "Umm-hmm, it happened to Eminem -- it must happen all the time!"
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Speak for your own ancestors, asshole. Mine worked their own farms. Just because my skin is pale doesn't mean I'm like you. And if my skin were darker, that wouldn't mean my ancestors hadn't done horrible things. So 'you should put up with it because your skin is pale' is pure crap, it has nothing to do with anything.
... why did they leave the moustasce ?
Newspaper layout designers know what point size their text will be set in, and therefore how many words per line there will be. Web site designers don't know this for sure
That's why CSS has allowed a stylesheet author to specify the width of a column of text in ems, or multiples of the text's point size, since CSS1.
Hello, small white child.
Many universities are private institutions: they have wide latitude in designing their curricula, and they certainly can ban speech they don't like in many venues.
::cough::diversity::cough::, we should allow the majority to rule? Like as in ::cough::diversity::cough:: democracy?
But they can't (and shouldn't) receive any of my tax dollars, like the predominantly leftist state universities and colleges do.
There are plenty of schools that cater to whatever bizarre philosophies you espouse:
Such as?..
Christian
Oh, yeah, they're a buncha freaks, man. Not like those non-bizarre homicide bomber Muslims.
racially pure
Good thing we have sane philosophies, like that of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam that don't preach...um nevermind.
extremely right wing
You can't have an up without a down. Besides, there are more of those fruitcake Kucinich, Mosely Braun, Dean supporters on college payrolls than there are actually out working for a living.
libertarian
Yeah, it's kooky as hell to believe in Constitutional freedoms, individual rights, property ownership, and personal responsibility.
(Please tell me where I can get an application for this mythical Libertarian college. Please.)
And the piece de resistance...
If you want to attend Yale, Harvard, Stanford, etc., you have to put up with their culture. It's your choice.
You made me laugh. So
I guess diversity of thought and speech only means "any kook who thinks like we do", because anytime a Leftist is faced with truly diverse thought or culture, they either demand fealty or look down upon it.
If your mind was a parachute, you'd be at terminal velocity.
FWIW, I was once a lefty, too. That lasted until I discovered rational thought, cause/effect relationships, and a conscience.
Lastly, mod me down, if I haven't made you think, not because you disagree with me.
How do I know this? I live in an area where tons of asians live and have dated asians and had plenty of female asian friends. For what it's worth, i believe their paranoia is justified because there are some people who are just looking for the submissive, exotic geisha girl, but that doesn't mean that it's way off base in many (most?) cases.
Texas has no state income tax.
Best article I've read in a LONG time.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The infamous "Post" that got endlessly modbombed despite all the positive moderation it received. A lot of people to this day can't even moderate or anything, despite positive karma, simply because they posted in that thread.
"Sufferin' succotash."
it'd make him look more like his old ciptures.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
If what our hypothetical speaker really meant to say was, "Girls in high school perform worse on math tests that boys in high school," then why didn't he say that?
Some linguists have proposed a partial solution to the hidden biases and ambiguities of the statement "Girls are bad at math". They propose to ban the verb "to be" from English, creating a language called E-Prime. Usually, translating an English statement into E-Prime makes it more precise and either eliminates its bias or exposes it.
Isn't the whole point here to discuss what is un-discussable? Did the moderator actually read the article? Or even the post topic?
Perhaps it is stated in offensive terms, but it puts forth a reasonable proposition, and one that can't be known to be untrue by secular means of truth seeking. In fact there is considerable evidence in a secular sense the it is true.
I had expected better from the Slashdot crowd in general, and especially the moderators.
Hopefully this will be meta-moderated unfair.
This article is about fear, and how to deal with this fear and discuss important ideas in light of pillorying that come from their discussion. I rarely use the word "nigger," I have no need to use it, but now I feel I must use it to dis-empower it. Nigger, nigger, nigger.
I've noted that western media have labeled Osama Bin Laden a monster not only for orchestrating 9-11 but for having more than one wife, one of whom was something like 13 at the time of marriage. Multiple wives and age of consent are social constructs and say nothing about their actual true moral content. But because we believe killing thousands of people is immoral, we can strengthen our belief the other two practices are evil as well.
The Nazis believed in eugenics. Therefor any discussion of forced sterilization of mentally retarded people is evil and Nazi like.
I do not believe in the tenants of NAMBLA, but sadly its existence squashes any discussion of what the real age of consent should be. Fear of PC backlash requires that I say I don't know what the age of consent should be, that I am not for lower it, just that it should be possible to discuss the issue. Ideally it would be based on some testable mental maturity of a minor wishing to enter adulthood. For the majority of Americans this might end up being 30, but for some percentage it would almost certainly be below 18.
I live in a college town. When The Bell Curve came out (dealing with race IQ differences), I found none of the college book stores actually carried this title.
There is a more open debate on drugs, but what about prostitution? Why are either illegal? They may have negative impacts on society, but this not how the debate is couched, it is always couched in moral terms. Why is paying people to have sex while you video tape them legal, but not for you to pay directly for sex?
Well that's enough anti-PC ideas for one post, hopefully someone will add a lot more to this thread.
Letter To Iran
Speaking of various fashions going out of style, it used to be fashionable for american soldiers to wear the teeth of Vietnamese. My how times change.
There is no legitimate reason to do, or not do, anything. All moral judgements are based on non-rational criteria and are therefore pointless. I don't think this is a matter of proof. The problem here is definitions. what do you mean by "matters", and i'm not trying to be obtuse here. You are using a framework which implies some sort of overarching value of "what matters". So here is a simple response. It does matter because it matters to me. You can't do something with out it mattering to someone or something.
A blog about stuff.
#1. The Israeli thing seems more along the lines of a conspiracy fantasy.
#2. Genocide has very specific meanings. I see the "War on Drugs" as many things, but it is not genocide. I unfairly targets minorities and poor people and is used whenever a politician needs a quick boost in the polls and helps distract the average person from more pressing issues. But it is not genocide.
#3. "feminism"?
So, now America is "ruined"?
I hear that same kind of crap from Rush all the time. It isn't a heresy.
Now, let's look at REAL heresies.
a. Women should be allowed to vote. (Yep, this is close to #3, you'd have thunk that we'd be over this by now.)
Go back far enough and you'd be laughed at for saying that. Come on. Everyone KNOWS that women are not emotionally or intellectually capable of understanding the political process. Heh heh heh. Suppose the election falls on her "time of the month". Even she wouldn't know who she would be voting for.
b. Slavery
All men are created equal. As long as they're white, land-owning males. Jefferson even owned slaves. You were doing a GOOD thing. You were giving them a chance at real religion and civilization.
what is in you that makes you so certian that it is "perhaps knowable" that "god" does or does not exist? and why is it a problem that agnostics claim ignorance, when they know they are defeated?
and to stay on topic, agnostic will raise quite a few of those same eyebrows. keep in mind, during all of this, that most people are stupid, and a lot of people are very nervous. threatening the massive pillar that they base all their knowledge on (god) by questioning it in the slightest way, of course the real massive pillar is themselves, but since most people put all their faith in god, (and they do), you are actually questioning them, and threatening them with confusion and the possibility of insecurity and impotency should you be correct.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The task of distinguishing "morality" from "fashion" may not be one for which an algorithm can be designed. . . . That said, I've met more than one person who claimed during casual conversation that he had found one --- between more important jobs.
I'm laughing at clouds.
Anyone who speaks up is labeled a "racist conservative Nazi facist".
Yep, that is in fact pretty much what happened when I questioned why I was paying so much to sit watching power point presentations.
I support the activities of the United States solely because the law requires me to.
Dude, I'm totally black, m'kay?! Even though I used "nigger" about 35 times in my grandparent post, I'm highly offended by your jocular use of that pejorative. >:-(
Well, maybe not highly offended. How about, er, weakly offended?
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Paul Graham uses an example of PC-think where people were directed not to compliment other's clothes at work. In Japan, in the early 80s I was at a party in a hotel (not a private room) where my friend got into trouble for complimenting a married women on her dress. He spent ages trying to iffuse the situation, but his broken Japanese just made it worse I think. That night was a real cultural experience. A bunch of crane drivers I was drinking with kept grabbing my hand and putting it on the breasts/crotch of a hostess/waitress that was with us. My then-fiance (now wife) had gone to bed earlier. There was also a middle-aged women singing karaoke while the video behind them depicted not so soft-porn. And then there was the conversation with the Yakuza-in in a Pachinko parlour... but I digress And this was my first visit to Japan. What an intro.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
Invokes Godwin's Law (like many other posts I have seen), but here goes.
Israelites are treating the Palestinians in the same manner as the Nazis treated the Jews, disabled and insane in the Apocalyptic Holocaust of World War II.
Walled up, shot on a whim, treated by an occupying force like animals.
I'm sad to say: The heretical thought is that they are perfectly within their right to do so.
I am not trying to start a flame, I'm just speaking a heretical thought in THIS forum.
I am the Barber of Seville.
There's no real rational argument that can be made for not touching kids (so long as the kid isn't harmed)
Give a foolproof way of discovering when "harm" has occurred. I'd characterize the current fashion as "We know of no way to show that a given sexual encounter causes no psychological harm to a minor."
the effectiveness of Linux,
This one has some merit, as there are a good number of zealots who won't ever admit any fault with Linux. However, these days there are just as many of the opposite here on /..
the evil of copyright in general
Ehem, bullshit. On /. there is constant discussion about the merit of copyright, both sides often making good points and neither getting modded up/down without merit, except occasionally. I'd call that healthy discussion. I'm in-between - I often argue on both sides and get equal support either way.
and the recording industry in particular
Well, generally, the recording industry has done itself and its customers harm by its actions, so that doesn't leave many people to defend it. There are very few winners in that situation, sans the mega-stars like Britney Spears et al. I think it is reasonable to say that /. is mostly correct about the RIAA.
the lack of merit to SCO's lawsuit
Lol - good one! Perhaps it is because SCO's lawsuit has very little merit, and SCO is behaving in an incredibly odd manner - eg. refusing to say WHAT THE FUCK has been infringed. IBM's legal team would agree entirely with /., coming up with nearly identical arguments against SCO, ditto for Groklaw. Again, it just seems that in this case, /. is mostly correct.
Some better examples, please.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
In contrast to your point about the horrible "European ancestors", it was primarily the white Christian British who ended slavery over most of the world. Until that time, slavery was common just about everywhere.
Now about the only place slavery is still wide-spread is in a few locations that it's been going on for as far back as recorded history goes, being practiced by black muslims.
Hate to burst your bubble, but slavery was practiced by blacks on blacks, whites on blacks, whites on whites, blacks on whites, etc... by just about everyone for just about all of history until those "white Christians" finally put an end to it because of their moral beliefs informing their political decisions.
As for your rant on Native Americans, our people did plenty worse to each other for thousands of years before any Europeans showed up. It wasn't exactly a unique experience in history.
If you want a serious study of the issues, try reading a book like "Conquest and Cultures" by Thomas Sowell.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
As an indicator of just how taboo it is to discuss strange airborne objects which seemingly resemble intelligently controlled craft not of this world, I offer the fact that I am posting AC even though I have an account.
Tens of thousands of people claim to have witnessed flying discs, cigar shpaed objects, lights etc. Many of them have witnessed these objects in broad daylight. Thousands of military, local government, and professional pilots have witnessed events as well, many in groups (multiple witnesses at once) and in combination with external instruments like radar. There is credible video, multiple radar locks (from both multiple ground and airborne radars), and film evidence.
Recently the French government released the COMETA report, which concluded that:
a) UFOs represent a real and and physical phenomina of unknown origin.
b) Given then UFOs regularly can and do penetrate any and all world governments' airspace with impunity, they most certainly represent a real national/world security threat.
This report was a long term study headed by a wide group of French scientists and top military officials. To focus on whether UFOs represent "alien" technology is beside the point. What is relevant is that the phenomina continues a good fifty years after the original reports of "foo figthers" and "flying discs" from the '40s. What's relevant is that governments other than the United States are now opening up and publishing serious reports about what little they know. And finally, there is no doubt that whatever this phenomina represents it is a serious taboo to discuss, never mind admit that one is a witness. To do so risks one's sanity among medical professionals, standing in the community, and finally - one's career. This is a taboo of the greatest order, and most certainly it is a taboo of something that is real (whatever that may be).
Why has no here brought this up? Because scientists and geeks have their own taboos against what may not be discussed, and this is one of them.
A truly Anonymous Coward...
Nothing we do actually matters.
You should read up on existentialism.They too dumb to know better.
I firmly believe that 'above average' students (and I'm talking in terms of intelligence and maturity, not grades, whatever you define as average) need just as much, if not more help to cope with school than those who struggle with the work involved.
And start discussing the possibilities...
And get yourself thrown into prison!
It is prety obvious that some powerful people are VERY afraid of what is hiding behind that curtain...
Not so?
Try looking up "revisionism" and "canadian".
Ok, so i know this is flamebait but still ontopic.
American's deserve all the grief that falls upon them, just looking at your current foreign policy, it would give you some perspective.
Even an American like Chomsky (look him up, an older Micheal Moore) says that the best way to stop terrorism is to not participate in it. (i.e. there are alot of countries that are thinking... well gee, American is our friend at the moment but so was Iraq, Russians were friends and then weren't and are again and the Chinese are too big to piss off)
Good work on the Iraq situation too. Or as i like to think of it (Vietnam in the Desert)
Now onto Israel, if someone throws a few rocks at you... don't destroy their car with a gun ship. They like to travel too and with only two exits out of the Gaza strip what do you expect? they can't play on the beach cos of the landmines/barbwire et al.
Cheers for beers (Bud tastes like cat piss bwt)
Its name is "The US Health Care System" - anyone who can afford it (ie, most politicians and business leaders) goes to the states for their health care needs. That is already the de facto second tier.
If you arent hesitant to express any of your ideas amongst your friends, then you are a comformist
The possibility that some people have friends that are capable of tolerating divergent opinions never occured to him.
The fact that different cultures have different morals and taboos doesn't meen that one culture is right and the other is wrong. It just displays that truth and false have nothing to do with it. Morals belong to the domain of ethics, they are about good and bad, which are, unlike truth and false, subjective. "What's good for a russian is death for a german" says a proverb [guess whose ;)].
Challenging the morals is useful because the context changes while morals tend to be rigid and conservative and not good anymore.
For example, take the statement, "All men are created equal." This creed underpins the foundations of American democracy. Is it true? Well, no, of course not. Some people are born smarter than others, with better athletic genes, or with other advantages or disadvantages too numerous to mention. But for our country to function as an egalitarian society, we must at least pretend to believe, and behave as if, the statement were true. Otherwise our society falls apart. That's why books like Charles Murray's The Bell Curve are so widely loathed. Even if the assertions in a such a book were scientifically accurate, to accept them as fact does more harm than good if it erodes the underpinnings of a society that tries to be fair and just.
In a sense, therefore, truth is not some unbiased, ideal thing that exists outside of our experience, but it is something that we define by our objectives and behavior. "Truth", in this sense, is a social construct. So can we truly be an egalitarian society? Well, we certainly can't if we don't accept that all persons are created equal. But we do believe steadfastly that equality is a worthwhile objective. And to achieve this objective, we have to brand as heresy any suggestion that some of us are born "more equal" than others.
What we need to take a hard look at from time to time is whether the objectives that such "truths" support continue to be worthwhile. And that takes courage.
s20451 is up to +5 Insightful.
/.
Yet that post says nothing more than you'd better not kick the sacred cows on
+5 insightful?
i think i'm due for a statement on it (a lot of people around me have been talking about it...)... firstly, women have changed in the past hundred or so years. some say it's due to hormones in beef, but whatever the cause, 12-18 year old women are PHYSICALLY roughly equal to 18-24 year old women of the past. full breasted, full form, women. they have all their secondary sexual characteristics and are in some if not most cases indestinguishible from other women. however, the law still treats them like little girls. once again, technology and the human species have outpaced law. especially in the united states where you have to be like 21 or something before you can be in porno(what the fuck? most women i know lose their virginity i'd estimate at or before 17. and some of the more slutty way before that. 21 for legality sake is just plain retarded. theres a lot of temptation between 16 and 21, especially in a sex-crazed culture like the one we have(woo) ) in the meanwhile, rape, and things glorifying the rape of children, and things glorifying sex with children, and predetorial sex, and above all predatorial rape sex with children, all on film and for profit just turns my stomach. can someone please tell me one reason why something like this is not a Bad Thing? and by children i mean not-even-trying-to-make-the-girls-seem-like-women. ..i mean exploiting whatever biological trigger there is in some men to be sexually attracted to children, FOR PROFIT.
if anything can be inspired by this, is that if you have no morality but that of the dollar, predatorial rape sex with children on video for profit is inevidible, and since this is in some way wrong(axiom?), pure capitalism(the morality of the dollar), is also to that extent wrong, and incomplete.
i think if you REALLY wanted to probe into what people find offensive, you wouldn't look at something that MIGHT be okay, when it boils down to it (secondary sexual characteristics are more important than law...it is in their name that the law was likely written).
another tangeant on this, is it also depends how old the male is.
when i was 16 i had some porn with 15-17 year old women in it. when i was 18 i found those files and saw them as "way too young", and deleted them. now that i'm 21 files i saw when i was 18 seem too young. this is important to notice(after all, wasn't there someone in your grade that you would have given anything to fuck? like grade 5? 6?)
the last interesting thing to note, is that i once had limewire or something installed, and it kept track of how many and which files were downloaded off my hard drive while connected to the gnutella network. day in, day out, i had something like 100x more downloads of a file called "childporn.mp3" than anything else. this scares the fuck out of me. what was the file? it was a rant by sean kennedy, saying about how he would kill and otherwise incite mass suffering on people who (make/host) child porn. or something.
anyways, i think i've rambled enough.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The parent is IMHO quite insightful. Of course, the Funny moderation shows that the moderators were not heretic enough to take these ideas seriously.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Gitmo? What of it? I guess we should let those poor innocent terrorists move into YOUR neighborhood. Whatcha say to that? They are military prisoners of war, and as sucha re under the control of the military, not civilian authorities. It is in the constitution, look it up!
False Pretenses? No, the MEDIA and DEMOCRATS talked WMD, Bush talked Terrorism. Ever hear of Salman Pak In downtown Baghdad? Innocent country? which one? Afghanistan or Iraq? define innocent!
Assassination? surely you jest. Gotta stop listening to Chomsky and NPR
Showing Saddam? they didn't show his rectal exam..... The didn't rape him. How about the treatment of Lynch's now DEAD roommate by the kind and considerate Iraqis? The tapes are out, watch them if you have the stomach.
Bush shot innocent civilians? How in the fuck did I miss that? He must have popped a few on thankgiving and they had the cameras off. Just another damn rich Republican out Peasant shooting....PULL!
Election fraud is a war crime? Well bucko then I guess disenfranchising the military vote in Florida was just Democratic business as normal. Vote Early, vote often.... 4 recounts and Gore still lost. FOUR TOTAL recounts, not selective recounts, but counts of every stinking ballot. No Kreskin devining what the voter thought, or would have voted if they were not so old and febile, but counts of what was punched. I use butterfly ballots in my county, and I get it right, so does my 76 year old grandparents, they have no problems with hanging chad.
Attack against his own people? What the fuck planet did you come from? He had nothing to do with Waco or Ruby Ridge, nor with the Murra Federal building. What other Government sponsored attack can you name?
Enron is gone, asshat! Get with the 21st century.
Enron had Terry McCauliff as a major stockholder, he was also in on Worldcom. ever hear of McCaullif? He is the titular head of the DNC. Ever hear of Charley Tre? Mark Rich? 140 pardons on Clinton's last day in power?
Take your tinfoil hat off, look at the USS COLE, Mogandishu, Selling State secrets for Campaign cash, and all the real crimes your hero committed before you imagine warcrimes....
But you will not, You will not look at any heresy, you will continue to think that the sun rises and sets at the will of the DNC and your liberal elitists. But some day, you will wake up from your stupor and realize that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and the DNC is not it's savior. Until then, you will be walking around with self made blinders, afraid to look at the truth
Speak for your own ancestors, asshole.
Don't mind me, I'm just speaking for recorded history. The statements I made were not my opinion - those things happened. If your ancestors lived here during slavery and did nothing to aid those enslaved, regardless of whether or not they were slavers themselves, they were still probably hated by the slaves. See, through inaction, you can do just as much harm as if you were doing something yourself. It's a perception. The "it's not my problem" argument wouldn't get you a buy there. I don't necessarily share that perception, but thanks for the presumption all the same. <3
And if my skin were darker, that wouldn't mean my ancestors hadn't done horrible things.
You're right about that. Africa once enslaved their own people, but for far different terms than Americans are familiar with. It was more of an indentured servitude, usually reserved for criminals. The difference was that slaves in Africa were afforded the eventual opportunity to not only regain their freedom, but own land and gain title. In American, conversely, only white slaves were ever granted such freedom. In my opinion, it was mostly to further alienate African slaves from everybody else more than it was a generosity.
So 'you should put up with it because your skin is pale' is pure crap, it has nothing to do with anything.
I don't know what you are so angry. It's not like I'm saying I condone reverse racism and that we should sit back and take it. I merely suggest that an African-American using a word everyone has such a problem with in conversation with another African-American is not something anyone should really bitch about. And yes, I'm sorry to say, white people had everything to do with the propagation of that word.
It's ironic that you posted your rant AC. In a discussion much about having the guts to speak your mind publicly, it's clear that you certainly do not.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
I don't think too many people would say that copyrights are bad. The GPL is based upon copyrights.
But I do see a lot of people against software patents.
The article seems to hint at religious organizations as being at the forefront of rebuking people's behavior. Using terms like "heresy", "Zealot", and references to the Inquisition scores points with the people who dislike faith; it is pandering to the "anti-faith" fashion.
How many orphanages have you seen built by an atheist organization? Hospitals? Soup kitchens? Religious organizations have done a lot to make life better for people and yet it's highly accepted to mock the very people who are having the positive effect your article isn't!
You may think religious organizations have done some wrong things. I agree. I see dumb stuff that was done historically and I see smart people doing dumb stuff on a weekly basis. Whether or not the organization is infallible does not remove the fact that right and wrong exist and good and evil are real.
Okay, so stupidity is real too. You, me, and everyone else are liable to jump into it at any time. Just leave me to my heresy that some good does come out of faith.
If you are a rabid Bush hater, the fact that he is breathing your oxygen is a warcrime.
Here's the most taboo-ed heresy of them all:
It was Russia who won WWII, not the US. The US had just chimed in at the end to reap the rewards and prevent the "communist threat".
For some reason this simple and historically undeniable fact raises violent opposition from my American friends. The lie that the US had won WWII is burned so deeply into their brains, they simply do not accept the facts.
your posts only scream "TROLL!!" loud and clear. Expect your bias to only attract other biased opinions :P
A lot of people are giving as examples attacks against Jews, Women, and blacks, claiming that PC stuff prevents a rational discussion of the shortcomings of these groups when it comes to specific historical events, social observations, and nasty language.
More to the point though, is that it is NOT ALLOWED to espouse the idea that, say, a particular group is bad NOT because of some rational, fact-based argument (with URLs to back up your points), but because RACISM or SEXISM or anti-SEMITISM have non-rational, but correct groundings.
For example, you won't see the following entertained:
"Blacks are vile, sickening, lothesome sub-humans who must be destroyed. Why? Because of their sub-humanness. How will I prove this to be the correct perscription? By a political movement that will prevail. The fact that I will win is what will prove me right."
This is how the facists argued, and you don't see it much today. Instead, people give reasons for hating Jews: they trick us (examples), they oppress (examples); they have done this or that in the past. In other words, normal explanations based on the social sciences, quoting figures, citing books and newspaper articles, with genetic theories, etc.
It is really a question of the BASIS of values. When someone does argue like this, it is scary, because there is little for room for discussion, even if you wanted to try to rebut them. The underlying violence of their claims also makes what they are saying feel scary.
I see what you mean. People call me rascist because I don't like black people, and I probably never will. I call them niggers, animals, and other things behind their back. I speak what I think. I don't like them for good reason though, they are destroying children as we speak. They are putting so much negative influence and giving this glamorous influence to sex, drugs, etc. on TV, and now the local blacks think they are in control because of this media influence, and now we are seeing interrcail pregnacies in our small southern town. It isn't love or anything like they say, it is pure lust, and all they do is fuck and exchange drugs. Blacks here are very counterproductive to our town. I see VERY FEW blacks that are productive, and they are only the ones on TV, never in real life have I met a real, good, honest nigger. There, I said it. Now mod me -1 Flaimbait.
Sig: I stole this sig.
If he did make many/bold examples, people would have debated them instead of his rant about conventional knowledge. Look at the replies to your own post. People are writing about your "nigger"-example and not about your point about overgeneralization.
...on number 3, at least, and I'm not sure about #2. But, societally speaking, there's certainly no taboo against saying God exists, except perhaps in certain restricted circles, like slashdot. Something like 90-95 percent of Americans agree with you, and it's practically a requirement for politicians to claim to be Christians in order to get elected to any high office. There's more of a taboo against saying God doesn't exist, although it isn't very strong.
Creationism though is definitely considered a heresy and I think it shouldn't be. It's time it was moved into the "harmless lunatics" category. Educated people take creationists way too seriously.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
That's bullshit. If you look at the photos of a lot of rape victims(elderly women, run-down barflies for instance), you can easily guess that many of these were not 'too hot to leave alone', and that sexual gratification was not likely to be the only or even primary motive. OTOH, other animals have social hierarchies and forced sex may have effect on an individual's standing.
Perhaps the worst "heresy" one can post on Slashdot is the notion that the GPL is not holy writ, or that it is the result of one man's adolescent trauma and lifelong vendetta (even though this is, in fact, true).
slavery was common just about everywhere.
The context was in American racism (hence the n-word), and so my post was geared toward American history.
I know that blacks enslaved blacks. Africans enslaved other Africans, but not nearly in the same way Americans enslaved Africans. For example, African slaves in Africa had some hope of eventual freedom, which they certainly did not have here.
Hate to burst your bubble, but slavery was practiced by blacks on blacks, whites on blacks, whites on whites, blacks on whites, etc... by just about everyone for just about all of history until those "white Christians" finally put an end to it because of their moral beliefs informing their political decisions.
Yeah, there's no better way to wash away your own sins than going on a worldwide crusade to wash away those of everyone else. Save the world to save yourself? I wouldn't put much stock in those moral beliefs.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Actually, he is gassing all of us by exhaling CO2.
http://www.american-buddha.com/17.techniques.htm#1 7 TECHNIQUES FOR TRUTH SUPPRESSION
Chomsky's brilliant work "The Manufacturing of Consent"
Actually, its just "Manufacturing Consent".
You can't take the sky from me...
My favorite example is why some African-Americans can & do use the term "nigger" to describe themselves without inpunity or shame, but if a white person does so, they can/will be fired and their lives ruined. Why is it a double standard, and it's a negative hateful word. Why do blacks in certain circles constantly use it?
... well he still called us white as in "white devil", "white oppressor". Not "Euro-American Devil" or "Euro-American Oppressor" ;-)
;-)
I'm kinda torn on this one. I would get upset if someone called me "baldy" but amongst like kinds it effectively serves to mock others who use the term in a negative way. I don't think this is unique to black Americans. Women will often call each other "bitch" in a friendly way.
Even us "geeks" or "nerds" have embraced the term and nuetralized it. Though I think that the goal here is to make it widely acceptable. If someone called a Slashdotter a "geeky nerd" they would probably say "thank you". If black Americans wanted to kill off the use of "nigger", they would do the same.
What I DO find hypocritical is the whole "African American" line of thought. At some point Jesse Jackson determined that referring to someone by the color of their skin was a negative stereotype. So he wanted the previously acceptable term "black" changed to "African American". However, he still called white people
In other words, it's OK to negatively stereotype dark skinned people but FINE to stereotype white people.
I've recently started seeing "black" being used again in the media. Maybe it's Fox News, I dunno
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Check it out.
First Post!
But more importantly... as far as all this 'sins of the father' crap goes... well, I'm pretty sure it's crap. I'm all for putting everyone on an equal ground to start with, and giving a level playing field regardless of past conditions... but if we're going to start making up for things that happened centuries ago, then I'd like to file a suit against the horse doctor who let my great-great-grandfather's entire farm succumb to hoof-and-mouth because he was an idiot. (Or so the family legend states, anyway.)
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I know, I know, it was just a joke... And you did great! :)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It was probably modded off-topic because the poster has posted it probably 1000 times in the last year. Congratulations to him for finally posting it to a topic somewhat related, but it certainly wasn't posted to spark conversation.
Everyone from doctors to garbage men have been so brainwashed that all it causes is anger. It's the saddest and (once you look at the evidence) most obvious scam of the century.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
i'm skeptical...i don't really know one way or the other what kind of story is really behind all that stuff...but most people around here get their ideas from the television and the idea of UFO's is not taboo...but as real as possible. this includes a lot of geeks, too.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Yes, but it does make the individuals that engage in the described activity seem to be hypocrite reverse racists. This has the side effect of alienating voters who might otherwise be sympathetic.
;-)
So I think that one has to weigh the benefits of being "morally justified" vs undermining your political objectives by pissing off white southerners. Your choice I guess.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of Java weenines at my workplace writing 6000 Java classes to do something that would take about 10 lines of Perl.
But Job Security is in fashion right now, and writing 6000 lines of bad code means that they are more likely to keep you because only you know what it does.
XML and OOP suck [parent message]
Agreed. Or at least way oversold. It is time that OO's and XML's claims and mantra be given a good, hard look by respected industry and academic leaders. They both have mantra that sounds wonderful on paper, but tends to flop in the real world, or at least produces very little that is objectively better.
Table-ized A.I.
So "she hit me in the head with a hammer" is mitigating factors and not cause for legitimate defense? Damn!
You can't take the sky from me...
Back in the '80s, there was a company known as "Sir Unicorn Enterprises". They created a game called "Dreamquest" (which later morphed into the LRPS Live Role-Playing System). It was based on a D&D type scenario, where you had different character classes with different abilities etc. However it was done live-action and on a commercial scale... For my first game there were about 75 'players' (paying customers) and a dozen, or two, actors (game creatures).
One of the base rules of the game was "If you're out of your tent, you're in character".
Other than the limitations and powers of your character class, there was very little limitation to your character. You got to make up their personality, their costume, their history -- Even the history of how they got to Samiltan (the country in which the game was played). As an extreme, there was one guy on my first quest who was dressed in a (civilian) paratrooper's outfit. His story was that he was on a jump, went through this weird glowing portal thing, and next thing he knew he was fighting dragons.... Character class: Fighter (of course -- completely non-magical).
The venue of my first quest was a country club.. We had one small section of the country club building (basically a large room) and the edges of the property leading down into the river valley. On the Friday night, we were given very explicit instructions to not go beyond the end of the one room, because there was a wedding going on, and we were NOT to go beyond there. Disturbing the 'mundanes' (non-players) could get us booted out.
In game parlance, The world ends there.
Of course the country club didn't warn the wedding party about our presence (why should they? They knew that we wouldn't go past the "end of the world").
And of course, a couple of wedding party members wandered into the game space.
I'm thinking that the first thing that they learned was not to go past "the end of the world".
But they wanted to go home, so they started talking to people, and hearing stories -- stories from past dreamquests and the present one... stories of magic, demons dragons and an impending doom if "the unnamed one" could not be stopped.
At first, they were highly skeptical (of course), but they didn't really care, they just wanted to get home -- unfortunately, nobody could tell them about how to get home -- of course, nobody could, since it made sense that anybody who got home probably {w,c}ouldn't come (willingly) back from a mundane (non-magical) world. Nonetheless, it was possible (but not guaranteed) that a powerful enough wizard might be able to get them home. One thing that they had going for them, though, was that recent events in this corner of Samiltan had resulted in the gathering of some of the most powerful wizards known (and probably the cause of their own troubles). Thus, if anyplace had hope of getting them home, it was likely to be here. About the only thing that they learned for sure, however, was that they should not go past the end of the world... People were adamant about that -- beyond there lay death.
From what I can tell, they were in the game area for at least an hour... maybe two. Word was going around the players that a couple of characters (possibly actors) were playing guests from the wedding, and trying to get people to break character.
but we knew better, right?
Nobody would break character for them. The guy in the parachute outfit probably clinched it for them... If they could expect a straight answer out of anybody, it would be h
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I found a couple of extremely biased statements in the article. I stopped reading....just another liberal who cries about a supposed denial of his rights on one hand while seeking to deny those right of others on the other. Where I come from we call them hypocrites.
Einstein's theory of special relativity states that the universe actually revolves around ME!
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
it sponsors terrorism in the rest of the world to support its corporates objectives. Guerilla opponents of American policy are terrorists. Guerilla supporters of American policy are freedom fighters.
2) America loves freedom & democracy.
Only in America and only to the extent required by the shackles of it's constitution. elsewhere its OK so long as it doesnt get in the way of American policy. Which means its sort of OK in the rest of the West and a bad idea in the 3rd World since people have shown themselves to be more concerned with themselves and their own rights and wealth rather than the needs of America. Dictators can be bought cheaply to hold the peasants in line.
3) America loves free speeach
Yea as long as you dont try and distribute code that threatens profits or question corporate motives (unbrand america). As long as you dont express support Al Queda. As long as you arent a black fighting slavery, or of Japanese descent in WW2 or an arab post 9/11. As long as you dont criticise America. Did you ever read the Phillip K. Dicks novel "what if America was really the Bad Guy?" ?
------------
Fuck you American mods - mark me as a troll: a large proportion of the World believes this. But I'm a troll because these views are heresy. Mark me '-1' so noone else sees my heretical thoughts.
You seem to not have read the FA, because he says that things being unfashionable often keeps people from thinking about them without regards to whether they are true or not, which doesn't appear to be what you are responding to. Ie. You don't seem to understand what the article was about.
Whether "fashion" is a good analogy is another topic, but I think it's apt, if understood in the proper context.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Are you sure about that??? Laughter just about always causes male genetailia to shrink.
Maybe that could be the revolutionary new treatment for big fat balls.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You appear to be advocating not trusting moral beliefs that are effective in doing good.
What alternative do you propose, people not wanting to "save the world" as you put it? Ignoring helping or not helping others altogether? You aren't seriously suggesting that the British being the driving force in ending world-wide slavery is a bad thing, are you?
I prefer to think that if a group or individual does something good, like ending slavery world-wide, they should be complimented on that, not denigrated.
Since we're on the topic of unspeakable things, perhaps we're dealing now with the current U.S. school taboo of never praising anything done by white males?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
...but most people around here get their ideas from the television and the idea of UFO's is not taboo...but as real as possible. this includes a lot of geeks, too.
Talk about UFOs there and you're looking for a new job - not because they care about UFOs one way or the other, but because its considered an indicator of insanity.
So, sure SciFi and UPN show a few cheesy old documentaries and titillating shows like John whats-his-face. But when was the last time you saw a report on CNN? Or an in-depth investigative report on 60 Minutes? When was the last time you saw a real scientific investigation published in a major journal? And who would fund such an investigation? Certainly not the US government.
Taboo -- most definitely.
I was always under the impression that black people using that word was a way to devalue the word itself and "take it back" so it doesn't have as much meaning as when it's used hatefully.
Webster's dictionary isn't all that helpful on "meta", but in the library world at least, the meta in meta-data refers to data that is descriptive.
:-)
i.e.
Data: An image
Meta-data: Cataloguing number, title, author, etc.
Meta-data is data. What's special is that it describes other data.
In this scenario, meta-meta-data might be a definition of the cataloguing schema used.
I realize that this isn't the point of your post, but I've just spent several months working with librarians and figured I'd throw this out there.
Adam
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
Because ideological zealots will resent you for selectively believing (or disbelieving) their particular ideological abstraction, and because of this other independents (like you) will probably be jaded and cynical to the point that they do not bother caring what you think in the first place. Accept that you will probably never have any political weight (is this the "silent majority") because of this, and because it is hard to get independent-minded people to stick together. The requirement that you are constantly skeptical of your own ideas will alienate you from your very self. Finally, you will have to face the possibility that either there is no truth, or that there is truth but that the fundamental nature of human societies is architected in such a manner as to preclude any hope that it will ever comprise the majority of commonly held belief.
Do you want to replace your warm pillow of ideology with the cold hard brick of reason? Do you want the red pill, or do you want another thick chunk of prime steak with fine aged wine?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Given the CRUDE photos of the people the US Gov. wants us to believe hijacked the planes on Sept. 11, I'd certainly believe that Israel virtually did everything, including remotely flying the airplanes, to choosing the suspects.
o ry /HomeRun.html
Did US airports have video cameras? Where is footage of suspects. Seems your argument is more in lala land.
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20Hist
And I suppose Jakob Rubenstein (aka Jack Ruby) shot Lee Harvey Oswald to protect Jacqueline Kennedy from the horror of a murder trial. Yeah right, another Jewish conspiracy. Why did Jews want JFK out of the way? JFK promised to stop Israel from acquiring nukes! Now they are the fourth most nuclear capable country on earth.
I had considered this was the case, and also the reason for the mod'ing offtopic (which I shameless and trollishly bashed), but I figured what the hell, time for this guy's 15 minutes of fame. And mine as well, as it certainly gave my post high visability.
Letter To Iran
And to offend the other side: promiscuous hetersexual behaviour is probably equally harmful, but there is such a huge double standard in societal acceptance, and it is so wide spread, that stats seem to be hard to come by. I do know that there are many nasty STDs already rampant, and AIDS for promiscuous heterosexuals is not far away.
Because when you say it, it amounts to "**** you." When we say it, it means "they said **** you to both of us, we must be brothers."
Not really trollish. Let's see:
1) Agree, nothing to discuss here.
2) Disagree, pretty much any GUI is "Windows Wannabe", which itself was invented at Xerox.
3) Maybe, but so what? Word is far too complex anyway, almost nobody uses even 10% of its functions (which could be provided by somebody else). And it's a cheap alternative. For 90% of people OpenOffice would work prefectly fine.
4) What do you mean "ripping off"? Linux follows the POSIX spec pretty closely. Anything implementing that is going to come out looking very similar to Unix. Linus implemented a Minix clone, there was never any pretension of being original or groundbreaking.
5) See above, Linux implements POSIX, which makes it pretty obvious it can't be as innovative as Plan 9. It still has some nice new things though.
6) Most OSS developers repeat existing designs because it's easier and they like developing and not thinking of an innovative design. Then, you can always find some new ideas. There are few, but the same happens with the closed source software most of the time.
White people fuck and exchange drugs as well.
Actually, I think the casual term is "white trash". All those white welfare babies didn't come from oversexed, oversized black dicks.
So do some numerical analysis and count what percentage of the local "bubba" population is mooching and what percentage of your "negroe" population is working. YOu could be surprised if you work the numbers. It's also possible that you haven't been where all the black folk work REALLY hard for lower black wages.
Oh, and next time you think that drugs is a "black" thing. Close your eyes and repeat after me.
"Crytal Meth, Crystal Meth, Crystal Meth, Crystal Meth".
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
i don't know, i seem to remember at least one of my former boss's talking to me about ufo's, and trying to convince me they exist. at least.
and i don't watch 60 minutes, or cnn, although the people i know who watch tv watch more "Space channel" and "discovery" features on ufo's than "News".
the us government i'm not sure about, partially because i'm a canadian and don't care what the us government thinks, partially because that's a lot of effort to get into(i don't read the entire library of canada, either). but i could try to look at that, although i think in my closet is a philosophy journal that discusses the entire ufo thing(discounting it as fraudulent, of course).
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
People like belonging to groups, and when they join one they like to tell themselves that their beliefs are closely aligned with their chosen group. And when someone comes along and challenges that group's beliefs, that makes them uncomfortable, and they'd rather suppress the challenging speech than question the group's, and by extension their own, chosen ideals.
In American society, other than threats and slander, you can say anything you want. All of the trollish ideas posters before me have come up as examples of "heresy" are regularly expounded in at least some contexts -- the idea that feminism is runining America is a recurring theme on lots of right-wing talk radio shows, the idea that 9/11 was not caused by Al Quaeda is not uncommon among liberals, etc. You're not going to get thrown in jail or executed for being a vocal follower of Noam Chomsky, either. But expressing those ideas will get you thrown out of the Young Democrats or the Young Republicans respectively.
And that's the real "heresy" any more. People pick a group, or a label, to identify themselves with, and peer pressure makes them fearful enough of opposing ideas that they'll act to suppress them rather than entertain an opposing view and possibly give themselves another choice.
A pretty good illustration of this is available any time on the Internet, just by going to, for example, a site which identifies itself as a "geek news" site and looking at the posts that get moderated down. While some of the down-moderated posts are trolls or obviously inappropriate, a lot of them are simply dissenting opinions that the moderator in question doesn't agree with, but doesn't want to form an argument against for fear of entertaining the dissenting opinion.
We always hear how bad it is to "preach to the choir," but in fact most people are members of a choir and want nothing more than to be preached to.
What a boring, treacherous writer. He even credits people who read it.
This is exactly what is wrong with the UN. There is no moral equivalence between the murderous dictator Saddam, and Israel, a democracy which is trying to cling to a mere
More to your point, the UN - and it's joke of a "Security Council" - is simply chock-full of fanatical, Islamic states which outnumber Israel and bully it. The UN is flawed in two major ways. First, it gives equal power and legitimacy to evil, dictatorial regimes as it does to democracies. Second, it has no checks on Tocqueville's tyrrany of majority (like the US Bill of Rights) to protect minority states like Israel from bullies, which the UN is comprised of. In this light, what should Israel do when it is attacked by terrorists, just lie down in the fetal position and surrender (or go into the sea, as every Arab member of the UN would like)?
- U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs
By the way, anyone who even pays the slightest amount of lip-service to the crackpot Israel-9/11 (or "Bush knew") conspiracy theories should be automatically be dismissed into the "eccentric" category that the parent article discusses.Of the 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. The U.N. was silent while 58 Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians destroyed 58 Jerusalem Synagogues and systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians prevented Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.
This anti-Israel stance of the UN is a natural consequence of its membership structure. 21 members of the UN are Arab countries, and 52 members represent Islamic countries. Since the Arab Israeli conflict is represented as a religious conflict (see article) Israel as the only Jewish state has no chance for a fair hearing in the UN.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I want a nigger faggot with a big cock to fill my ass with his hot jigaboo cum!
OOPS, I just said it!
I agree with a lot of what he said but I don't think scientists are any better than the lay person at picking apart taboos. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn details the self-righteousness that scientists often display. The only real way to change things is to let all the people who came up with the original idea die.
Time makes more converts than reason
I don't, but that's not because I or my peers are conformist. Having offered conformism as a likely inference and dismissed coincidence as unlikely, Graham leaves out a third possibility: that my peer group is by habit and nature nonconformist and will happily accept and discuss any stated opinion.
The fourth possibility is that Graham means people of my age and cultural background (i.e. Greco-Roman/Anglo-Saxon derived Caucasian), rather than those folk I actually regard as a peer group. I profoundly resent the immediate derivation Graham makes - that "everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe". There are no grounds for reaching this conclusion from the position of lack of fear of wide-reaching discussion and candidness.
This article is a fine piece of fluff, with the low-flying non sequiturs carefully balanced by the empty speculation. Here's another example:
And yet, I wonder. The Dutch seem to live their lives up to their necks in rules and regulations. There's so much you can't do there; is there really nothing you can't say?
Perhaps Mr Graham should actually do some research before he wonders out loud. I lived in the Netherlands for two years, and the answer is yes. There is nothing you can't say. Next question. There's plenty you can't do because astoundingly even the Dutch would prefer not to sponsor murder, child molestation, or deviation from proper procedure.
Woolly thinking and a few historical quotations do not a strong argument make.
- J
Well I searched on E-bay for user ID's for slashdot, and didn't find any. I bet that there's some dork out there who will be willing to buy low digit slashdot IDs and then change the name to theirs, just to seem more 'leet.
I don't think I'm going to get much for my UID - just under 23,000....Bah!
..........FULL STOP.
Funny how unemployed people never support privatizing welfare. Private welfare nothing more than a way for greedy affluent people to keep more money in their pocket at the expense of the poor.
Cadillac, by the way, is on the rise again. Look for them to compete with BMW's M series, and blow them away.
Time makes more converts than reason
Excellent article, but it left me thinking how much the internet has and will lessen the impact of taboos (in the technologically advanced parts of the world). As a pedophile, my whole frickin' emotional life is a taboo, but thanks to the internet, there's places to go for some sense of community and discussion with peers and exchange of opinion, whereas this was completely, absurdly unthinkable before.
I'm also following various projects for anonymous publishing and communication on-line, which will enable anyone to speak their minds with no fear of being pointed at and suffer stoning. I have to wonder what would be different if Darwin or Galileo had these opportunities.
For a closer-to-home (probably) and less extreme example, think about some geeky calling a fellow geek a "geek" in camaraderie vs. someone "cool" saying "geek" intending to be offensive.
Still a double-standard, but probably okay.
Anyway, as I was reading the article, I couldn't help but think of the song Hush from their first album.
They're crude lyrics, but the song does get the point across.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Let's start with a test. Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?
Hell yes!
I moved to the San Fransisco bay area slightly over five years ago. To this day I am extremely cautious about expressing most of my political and religious opinions. I learned that the hard way the first week I was here. It's not that this area is liberal or anything like that, it's because most people here are so damned intolerant of anything that even remotely associated with conservatives, Republicans (even liberal Republicans) or Christians (even liberal Democrat Christians).
I had a friend who no longer talks with me because she found out I'm a libertarian. In my forty years of life, this was a first to me, that someone would base their friendships on political affiliations. It boggles my mind.
I go to parties and someone says "we should round up everyone who voted for Bush and have them all shot." Several others nod their heads in agreement. Others may disagree with the penalty, but agree with the general sentiment. No one disagrees with the underlying premise that voting for Bush was akin to committing a crime. At a group of friends, two got into a spat over something as inconsequential as what temperature to set the thermostat. One left in a huff, and the other said "What a control freak! I bet she's a Republican!"
Do I dare let on that I'm not a member of the Democrat or Green parties? Will I be consigned to social ostracism if people find out I don't consider Bush to be Evil Incarnate?
A friend came over and expressed surprise at seeing my Bible out on the table. Why should he be surprised? It's the best selling book in all of history. It sold more copies last year than did The Lord of the Rings. Why should it be surprising that I own a Bible?
Yesterday while sitting around with some friends and drinking coffee, one of them sees a newspaper article about Mel Gibson and his new movie about Christ. "Oooh, I hate him," a friend said. "He's so... so... so damned conservative!" That was the worst epithet he could think of. "Conservative." Then he launched into a tirade about how Christians are homophobes.
Do I dare let on that I'm a Christian? If I were a poor hispanic who couldn't speak English, I could get away with being a Catholic. But I'm a middle class caucasian. Will people automatically assume all sorts of wrong things about me if they know I'm part of that 80% of people in the US who believe in God?
When you see a machine of wildly spinning metal gears, you know better than to stick your hand in. You know you'll like a finger or two. Likewise, when one sees a major metropolitan region where people go about spouting hatred for anyone of differing beliefs, you know better than to offer your opinion. It's just not safe.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
What is salmon if not just a sockeye? What is insect if not just a beetle? What is a number if not just pi? What is a library card if not just a book?
Meta data is a subset of the larger set "data"--a very specific kind of data, data that results from the analysis of data, which in turn leads to analysis about the original analysis. Useful, and a useful distinction.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Boy I'sa funna bust a CAP in yo ass fu sayin' dat sheet. Yo, Latrel, I gots a skinny white boy here tawkin shit, lez kick 'is as! You bes run cracka boy!! Run!!
What circles? I believe a certain black man - Chris Rock - had a very interesting method of categorizing these *circles* you speak of...
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
I mostly agree with this, but I would revise the last sentence above slightly: I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true or those that they are certain are not true but will be believed by others.
I believe we're all striving towards greater truth, but the proud person (in the seven deadly sins sense) will reject a statement of truth regardless of its validity if it contradicts his/her own beliefs/practices (i.e. damages pride). Likewise a corrupt person of authority will reject a statement of truth if it jeopardizes that authority. This is essentially what the author is saying here, but more explicitly, a person will worry about something being true only if it is perceived to be harmful to his/her well-being.
On the flipside, a "statement of truth" which is made while knowing it is not true is often made to try to influence others, usually to preserve one's own pride or authority. If we are all striving for greater truth, statements such as this are understandably distressing if you know they are not true, or at the very least will not benefit from the outcome of such statements.
sig != null
1. That for the most part, the Germans who participated in the Nazi atrocities were fairly normal people who felt they had little choice about what they did, that they could not really influence what happened, that they were not sure what was going on, and that maybe the victims deserved their fate to some extent.
Kind of like the relationship people in the west have to world hunger.
2. That world hunger is a soluble problem that we choose not to solve because other things are more important to us.
The problems with world hunger and a general lack of fundamental freedoms in the third world can be solved with a dose of colonialism. Colonies were established in order to exploit economic resources. They had an incident effect of bringing stability, the rule of law, and a measure of economic and political freedom to the "oppressed" peoples. After World War II, international corporations figured out that it's actually cheaper to let colonies rule themselves, allowing corporations to exploit economic resources without having to provide any of the structural, economic, and political benefits of colonies. So instead of crushing rebellions, colonies were restored their soverignty, placing governments in the hands of really nice people such as Idi Amin.
Want three examples of highly successful colonies: India, Japan, and Germany.
I can't think of any idea in international politics more controversial than that Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" was a good idea and that we should restore colonialism to the world.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Yea, agnostic is a pretty loose term that people pull out a lot. I think one of the interesting things is that being agnostic is'nt really saying much at all. You can be agnostic and still believe in a religion. Agnosticism is basically conceding that there is no way to prove or disprove the existance of god. The concept of god or anything supernatural is bascially by definition unprovable since for something to be supernatural there can be no possible natural explanation of it. Since it is impossible to know everything that is possible you can't know if something is supernatural. Also, even if the world is found to always follow certain rules exactly (which is most likely impossible to prove) you can't know that there isn't something at work behind the scenes. In computer terms it would be explained by the question "how can you write a program that knows if it is running under a perfect emulator." The answer is, of course, you can't because by definition a perfect emulator is undetectable.
Religion isn't about knowing something to be true. If it were, it would be science, not religeon. Religion is about believing in something that can not be proven true. (Of course, all sciences are based on beliefs that can't be proven but that's another agrument.) In that way, athiesm is also a religion since you can't disprove the existance of god, you have to believe there is none.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
i am going to try.
...but i cant' seem to come up with anything descent. i mean SURE i can SAY that all axiom based logical systems have such holes, but do i even know of one such whole that is for certian, a hole? i mean, i've heard the axiom of choice(whatever it is), is one, but do i really understand why?
* our sole understanding of the world is through
our senses, and consiousness(riddled by subconsiousnesses, which are fairly simple)
if it is knowable, then p must exist such that
Pt -> Q
where Pt is a premis, or set of premises who's concequence is the existance of god (Q).
let Pt and Rt be indestinguishible from eachother to our failable, deceivable senses, such that Pt is what is required and what we, the experiencing beings think we are experiencing, and Rt be what is actually occuring.
there must always at a time be a R such that we are experiencing P, and it is only through thought that we come to a greater understanding of R, from less and less primative versions of R called P.
for example when i see this monitor, i see it as a box around 14 inches that changes the arrangement of its colour as i type with my hands, when in reality what i see is systems of changing electrons(if that) in my head, and what's happening in the outside of my mind could be damn near everything, up to but not excluded to floating in a body vat matrix style.
so when we say
Pt->Q
Pt
Therefor Q
we are given an unsound argument, for all Pt, because Premis #2 is false, because we do not have Pt. we only have Rt, and since Rt does not equal Pt, for all Pt and Rt(see definition of Rt above), we can never get Q.
likewise it also does not follow that you can prove the inexistance of god in the same manner.
P->Q
notP
therefor ?
where ? is any conclusion is a logical error.
actually i was hoping to do some magic hocus pocus Goedel-Escher-Bach style poking at the systems of logic, language, and human(collective and singular) understanding itself, and it's inability to deal with such concepts as "god"
it appears the real proof i want has yet to be written.
said differently, we cannot be certian Pt is Rt, unless we allready know the awnser to the question, and worse, we cannot know that even this is true without said awnser, or this, or this, ad infinitaem!
did i even get a smile for my efforts?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Every time I say something along these lines, someone will immediately counter with: No, it's the war on drugs that's bullshit. The war on drugs has had an incredible human cost in this country, and it's done nothing to combat the evils of addiction.
OK, fine. But then they'll follow it up with: Besides, I should have the right to experiment in the privacy of my own home!
To which I say: Experiment? And what, pray tell, is the nature of these experiments? What is the hypothesis to be proven here? That drugs get you high? Cuz I can point you to substantial prior work in that area, if you like.
What's more, who in the hell ever said that the war on drugs had anything to do with preventing you from dropping ecstasy in the privacy of your own home? Or in public, for that matter? As far as I'm concerned, it should be obvious to anybody that the war on drugs is all about money. It's about corrupt politicians, corrupt law enforcement, and blatant criminals both locally and overseas, all arranged in a little circle trading the money around. And in the middle are the people who use drugs, and they're the ones who are paying the bills -- with both their money, and the toll drugs take on their own lives.
The war on drugs isn't going to make drugs go away. But if you want the war on drugs to go away, there's one easy way to do it: Stop using drugs. Until people are willing to do that, you're just pouring more and more money toward preserving the status quo. And what do you get out of it, really?
Heresy, I know. Cuz after all, drugs are cool. They make you "counter culture." You're doing something they don't want you to do. Drugs make you more fun, more appealing. Proper use of them is a sign of maturity. It lends you worldliness, experience. There are lots of situations where you can't even imagine not doing drugs -- hell anybody who isn't is missing out, plain and simple.
Just like they said about cigarettes in the 1930s-40s. Go figure.
P.S. Before people bother to flame me, let me just point out that I'm not a tent preacher or anything. I'm not posting this to preach to people, or to convert them to any way of thinking. I'm posting it because this is a topic about speech taboos, and this is a line of thinking that I do believe in but I learned long ago to never bring up in public, cuz it's just not worth it. I reckon that's what makes it a taboo topic, right?
Breakfast served all day!
For example, at the high
water mark of political
correctness in the early
1990s, Harvard distributed
to its faculty and staff a
brochure saying, among
other things,that it was
inappropriate to
compliment a colleague or
student's clothes. No more "nice shirt."
Like they know how to dress at Harvard...
Yes....especially in a country that had just come out of the long policy of "appeasement" of Hitler which resulted in Germany taking Czechoslovakia and Austria. Churchill in 1940 had just become prime minister and was presented with cleaning up the mess left behind by "Peace in Our Time" Chamberlain and was dealing with the very real threat of England being defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany. One might note that Churchill's warnings against Hitler and Nazi Germany had been squelched for years by calling him and his allies "warmongers".
At our high school we like to play a little game. It's similar to the game called "Penis", except this one's called "Nigger".
What you do is you start saying the word "nigger" really low during lunch, then each person progresses louder and louder. The winner is the one daring to say it the loudest (i.e. screaming it).
To show the effect of the "unsayable", I wasn't able to sit at the table because a table full of nig--black kids was sitting pretty close to us. What was odd was that they just continued their usual hooting and jumping and didn't really pay us any mind. I thought we were gonners for sure.
True story.
You misunderstand me. I don't care what people put in their packets. Content is little or nothing to me, I deal with traffic flow.
VPN's don't solve problems, and as such they are often misused and over-used. They add complexity, increase troubleshooting overhead and training needed. They are a sales and marketing buzz-word in search of an application, just like QoS.
Your suggestion seems to me to be one of "tunneling", which is again merely content and none of my concern. I have put together many IPSec and IPv6 tunneling systems, and I certainly do not want anyone believing that the encrypted/encapsulated packets thus sent are any of their business unless they are the ones I am sending it to.
In order to be free, you must respect the freedom of others.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I really don't think that was the point, as his goal was to show people that looking for such ideas is the end unto itself. If he were to tell people which ideas were wrong, he would be taking the place of the society that is currently performing this task. And that would be no better.
But more importantly he failed to connect such taboos with their usefulness to, and positive effects upon, social structure.
I believe he either a) doesn't care or b) disagrees that they have any use. I certainly do.
Even if the assertions in a such a book were scientifically accurate, to accept them as fact does more harm than good if it erodes the underpinnings of a society that tries to be fair and just.
That's cowardly. If those notions are incorrect, attack them on that basis as he suggests. If they're correct, then our social structure based on fallacy isn't working. Perhaps that is indeed part of the problem.
. So can we truly be an egalitarian society? Well, we certainly can't if we don't accept that all persons are created equal.
I believe you have confused the concepts of equality of condition and opportunity. Even if the Bell Curve were right (and on some things, it was), it never said that any two groups cluster perfectly by ability. So, any person from any group can be fairly evaluated based on their merit, allowing an equal opportunity to everyone. That is a very egalitarian society.
Honestly, no one is gullible enough to believe that all people are literally created equal. As long as we give people an equal chance we're fine, and considering tough questions like those addressed in the Bell Curve, regardless of their answers, will not endanger that.
I would say the far greater danger is everyone implicitly believing those conclusions without being able to voice them.
In a sense, therefore, truth is not some unbiased, ideal thing that exists outside of our experience, but it is something that we define by our objectives and behavior. "Truth", in this sense, is a social construct.
I think that's the exact idea he's fighting, particularly since that concept changes over time.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Did Galileo listen to this sage political advice? Not a bit. He represented his opponents as simpletons (through a rather transparent dialog where the Simplicio character obviously represented the Aristoteleans and the intelligent character represented Galileo). The Pope rushed back with a "What do you think you're doing? Are you trying to get yourself killed?", but Galileo still didn't listen - perhaps feeling that he was immune from the wrath of his opponents because of the favour of the Pope. He continued to attack his opponents as ignorant fools.
Finally, he was tried for heresy. Fortunately, the Pope convinced him to say what the Aristoteleans wanted to hear, "No the earth doesn't move." This was a wise move. Because inconvenient things like mountains on the moon and moons around Jupiter screamed loudly that the Aristoteleans were wrong - without Galileo's ad hominem ranting. The Pope also issued a ban on Galileo's works - which I personally think was also a sly move since this made them hugely popular on the black market.
you would be RIGHT in calling it a taboo. damn rights its a taboo.
I want to know, if there is any relationship between the amount of nudity not shown on television, the keeping ideas and references to sex away from our children, the constant reinforcement "sex with children is bad" "sex with children is bad" 'if your not 21 you shouldn't even be thinking of sex', 'don't look or think about anything that has no clothes, those thoughts are dirty' that everyone in this thread(to my knowledge) seems to acknowledge exists...with the VAST UNDENIABLE urge in SO MANY PEOPLE to go out and look for child porn on the internet. even if 0.1% of all those searches on my computer came from people who actually went out and tried to rape children, that's fucking scary.
once i saw someone, somewhere suggest that we should make child porn legal, open the internet to all the sick and crazy things in the world, and help people accept the fact that they are, indeed, fucked up. give money to child porn sites to host banners "looking at child porn? need help? call this number 1800-addicted-to-crack sort of thing. or mabye not even that far, but slowly, as a world-community, leveraging ourselves away from our primal, biological urges that are obviously destructive to not just children, but the society as a whole(as we definitley have something against them, why don't we formulate a plan that does not mean denying urges, and thus strengthening the dialectic against us, or whatever). i'm not sure if he was completely right in his thinking, but mabye there needs to be some thought on this. thoughts?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Ugh.
I can't stand that translation of Zarathustra (the Thomas Common one). It makes Nietzsche out to be some sort of lunatic who wants to remake the King James Bible in his own image. N. would certainly not have used all the archaic thees and thous and wouldsts that Common put in his translation. Not too mention that he butchered too many passages to list.
Get the Kaufmann translations instead. Much better.
Yes, I agree. Why does the previous article have a score of 0? I think this is a clear example of heresy.
There are real issues that OSS people seem that just do not wish to address; they are probably some of the most close-minded individuals about. The word "evangelist" says it all. At least Microsoft people are rational; they are motivated by money and familarity.
I'm afraid I've come to the conclusion that installing a java (or linux or whatever) evangelist in an organisation signals the end of rational thought, and discussion.
Believe it or not I'm not anti-OSS, just fed up with the BS.
I don't think this is true. Most physicists would have to spend five to ten years attaining fluency in French, not to mention acquiring the background in literary theory, before tackling a PhD in French literature. For most of them, that would would be just as big an ask as it would be for a professor of French to do the high school foundations and the undergraduate degree in physics that would be a necessary prerequisite for a PhD. After that, I think actually completing either program would be largely a matter of determination.
(My sister has a PhD in French literature; I have a BSc with a physics major.)
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
Myself, I am convinced that blind faith and religion are significantly, demonstrably Bad Things. Not appropriate for young children, and worth proselytizing against.
I think Douglas Adams summed up my sentiments quite well with the term "Radical Atheist".
From the interview:
I rather like what Richard Dawkins and friends are doing to remove this particular taboo. Hopefully soon teenagers all over the world will be unashamed to say:
"Mom and Dad, I'm a Bright!"
Part of the Second American Revolution!
There is a dictionary definition of someone whos labor and property are entitled to others, as your post says "the poor" are entitled to the property of "the rich".
SLAVE
Are you ready to actually stand up for your beliefs and enslave people openly, rather than by advocating someone else (government) to it for you?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
One of the biggest heresies is suggesting that pedophilia is not harmful to children. One scientific study that suggested that child sexual activity was not harmful, and might be beneficial, was denounced in the U.S. Senate for even *suggesting* this hypothesis (no critiques were given as to the science).
I'm also for freedom of travel. Neo-cons are absolutely opposed to this principle. Just ask them.
"Open Borders? Unrestricted Immigration?"
Watch the Neo-con go balistic.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Cops have absolutely no legal requirement to "defend" anyone against crime. It's been repeated over and over in court, you cannot sue the police for failure to protect. There are lots of citations for this on the interested web sites, such as GOA and JPFO.
On the other hand, if I contract with a private agency, I can specify exactly what I want and they are contract bound to perform to that standard.
Bureaucrats are not even punished for failure to abide their own laws, much less the non-existant "social contracts".
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
for such an anti-Semitic post. Unless, of course, you are also going to include Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Paul Wolfowitz, George W. Bush, and a host of pro-Israeli sycophants in this "k-o-n-spiracy". In that case, it would no longer be blatantly anti-Semitic.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Actually No. The Church had not accepted that the Earth rotated about the Sun during Galileo or Copernicus time. The reason the Church was so adamant is that scripture in more than one place implies that the sun revolves around the earth. (Sorry can't remember details) In one place God stops the Sun in the sky so there is more time for his chosen people to win a battle. It was more a matter of maintaining a consistent world view and, of course, centralised authority.
One of our top guns is Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally.
Constantine recognized Christianity in the Roman Empire at around 300 a.d. Pretty much from then on, (some form of) Christianity was the official religion in (most of) Europe. Outside of Europe, especially in the Americas and Africa, Christianity was brought in by imperial powers and had official sanction from day one.
There have been lots of times when being the wrong sort of Christian for your particular location was unacceptable, but Christianity as a whole has been seen as acceptable or even required in most of the areas where it is common for most of the time that it's been there. If you think it's been an uphill battle for Christianity since day one, you would do well to look at the history of other religious groups.
I do, however, strongly agree that one's religion should be a matter of genuine faith, not social acceptability.
His patent applications were rejected because a "zero bandwidth transmitter" is a contradiction in terms. (Just like perpetual motion machines are automatically rejected. I wish they were as tough on stupid software patents.) He was angry and bitter. The Patent examiners were obviously ignorant blockheads because he had a working prototype!
Here was a smart inventor whose contributions were stymied because of a refusual to communicate in a way his listeners could understand.
Nice post from a dumb cracker
Get back to fucking your sheep, joe-bob.
The Three Levels of Conflict Resolution are direct action, politics and morality. The "heresy" concept is part of the fighting, but it does not neatly fit into any one level. The individual heresy is something that the originator is stating in order to gain political support, and ultimately to challenge the current view of what is moral. But the general notion of "heresy" supports direct action against the heretic: e.g. burn them at the stake if they don't shut up.
you are definitely right, in calling it a witch hunt. over at the kult there is a specific ferocity,keeping us together, keeping us united, and keeping those of us who are pissed off with a venue to vent at(namelessly, nambla, and child porn sites and those who back them)
but mabye all this activity against such a force also has an echo behind it producing people more attracted to this sort of thing. I can't speak for myself here (i have discussed myself as a particular case elsehwere in this thread) but if day in day out a person thinks about child porn(man we are going to kill those child porn bastard satans!) its still in your head, day in, day out. and that's got to mess you up, in my opinion. even just the idea. the idea of rape. the idea of molestation. a person, in my opinion is never the same after coming to understand even the basic precepts of these ideas... i can imagine an actual *rapist* or something with no understanding that females have feelings or the like...breaking apart if they ever came to understand what they actually do(women aren't people, after all, right?)
anyways, so, disregarding the justification of the witch hunt, does it change the personality of it's participants? does the acknowledgement of rape by millions of feminist twist the concept of man, love, and life? does the existance of child porn change normal sexuality? does the existance of a taboo'ed subject cause greater interest in it? and if so, what is the nature of the effect/greater interest?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Not to pick nits, but the poster said 6000 Java Classes, not lines of code. That'd be much more then 6000 lines.
Working with Java weenies myself, I know what he means. Do you really, really have to generate bazillions of Java classes just to get a little Java program written? Seems like every Java Jockey out there likes to do that.....
Well this paper seams pretty divisive to me. Let's denounce him to the homeland-antipatriotic department! Or better, let's just get some stones and a rope!
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Adult movie actors were routinely arrested for prostitution/escorted out of town in the 70s.
Galileo was "fringe" and the church believed his opinions were "poorly-supported" compared to their hundreds of years of theology.
What people fail to realize is that popular speech needs no protection! Everyone is happy to protect those whom they agree with. The tough part is protecting those you disagree with--especially those whom you vehemently disagree with and consider a danger.
So, racist speech is not acceptable (and shouldn't be), and there's nothing wrong with that.Racist speech is the exact speech that *SHOULD* be protected and needs protected! Why? First of all, true racist speech can (and should) be rebutted instead of left festering hidden away somewhere. Second, all too often certain groups play the "race card" and claim racism to squash legitimate argument. Who is to judge whether speech is racist or not, especially when it involves a sensitive area such as affirmative action? You? The University? The Government?
for it, but please make a distinction between a vocal minority of shit-disturbers (who can be of any background/race/religion), the sensible majority (also diverse), and the administration (weasels).Galileo, Martin Luther, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, and Jesus Christ are all examples of vocal minorities of disturbers fighting against the majority. Minority speech is *precisely* what needs protected! Who else is going to benefit from free speech protections? The "sensible majority"? The administration?
Brian Ellenbergeri'm pretty sure that there are definitely still places you can get charged with posession of child pornography if it's age 18. canada may be one of them. of course, ianal(yet)
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I think that a fine distinction. The phrases are ambiguous. It's not unreasonable, given the potential 'incorrect' interpretation and frequent sensitivity of the material to choose your words more carefully.
If you can choose your words differently, and still convey the same meaning, and do it with greater unambiguity, it makes perfect sense to do so. Choosing not to do so is "asking for trouble".
example
That's actually the only thing I could find on the subject using google, but recently there was a flap by a guy over how it was wrong for us to call a team "the Redskins", because how would we like it if there was a team called "the niggers". Needless to say, he got yelled at.
In response to your favorite example, I think a storyline from FlemCo addresses it, but you gotta sit through ~13 (I think) strips to get the idea.
[o]_O
I've heard of a number of people who have read the bible to rebut it, and have instead become convinced by it. Ironicly, the ideas espoused in the bible are in the category of things I dare not say except among my more accepting friends. I have witnessed anti-religious people get verbally stuck into some-one who happens to admit they believe what's in the bible. I have also witnessed religious fundamentalists get stuck into people who don't believe the bible, but I've seen the former more than the latter. YMMV.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
hell yeah :) Remember, the point of this post wasn't to offend people, it was to express deep thoughts without fear. Unless I misunderstood the point of the whole article.
Sig: I stole this sig.
said 6000 Java Classes, not lines of code.
Sorry.
Working with Java weenies myself, I know what he means. Do you really, really have to generate bazillions of Java classes just to get a little Java program written? Seems like every Java Jockey out there likes to do that.
Because they are told that it (somehow) makes better "encapsulation" and "seperation of concerns". The slightly suspicious PHB who may know a bit of programming does not know how to respond to such fuzzy buzzword claims, and moves on. They might as well say, "It is a Flux Capacitor that increases the volecity of productivity enhancing muons".
Table-ized A.I.
NT
no text a ta ll
Yes, humam beings are driven by some inner force, and complying with that force generates value, emotional or otherwise. So your statement really is a sterile tautology.
It much better to take an "objective" view of what humans do. I.e. not to second guess what is going on in their head. If someone gives blood they do not do it for personal gain.
Humans regularly do good things without reward, and we should be glad that is so.
I still don't understand why anyone would use the n-word, especially so trivially as some clearly do.
Same reason some people use the word "fuck" or "shit" or "cunt", even though some self-righteous ignorant peons think they shouldn't.
With minds like yours how did Communism fail?
Excuse me, but the burden is now on you fool.
Show us the studies that demonstrate Ecstasy to be harmful.
Just because we do not hold the same value system are the larger culture does not mean we do not have our own set of taboo thoughts. Various thoughts about Apple, Linux, SCO, Microsoft, etc... are heresy, yet it is acceptable to say FreeBSD is dying.
There are some things you cannot say on Slashdot without being modded down. Question the conventional wisdom and the censors will be all over you. Thats why some of the most insightful comments on here are from anonymous cowards or modded down.
Occasionally the phrase "I know I will be moderated down for this, but..." is used to help the moderator reflect on his own assumptions more objectively. Interestingly, most of the time these comments would only be shocking in the larger culture, but are accepted as the conventional wisdom in ours.
"You developers want to earn enough to pay the rent, food and maybe a vacation now and then? You can be replaced by a global cloud of people that we've duped into working for nothing!"
I think its ironic you can't call Frodo a terrorist.
What you can't and can say has been majorly widened by the advent of Internet and self-publishing services (weblogs, journals, free bandwidth, webspace, etc.) because, simply, of the anonymity. Because of the anonymity, it eventually spreads to where you can say it out loud in public and then spreads into becoming a cliche.
Pelé!
The funny thing is that reverse discrimination is a form of discrimination. It assumes that discrimination is somehow different in it is against a majority instead of a minority. While the methods and effects may be different, bigotry is bigotry, and the causes are always greed, ignorance, and hate. Calling discrimination 'reverse' makes it no less acceptable, and those that use the modifer are propogating prejudicial speech.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
> As for your rant on Native Americans, our people did plenty worse to each other for thousands of years before any Europeans showed up. It wasn't exactly a unique experience in history.
So, you're saying this makes it ok, then?
Hitler has very little to do with moustache taboos. It's more that men who have one are thought of as either rednecks or gay.
If you wonder, I have never committed statutory rape! Hell I never had sex with a minor in my life!
Example:
You are 23, you meet a girls who looks 21, swear she is 19, even show you a (fake) ID and you have a single wild night with her.
She gets in a fight with her best friend at school, who tells her parents by spite, the police are called. Once the complaint is made you a F***, even if the family does not wish to fill a complaint it's too late, it's in the DA's hands now. A year later you get a 2 to 5 year prison sentence. When you get out (with a larger a**-hole) you are shut down by everyone you know, must re-locate and your name / address is in the national list of registered sex offenders for the rest of your life!
Common guys, your drunk at a party, a girl follows you in the bathroom and grabs your dick (I lived this a few times so did many friends). What do YOU do? You are very stupid yes, but prison?
I understand the need for laws to protect our innocent young girls, but where are they all hiding? Girls get active at 12-14 today. To be a virgin at 18 is a social shame!!! Sexual activity is the favorite sport of all teenagers today.
When I was in college the papers got filled with a case, a sports figure that went to a 25YO+ bar (everybody needed a photo ID to get in). All the witnesses said this girl was on him all evening, looked over 20. They finished in his hotel room. She was 17, still in high school; bragged about her adventure. Her dad was a lawyer, the guy got arrested.
When I was 17 to 20 I hanged with a crowd that liked "private parties" (no ID, no closing time, no bouncer, liquor store prices, anything is ok from drug on the table to sex in the kitchen) with many 15-22 YO people (boys and girls), and discovered a whole new world. The worst girls are the 16-17 YO, they want to "try" every guy, blatantly propose sexual acts "right here right now" (and follow you in the bathroom if you say no). I always watched my back but was considered prude (or plain stupid by my guy friends).
I'm older now, I was soo stupid!
Questioning the justice in case of statutory rape at the office or a social gathering will always bring very bad looks. If women over 30 are present they will treat you like a criminal pedophile that keeps his 5 wives prisoner in the basement. A woman will always see her little 20 YO daughter as little 10 YO angel. If only she new what I saw her do when she was 15, things the mom probably never thought of doing!!!
Today's young girls are worst than "us guys" when I was in high school (and that's saying something)!
And yet, I can never mention this anywhere, even anonymously I get flamed to hell!
Windows XP is a well built OS. It almost never crashes, it's very compatible with a wide range of hardware, and setup/configuration is a breeze.
Bill Gates is not a bad person. He is down to earth, a geek at heart- a humanitarian and philanthipist who believes that the money he earns should be used in service to humanity.
The MPAA is just trying to protect the copyrighted works of the companies it represents.
Maybe there really is some of proprietary Sco code in Linux. And you know, revealing it before Sco has its date in court would not be fair to the litigants.
no... wait that last one just went too far... I recant.
I have no pants and I must scream
http://www.federalobservercom/archive.php.?aid=236 5
Vol. 03, No. 139
How to survive attacks from the ADL, JWV, and JDL
By Ed Toner
~ Foreword ~ The Spotlight was illegally shut down a year ago, yet the
following still remains relevant. The American Free Press has taken the
place of the now defunct publication (see link below).
To the editor of Spotlight,
The obituary notice of Irwin Suall of the ADL brought back some memories for
me. Your story dealt mostly with the ADL's aThections (sp - word unknown)
against some of the most patriotic organizations in the USA. They did not
stop there. They went after me, an individual.
I am now a retired TWA Captain, as well as a retired LCDR USN. During the
1970's, I flew many trips to Tel Aviv. What I saw there was just the
opposite of what I read about the place in the newspapers. The media claims
that Israel was "The only Democracy in the Mid-East" were shockingly wrong.
Israel is as much a two-tier society today as Germany was in 1939. They just
inverted the place, put the Jews on top, and the Gentiles underfoot.
This was not outwardly noticeable at first. The place was obviously Jewish,
but I figured, "Naturally, it's The Jewish State". There were a few minor
inconveniences such as no ham and cheese sandwiches on rye, no activity on
Saturdays, etc., but all in all, a layover in the Tel Aviv Hilton was
considered a good one.
The crews were given the same rooms each trip, so I got the same
housekeeper, who I assumed was a nice Jewish lady. As is the custom, I
brought her a small box of Chocolates each trip. She was very thankful.
On one occasion, I got talking with her. It was Saturday, and she was
working. I asked her if she was violating Jewish law by working. To my
surprise, she told me she was not Jewish, but an Orthodox Christian.
We spoke further about how things were for a Christian in The Jewish State.
"Bad, real bad, Captain" was her reply. I questioned ..........
re testing and achievment in regard to gender disparities-Standardised testing is the ONLY objective measurement used in higher education.That women "do better" with lower test scores suggests widespread systematic discrimination against men in grading,admissions and graduation rates.
There really isn't any such thing as international law. Many people equate UN resolutions with international law but resolutions are not enforcable (usually). Just ask Israel.
The status of treaties also varies from coutry to country. In the UK, treaties mean nothing until a bill is passed in Parliament. I presume the something similar is the case in the US as I remember that the SALT treaties had to be ratified.
There are various organisation that exercise what might be called international law functions (E.g. WTO), but no overall framework.
The US recently declined to support an international criminal court - possibly with good reason. It is much easier to take legal action against a country such as the US rather than North Korea, and yet millions face potential starvation in North Korea. Would an invasion or regime change in North Korea be "war crime" because it was "unprovoked", and the US could not come up with some legal pretext? That's not justice.
Merely for your consideration, something I feel I can't usually talk about: Most of the power in the world is held by hetero males, and hetero males are genetically predispositioned to strongly favor beautiful women in every way (protect them, forgive them, help them, etc.) The more beautiful, the more favored. Being able to leverage the power of legion hetero males, the relatively rare beautiful woman is accustomed to having great power and essentially living by different rules than others. Such a person, as a rule, grows into a spoiled, arrogant, condescending, manipulative, deceptive, scheming, hurtful, uncaring, duplicitous individual (some would say "evil b***h). Duplicitousnous is key, since such people are very careful to maintain the "image" of being a good person. There are, of course, wonderful exceptions, exceptionally wonderful and beautiful women, but I've found the generalization above to be depressingly true.
Some banned but utterly proveable ideas:
1) Niggers are stupider than whites.
While there is variance within the group, and there are a few smart niggers, niggers as a whole were bred to be stupid and strong, to make good slaves. The average nigger IQ is 15 points lower, or one standard deviation.
2) Israel is the most evil nation on the earth. We need to stop giving it money.
3) The Jews collude within their own community to increase their own wealth. The only way to prevent them from increasing the Jewish wealth at the expense of everyone else is to collude against them just as they collude against us. Hitler's final solution is one method of doing this, perhaps a wise one.
4) Women shouldn't have the vote. It was women who caused evils such as Prohibition, the New Deal, and Welfare.
5) Hitler was a great man.
For example, this is apparently flamebait. Though nobody can explain why.
You pointed out some obvious gains that women have gotten since feminism grew into a movement. Sensible men no longer believe that women are meant to be physically weak. Women are also seemingly accepted in many professional roles traditionally held by men.
Under the surface of our society, at least in the United States, there still exists a form of gender inequality. Males from among varying ideologies and backgrounds will say that women are equal in this or that area, while at the same time thinking women inferior in areas they think themselves good at. Men do not think women are their equals *in all things* no matter what they say in public.
There are more subtle cultural limitations on each gender than 'women aren't meant to be computer programmers'. Think about work situations that are still mostly, if not all male. I'm sure you can think of professions that are identified with a particular gender. That does not mean that the other gender isn't allowed 'in the club'. It does mean that those who choose those paths are seen as not being quite like the normal members of their gender group. They will be nominally accepted into the group but will most likely not be a full member.
If you take a close look at what men say to each other when it comes to women or on subjects deemed to be fit mostly for men, you'll see the attitude that men truly have towards women - an indoctrinated superiority complex. To openly admit that it is wrong risks outsider status on oneself. Always abide by the rules of your gender.
I say pretty much whatever the hell I want, damn people's perceptions. I honestly don't give a crap. Then again, I don't go around saying any and everything that pops into my head. If I am asked, I answer honestly. For example, I am an atheist, but I don't go around professing my (lack of) beliefs to everyone within earshot.
I hate sigs.
African Americans should have equal rights in America.
200 years ago it would have been considered taboo.
140 years ago it was fighting words, ie the Civil War.
50 years ago it would have made people uncomfortable.
30 years ago it would have been accepted as true by most people.
Now it is widely accepted as obviously true.
Consider the second statement;
Palestinians should have equal rights in Israel.
Accepted as true around the world except for Israel and America.
I believe that the second statement will follow the same course as the first statement but on a more rapid time frame. The first statement started out as taboo and yet ended as common wisdom. The second statement is currently taboo in America.
America seems to be late on matters of civil rights. We were late in joining the embargo on Apartheid South Africa but eventually we did the right thing. We are late on recognizing that Israel is a brutal racist state. The world unanimously condemned Israel as a racist state at the UN Convention on Human Rights in Durban. Israel and America walked out much to our shame.
While we seem to be late, we do eventually get it right. With Americans dying daily in wars that are only popular in Israel, I believe that this will focus our mind. When we look in the mirror and see ourselves as no better than Israelis, I think that the horror of that image will shock us. I hope that it happens soon.
It's ironic that you posted your rant AC. In a discussion much about having the guts to speak your mind publicly, it's clear that you certainly do not.
There's always some self-righteous fucktard willing to take a snipe at someone posting AC, but unless your parents named you mcpkaaos, you should definitely be shutting the fuck up right about now.
This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
They stereotypically wear some wacked out clothes.
Is fashion moral fabric?
I know every time I leave the house I dress like I want, and act like I want. Consequentlty I get in trouble a lot, fights, bouncers, cops.
Is theres a point where acting out in society is really detrimental though? Can breaking the minor rules be changing other people's minds on the big rules? You bet. Not everyone thinks like you.
Why is pimpin a positive term nowadays?
I got a pimpin ride.
You gotta be thinking.
I'm torn too, because I used to be funky... I'd do jackass stunts before it aired... nothin else to do in western PA. Now I found Christianity, and acting funky doesn't work. A: Its somewhat disprespectful of God B:It gives bad ideas to other people
Even though I originally got the funk from:
C-I'm still playing by the rules, you're not going to do anything evil. I'm just going to goof off to have fun.
I'm still wrestling with how funk can be kept. My best argument stems from society not being optimal, and people not knowing each other like they used to in village communities. Most everyone out there is alone, and following societies rules won't change this. If you bring attention to yourself with funky clothes/attitude, you're sayin this is not cool... And with local rockstar attitude, you can shepard a few social rejects.
Of course, I'm not sure what method God wants me to take yet. Doesn't hurt to think about this stuff though.
God spoke to me
Er no. "African-American" wasn't ever meant to replace "black" because the two terms mean entirely different things. What do Jesse Jackson, Nelson Mandela and Seal have in common? They're black. Members of the black race. Except in some bent over backwards PC sociology dissertation gone mad, nobody's calling Seal "African-American."
African-American is just another one of the United States' many ethnic groups, like Italian-American, German-American, etc. Jackson clearly isn't the one who came up with the term "white" nor did he come up with the hyphenated American scheme, so pinning our nation's racial ills upon him seems a bit odd. (Maybe Al Sharpton called in sick that day??) Anyway, I used to be a member of a bank which was since 1968 called European-American Bank, and before that, since 1952, it was known as the Belgian-American Bank. If only I'd consulted with the good Reverend. I could've been taught the sublime pleasure of calling it the "White" bank against its wishes. Damn, now it's too late, because Citibank has gobbled it up. Capitalist Devils!!!
Honestly, I don't know why people seem to get worked up about this. Like I hinted to the other poster, what's stopping you from calling blacks/coloreds/African-Americans whatever you want? Clearly, only your own sense of shame or propriety. Why blame your own self-repression on Jesse Jackson? Unless you really think he's going to organize a boycott of your summer barbecue because you said "Negro" under your breath in the shower.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In what world?
Take a look at their "issues" page.
Here's a quote from their site Right-wing religious groups have an agenda of promoting marriage without regard for the welfare of women and children (and such groups would be eligible to receive funds under this bill).
Yeah, because we all know how well most single mothersand their children have it in this country.
NOW has come out against joint custody of children.
NOW says that this quote from John Ashcroft is 'Scary' "Civilized people ? Muslims, Christians and Jews ? all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator. Civilized people of all religious faiths are called to the defense of His creation. We are a nation called to defend freedom ? a freedom that is not the grant of any government or document, but is our endowment from God."
If you remember your history, you'll remember that NOW supported Anita Hill from the beginning when she accused Justice Thomas of sexual harassment. Where was that support for Paula Jones?
NOW is about as mainstream as Fred Phelps, the only difference is that 35 years ago NOW actually did some positive things.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I would appreciate some examples of these professions. I'm probably just unimaginative, but I can't think of any roles that are particularly identified with a particular sex.
Most bouncers are men, but that's not because there's any reason a big burly woman shouldn't be doing the job.
You say "Men do not think women are their equals *in all things* no matter what they say in public." But this is undeniably true -- men and women are different and have different abilities. Women are greatly superior to men when it comes to quality of breastfeeding, for one.
So maybe I'm just dense, or maybe I'm a really unusual male, but I'd honestly appreciate if you could shed some light on these hidden areas you suggest exist but don't identify.
i may very well be incorrect on why laws were written, and we could very well both be wrong and it could be something akin to a senator's daughter being seduced by an older man or something,..
and while you are probably right, that teenagers in america, and to a lesser degree canada would display the characteristics you describe, i have a sneaking suspician there are cultural forces at work, and that not all of this is necessarry. now the question is, does the law accomplish what its end is? is the prohibition of liquor to minors stopping those with addictive personalities from ever becoming drunkards? is the keeping of the necessarry descision making process that is sexuality away from our young men and women really keeping them safer from themselves or eachother? or does it encourage cluelessness.
i suppose it's all in the approach, laws that ban liquor for minors but support enjoyable activities and support liquor and recreational drugs(properly used, to get all shitfaced and paranoid, but safely as possible or at the veryh least respecting risk involved) could very well be much better than the silly beaurocracy we have here, or the 'everyone drinks on television, we are advertised to by alchohol ads all the time but we are not allowed to drink' bullshit...
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
He's a conservative idiot and deserves to be laughed at, mocked, and excoriated for the stupidity his positions entail, but I've seen no evidence that he's racist, Nazi, or fascist. Of course, you might just be saying that it's wrong to accuse him of being so... but if you are then I'm going to call you out on it.
Furthermore, pointing out that not all Democrats were informed enough to realize that Iraq probably didn't have weapons of mass destruction, or suggesting that maybe both parties agreed that there was a threat (and quoting the most stupid of the Democrats to point that out, but that's another story) is hardly detestible. It's shallow, ill-thought out, and (as we learned with the centrifuge and mobile bio-weapons story) wildly inaccurate opinion, but it's hardly detestible. Being conservative isn't detestible. It's just cold, unsympathetic, shallow, and misinformed.
If you were to provide one of that guy's posts that said "kill all j00z!!11!!" or "blacks are violent criminals and slavery should be brought back" or even "slavery was good for the slaves," I'd agree with you on the labels you applied. However, by applying the labels you did and saying what you did, you came uncomfortably close to proving his point.
I guess you really can say anything here, no matter how ridiculous.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Was there any indication that this woman was a calculating assassin before this? There had to be...
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
They can/will be fired and their lives ruined.
.44?
Do you mean fired like in dismissed or like in shot down with a
>
> * I refuse to put a disclaimer on this message. I feel that the continued use of that word by black culture is absolutely sickening. I am white.
I felt the same way you do. Then the recession came. Middle-class folks sold their stocks and left the apartment market to Section 8.
So, in the spirit of New Year's, here's my Heresy: "I agree that the continued use of that word by black culture is absolutely sickening. My heresy is that based on my observations brought on by living in close proximity to people subscribe to that culture's value system, however, the continued use of that word is also accurate and appropriate. My observations confirm the hypothesis as phrased by black comedian Chris Rock."
Hitler got some serious financial support by some large investors :
:
http://www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.asp
"Throughout the Bush family's decades of public life, the American press has gone out of its way to overlook one historical fact - that through Union Banking Corporation (UBC), Prescott Bush, and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, financed Adolf Hitler before and during World War II. It was first reported in 1994 by John Loftus and Mark Aarons in The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People.
"
Well of course it should be noted that by the time the Holocaust was getting mainstream news, USA of course sent in their Army to remove the Nazis. When looking at it in this way, and noting that also Saddam was enabled into power by USA, the analogy and the reason for the US Army to remove Saddam from power is striking.
Robert
Have you ever spoken to a male nurse? Seen who is awarded custody of children in nearly 90% of divorce cases? When I say sex offender, what picture that comes to mind, male or female? Ever hear of a guy being awarded alimony ("why, of course not, men don't need to be coddled as women are"). It's hard to have an indoctrinated superiority complex when the other half views you as a potential rapist or emotionally crippled. Yes, women do have a rough go in some situations, but so do males. Quid pro quo. Having low self-esteem would be a step up for most males.
I find Gilbert Levin topical on account of the Spirit Mars Rover and what kind of experiments are not on it and what kind of experiments were on Beagle 2 (I am hoping some British dude announces recovery of that lander and says "I'm not quite dead yet!")
Levin started his career as an environmental engineer (i.e. sewage plant specialist). One of the things you need to do to properly operate a sewage treatment plant is rapidly determine what kind of bugs you have in the system and what kind of bugs you have in the effluent discharge. The conventional approach is to have some kind of growth medium (like agar plus nutrients), to "streak" a growth plate with a wire dipped in the water you want to assay for bacteria, and then wait a couple days and count bacteria colonies.
All of that takes time. Gilbert Levin's engineering contribution was to use a radioactive growth medium, and to use a Geiger counter to count the radioactive tiny bubbles given off when the bugs metabolize the food and fart CO2 or other gasses. The technique was a breakthrough because it can assay bacteria counts very fast and at very low levels -- you don't have to wait for colonies to form, and you can detect ridiculously low levels of the metabolized radioactive gas. He formed a company called Biospherics (now Spherix) to market this invention.
Anyway, when NASA got in the business of finding life on Mars, Levin had some engineer friends who introduced him to the right people, and his technology for detecting very low levels of life got NASA people interested in his method. Along the way he went back to grad school to get a PhD -- his union card to be PI on one of the Viking life detection experiments.
Well, both Vikings landed and each lander ran three life detection experiment. You all can correct me, but I believe one experiment was a mass spec to detect carbon compounds, one was a robot version of streaking plates, and the third was Gilbert Levins Labeled Release (LR). Two of the experiments came up zilch, but Levin's experiment detected life according to the previously agreed upon protocols.
The scientific consensus that emerged was that life was not detected and the LR result was a fluke, the result of chemical compounds mimicing a life signature. If there was life, it was at extremely low levels that LR could pick up but that the other two methods would not. Levin originally was resigned to this conclusion, but some years later he had a change of heart and has been lobbying NASA to run another LR experiment, this time with chiral (you know, like left handed sugar makes you fat, right handed sugar goes right through you) growth medium. NASA has been ignoring him all these years and pointedly not putting any life detection equipment on any Mars mission, and they are making a big deal that they are searching this time for water before they fly another life experiment.
The real case against life is the Gaia Hypothesis. The idea is that if there were life on Mars, it wouldn't be hanging on by its fingernails, rather, it would modify its environment so it would be present in abundance and wouldn't be hard to find at all. That the surface of Mars is bathed in ultraviolet light that would clean sterilize and Earth organisms and that a mass spec can't find any carbon compounds to radio home about suggests that Mars life is not modifying the atmosphere to protect itself and is far from abundant if it exists at all.
The counter to the Gaia hypothesis is that life is being discovered on Earth, deep in rocks, on the Antarctic ices, and suspended in water otherwise regarded as pure, and techniques such as LR make such detections possible -- there are ecological niches where life exists on Earth in low concentrations under harsh conditions and hanging on by the fingernails. Anyway, Levin convinced the Russians to fly the chiral LR experiment on Mars 2, which ended up in the Pacific Ocean when the Proton rocket
I just realized something. If people outside of america wish to at all influence the political choices of people inside america, then all they have to do is endorse the opposite person to whom they prefer. The americans would assume that because foreigners are endorsing that person, then that person/party must not be looking out for the best interests of america. So all these socialist europeans should sing the praises of bush to undo him! But of course as proof that europeans regardless of belief aren't the vast intellectual superiors to ameircans, they won't realize this idea en mass.
There, I've made my controversial post for this topic!
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
The 'our word' aspect of it is just emotional blackmail, and becomes less effective the more it is used. The 'street' aspect of it is a reminder of past sins (slavery and segregation) and continued inequality (it has been less than a generation since the last major legal barriers to equality fell - it will likely be another 15 years before we see full natural integration and equality). The fact that it pisses some white people off and draws the 'reverse racism' label is probably just icing on the cake to people looking to piss off white middle America.
If there is a segment of American black culture that uses the word to empower themselves then why should I be offended, I have no wish to use that word myself. Sure it is self-censorship, I just do it with full awareness of everything that word means.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
I follow a number of political websites in addition to tech, and I'm finding the internet is really doing more to polarize society than anything else. It's allowing people who might otherwise be exposed to various opinions within their communities, to find like minded people on the internet and commiserate.
Any forum opinion tends to be quite uniform, I agree. But in my experience you meet a lot of people who have some common interest, but who you'd never meet otherwise and that can differ wildly in other areas. Just go tangent to the reason that you met in the first place.
For example, I talk to people of all ages, up to into their retirement years. Apart from my family, I rarely if ever meet elder people, I certainly don't "hang out" in the same places they do. And I meet people from half-way across the world, which may have some completely different cultural, political and religious opinions than my own, even though a common interest brought us together.
Of course, you can "isolate" yourself and only talk about the right subjects with the "right" people, but you can pretty much do that in real life too. Then you can talk in your snob club about luxury cars, in the chess club about analytic capabilities, in the sports club about physical fitness and the pub about the pleasures of alcohol.
The Internet is what you make of it. Not to mention, I love the ability to do a little reality check using google, to see what the "general opinion" on something is, what others are saying. While hardly scientific in that sense, you can usually get some decent arguments for and against something in no time. Used critically, it'll make you a very well-reflected individual.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So you're saying it's all a self-centered, irrational, overreaction?
Or are you saying it's a case of a person falsely pretending to feel bad in order to achieve gains by conferring guilt on the speaker?
Or perhaps it's it's a childlike emotional fragility so severe that any hint of criticism will shatter everything?
Regardless, she should get over it and put down the fork. And I agree, it is the same reason.
Who needs slavery when you have multinationals and our monstrous concept of globalization to fuck over all them backwards livin folk that aren't from our country. (I'd love to see just the agribusiness subsidies go tomorrow at least).
Photos.
WHAT American products would anyone want to buy nowadays? Cars from the Three Dinosaurs, assembled in Mexico from Canadian and East-Asian parts? The rest is all Made In China anyways.
I have spent a bit of time on campuses as a student and as a teacher. I am relatively conservative, as I am a theist, an absolutist (relativism is the worst ignorance IMO), I believe in studying the Great Books, and focusing on the Classics in the Canon, and think that many ethnic studies departments are dishonest and unhelpful towards a better education of any students. I have expressed my views on various campuses. I am not in jail. While some have labeled me, I am not so weak in an argument that I would let an opponent get away with it. Speaking from experience, you are completely full of it.
>Sadly, universities are becoming the places where free speech is the *least* tolerated.
Feh. As far as I can tell, there is more freedom of speech on campuses than anywhere else in the country. Just because the extremist right-wing views you hold are not popular among the well educated doesn't mean that you can't express them.
>Orwellian indoctrination classes and speech codes are the norm.
Feh. I suppose it is necessary for you to imagine that there are evil librul indoctrinating professors are brainwashing the youth to fit with your general paranoia, but reality doesn't support your views.
>Punishment for controversial speech is becoming more severe.
Perhaps, though besides a few odd anecdotes, I don't see a real trend. Where it is happening, it is a function of Political Correctness, a tool equally abused by both the left and the right.
>College newspapers exposing "dangerous" thoughts are being stolen or banned.
The only time I remember this happening was when Horowitz published a truly hateful and obnoxious ad in some school papers. Not a trend.
>Anyone who speaks up is labeled a "racist conservative Nazi facist".
People who express views on college campuses should expect people to disagree and use a variety of argumentation, some well though out, some poor. Kids are learning how to argue and apply critical thought in school, some are not good at it and throw around ad hominems and other weak logic. I am glad they are trying to think, even if they falter sometimes.
It almost appears that for Brian Ellenberg 'free speeh' means 'agrees with Brian Ellenberg's views, or at least doesn't argue with them.' Maybe you should drop by a school and see what it is like first hand. And if some kid sslaps a label on you, maybe you should work on learning how to correct this spurious form of argumentation instead of whining about it.
Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
Pretty much critizising US policy, the war on terror, the police-state patriot act, Mr. Bush, the concentration camp on Cuba, 9/11 and the sloppy investigation of the same, the anthrax attacks, the Iraq war and the government's lies about WMDs. The list goes on and on.
The biggest problem here is that you are getting in the middle of bickering matches with educated children with no real world experience.
Having an argument with a college student is like pig wrestling. You get all dirty, and the pig likes it.
Buck up, people. And use some sense. Most college kids in an argument are just happy that someone is listening to them about an issue. Unfortunately, they just haven't learned why they are not allowed to run planet Earth yet.
Besides, it's ridiculous to get into an argument with a person that can quote Camus and Marx on you but has never held a steady job. The moment some college kid starts trying to school me on anything, I start laughing. Usually that little crap-eating smile or a chuckle in their face does much more to shut down their "rage against the machine" attitude than anything else.
They're just kids. Sometimes you college kids need to learn to STFU. I know when I was in college I thougt I knew everything. I guarantee you that you are just as wrong as I was back then, so shut your mouths and listen to your elders.
So what have we learned? Colleges, and college kids need to shut the hell up. Thank you for your time.
The problem with witch hunts is that most of the 'obvious signs' of guilt are nothing of the sort, most of the practices aren't witchcraft, and most of the people burned aren't witches. They're never justified.
Tracking down child pornographers is a worthy goal iff it doesn't become a witch hunt.
There's a fine line between doing what's right because it must be done and becoming afraid of shadows. The problem is, that even questioning where that line is can lead to nasty accusations.
is that you can't find a rational basis to refute them, so you have to resort to calling their ideas "scary".
No, I take it back. What's even scarier is the fact that, apparently, it's never occurred to you that your inability to refute something might mean that you are wrong.
Clear, Dark Skies
that the US waited until the Russians had beaten Japan, then declared war on Japan so they could demand a part of the war reparations.
Clear, Dark Skies
I would never have used Eric Raymond as a redactor for a text on intellectual integrity. Though maybe this is really about purposely avoiding intellectual integrity. In which case he'd be the perfect guy to show it to.
Pundits, right? They like to be the focal point of attention. So it might be useful to apply some of the same critical thinking to their regular spew. Namely, we have this gem:
...like me! :-)
"(Or it could be that, because it's clearer in the sciences whether theories are true or false, you have to be smart to get jobs as a scientist, rather than just a good politician.)"
I omitted the general trashing of "liberal arts" disciplines before that. This is all reminiscent of Paul's high school nerd philosophizing on his intellectual superiority in an earlier article.
Someone else here pointed out the example of Bjorn Lomborg in particular. But we can simply point to Graham himself and his popularity. His writing speaks to most Nerds, but this doesn't not make him accurate or really even insightful. He may know what bayesian classifiers are, but that doesn't really give him any particular insight into the perfect programming language (still waiting...) or philosophical thought or even the most effective way to use these classifiers.
Raymond wrote the cathedral and the bazaar, but this was not a science-based piece. It was entirely political -- all assertions, and all pretty much unproven except by personal anecdote based on a... not very complex.. program. It was well written enough to be used as a political propaganda piece, and potentially correct -- however it alone doesn't make Eric an authority on anything...
So why is graham and raymond mentioned here and on other geek and science oriented sites? Because they write from the perspective of a geek, and write things that geeks agree with. It's not magic, it's competence. It's not competence in science, analysis or critical thought, but competence in political writing and the ability to parlay 15 minutes into some longer lasting form of success and/or influence.
The scientists which get paid the big bucks are good at this, but are not necessarily very good at science in general. This does not mean both aren't possible or don't exist in one person (they do), but it puts the claim that political saavy and science does not mix into perspective. Especially when compared to more "liberal" disciplines.
Perhaps Paul's mastery of archaic french is very good, but somehow I doubt it.. and I think he drastically underestimates the importance of motivation and overestimates the importance of intellegence.
As a geek, I see where he's coming from, but I also see the same negative human/geek tendency to deconstruct the world into simple algorithms based on what, frankly, I beleive is a limited experience. In the end, like most inet essayists, he wants to be profound, but by not framing his observations he ends up being just another netnews poster...
Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits.
Then, in light of the subject of this story, and aware of the irony involved, I added the caveat about the bogosity of ad homenim attacks.
Beyond that, you're taking it far too literally. It wasn't that serious a post.
Crispin
Maybe it's my lack of sleep, but I'm not sure whether or not your post was to insult me or the AC guy. :)
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
* Windows is superior to Linux.
* Christians are not close-minded because they dont agree with some scientific theories
* vi VS emacs arguments are completly pointless
* Linus is not a software prophet who can do or think no wrong
* Bill Gates is insightful about the direction of software, even though he missed the internet boat.
This sig intentionally left blank
People around age 18 are desperate to be accepted, and can't stand to be criticized. As a result, when they go to college and say things that they got away with around their high school friends, but that people in college disapprove of, they interpret the withering criticism they get as a denial of their free speech rights. However, the withering criticism is itself speech. If someone says you're an obnoxious racist/sexist/whatever because of something you said, that's their opinion and they have a right to express it. You have a right to speak, but you don't have a right not to be criticized or ostracized because of what you say.
I suspect a similar situation developed with Napoleon.
...maybe I shouldn't have said that. My appologies in advance.
People are still terrified of little people to this day.
Then the Apartheid system in South Africa collapsed and for a brief moment in time we could see through the "smoke and mirrors" to see the workings of a modern state's spook aparatus.
You can read it in the Truth and Reconcilation Commission report at, at, at, God! It's fallen off the 'net! I have been Googling and googling and it's gone! THE BUGGERS!
The bottom line is if you prepared to "disappear", torture and intimidate everyone and anyone, any proof, even just an inkling, is hard to get. And anyone with extraordinary proof is already at the bottom of an unmarked grave.
Dude if you're going to post a torrent at least make sure the tracker is up!
Am I the only one that for some strange reason wants to see this movie?
On Slashdot, you can't criticize Apple LAPTOP keybaords. Not even when the criticism is directly relevant to a story.
Well, actually, you can criticize Apple, but you'll get modded down to -1 almost every time.
That plan doesn't seem to be working out.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
The article wasn't about specific things you can't say. It was about how to figure out what things you can't say. Teach a man to fish...
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
I might be able to post this without getting modded down..
Ok, I know the technical legal term "copyright infringement" has a different definition than the technical legal term "theft", but downloading music illegally is still stealing since in both cases you're getting to use something without paying for it when you're required to pay for it. So stop stealing music and movies before the a-holes cripple computers and you're left with pretty "content appliances" instead of computers.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
This illustrates my point even better. You assume that the majority (okay, 49% or so, but even more voted for Republicans in 2002) voted for Bush because they're ignorant dolts easily wowed by a cowboy act. Most Democrats appear to believe this as well, hence the NASCAR/Wal-Mart allusion. In fact, a great deal of the people here really do support Bush's policies, and, more importantly, don't like snobby outsiders telling them what to think. I'm very sympathetic towars the latter view, especially after reading too much Chomsky and having too many run-ins with snobby Europeans and lefty Democrats, both of which tend to be just as insular and ignorant as the rubes they mock.
You've brought up the NASCAR/Wal-Mart thing a couple times now. Have you ever actually been to a NASCAR event, or even at a bar when people are watching them, or to a Wal-Mart at noon on a Saturday? These stereotypes just don't earn themselves. The reason us "lefty-democrats" have such a beef with these folks is because by supporting Bush they're fucking themselves in the process, and those of us just above the lower class (or working our way up) are appauled at this. They can give us a $300 check and tell us to be patriotic and it actually works on these people. Nevermind that we're spending billions to meddle with the rest of the world, and in turn put many of these people's lives at risk (the lower class is over-represented in the armed forces). Nevermind that they're putting medicare/medicaid into disarray (and money into their own pockets in the process). I can see the upper crest of society supporting the bush regime as they're the ones being helped out. I am completely amazed that lifelong lower-class even sometimes union democrats support Bush because it's the "patriotic" thing to do. And usually they're the same people who watch NASCAR and go to Wal-Mart for stone-washed jeans on Saturday.
I am related to some of these people (white trash is another thing you're not supposed to say, but I'd apply it to them), and had to spend a great deal of time around xmas trying to dispell their beliefs that Iraq was behind 9/11. There were a few that outright refused to believe me.
Men and women are fundatmentally different, period! Men who would appease women by saying the opposite are just trying to get some. Women who don't think so are dillusional.
The fact that this story was posted by Michael aka the king of editor/mod abuse is rich with irony.
Your post is the perfect example of a not powerful meme
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
I think he needs much more time and web-space to actually put down some hard facts.
:)
He did have good points though, I was thinking about the Soviet Revolution of the 1917, and the Bol'sheviks (the so-called Majority, who in fact were a minority, who were the Reds). They instantly came up with a bunch of things that one could not say without getting labelled and possibly prosecuted or at least allianated. There were two points I liked in the article - the author pointed out that you need to find people who think like you do, people you can trust and share your thoughts with them and that humour works wonders to expose the problems in society without necessarily creating too much trouble for the comic. Both of these were true in Soviet Russia (in Capitalism men exploit men, in Communism it's the other way around
You can't handle the truth.
Speaking against Jews (no matter what) is a very successfull installed-taboo.
No one had a problem about this subject before the end of the 2nd WW... But the Jewish people turned saint after that, it seems. At least I still can speak about arabs.
I wonder what would happen to the author of this, if he/she lived in the US:
politically incorrect thing.
For the children's sake, tear out your retinas NOW, before the image has a chance to imprint elsewhere.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
It's not nudity or sexuality, but raising a child. You can't boil it down to a word and not expect half baked posts like this.
Children need to be exposed to sexuality at a young age through various means, breast feeding, being held, watching other people interact (this does not require a porn studio). As they grow they discover more about themselves and the world around them, and if they aren't prepared it can be bad. But to say kids & nudity = good, is outrageous. The "none of us would be here today" gave me a good laugh.
In my experience the people who get pregnant first are those with issues, from childhood sexual incest to a complete starvation of affection.
Every post I've seen so far has been like the diffrence between a private shower and a prison shower. Keeping kids out of the sexual picture or throwing them to the dogs.
Maybe the reason this subject is taboo is because so many people are so fucking stupid? I guess all those blind links to goatse and flashers in general are doing us a public service?
Sir, please keep trying. The tracker is unstable but if you can connect to it you will find a very fast and reliable upload source for this movie.
Just leave your torrent client open until it starts downloading and then finishes. Help share the wealth if you want.
I thought it was common knowledge and widely accepted.
You can't handle the truth.
Here it's the Peoples Democratic Republic
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
everybody is a fascist that doesnt agree with you.. ill better ya, youre a communist. my argument that you are a communist is about as good as you calling neocons fascists.
baseless crap. take another sip of latte you elitist asshole.
Paul Graham's article was an interesting read, but he didn't mention the role that emotive and neutral terminology plays in the spread of ideas.
To define these terms: Emotive language is the choice of words that conjure up the desired emotions in the listener, whereas neutral language is devoid of such emotional associations.
Many of these terms are spread by people in positions of power, such as government leaders, major corporations and powerful lobby groups.
Let's examine two examples.
The DMCA was enacted to combat "piracy". The word "piracy" and its various derivatives are commonly used by MPAA and RIAA executives. However, the strict definition of piracy in the sense of copyright infringement is to copy someone else's work and sell it for your own personal profit. This isn't as widespread as the copyright holders like to have us believe. For example, someone copying a CD so they can have a copy in their car as well as in their home isn't strictly piracy because they are not selling the copy. Yet the RIAA would use "piracy" to describe this activity. The term "copyright infringement" is available for their use, but they often eschew this term for the less accurate but more emotive term "piracy". Why? To engender the emotional response they want in their listeners.
"Downsizing" was a corporate buzzword in the recession era of the early 1990's. What it means, however, is to make many staff redundant at once. This made many people unhappy because they were now out of work. The proponents of this corporate philosophy introduced the term "downsizing" because it was a term with no emotive associations. To get people to swallow nasty medicine, you have to make it taste bland. In the same way, to get the masses to accept something bad, you have to cloak the concept with a neutral name that is often derived from corporate doublespeak.
If you want to look for nasty ideas someone is going to foist on you, look for bland-sounding terms. On the other hand, if you want to "look under the rocks" as Paul Graham said in his article, look for emotive terminology and question the concepts behind the emotive terms.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
That would turn them into Liberals
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
How about this as something unthinkable: white males aren't being oppressed.
I'm a white male. It rocks to be a white, straight, native-English-speaking male in America. I can wake up in the morning, just pull on whichever pant/shirt combination is handy in the closet, and go to work where no one ever talks trash about me having worn the same color for three days in a row, no one ever gets nervous around me for fear of saying some offensive remark about "my people", and no one ever is worried that I'm secretly stealing office supplies. I can walk around my neighborhood with minimal fear of personal violence, and if, God forbid, something did happen I can have complete confidence in rapid and reasonable response from our local police force. I never have to take a personal day for my religion's holidays; when my religion has a high feast or fast day, the markets close.
If my contribution is ever overlooked on something, I know it's because I didn't speak up loudly enough, or early enough. I know it's never my race. I can walk into any store I want to, look at items, handle those that are out, and security doesn't automatically start tailing me. When I walk into Philadelphia's diamond district, the assumption is that I'm looking for a anniversary present, not that I'm casing the joint.
When I look at the people in power - pretty much anywhere - I see, by and large, men who look like me, albeit usually older. When I pick up any high school or elementary school textbook, and look to see what historical figures they're studying, I see other white males. Sure, I may also see people who weren't white males, but let's face it - George Washington isn't getting written out of American history classrooms any time soon. I know that the child of Mung immigrants going to a public school half-way across the country is going to learn about a winter in 1777 in Valley Forge where some distant ancestor of mine died. My daughter, were she to attend a public school here, would be far from certain of learning of the great service that child's grandparents gave to this country.
White males have it good. Our position is not in any danger. We can stop shouting "help, help, I'm being oppressed" at every imagined slight. (remember when the standard joke was that radical feminists were thin-skinned?)
Political correctness is either dead or, as the trolls say, dying.
Okay, now my heresy for the evening:
I actually believe that African-Americans using "nigger" to refer to each other is a good thing. Why? By using this word themselves in a different context they are (intentionally or not) helping to neutralize an extremely emotionally charged word, slowly but surely. This is similar to the gay community's deliberately using the word "queer" to refer to themselves. I don't know about you, but the first time I heard a gay person refer to himself as "queer" I was put off, but that word has obviously been successfully neutralized, look at "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
Maybe not in our lifetime, but trust me, one day this word will have no evoke no stronger reaction than does the word "anglo" today.
sig != null
It is socially unacceptable to use that term when you are white because, let's face it, our European ancestors have committed one hell of a sin against African-Americans (not mention Native Americans).
What happened hundreds of years ago (whether or not my ancestors were involved) is absolutely irrelevant in this context. No one is enslaving anyone today - we are in fact all equal, as God made us, and no action of man can change that in any case.
If the historical fact of slavery is not irrelevant, then the damn Scandavians owe me some very serious reparations for repressing and enslaving my Celtic ancestors, and I suppose I'll have to get with others of my formerly oppressed kinsmen and make up a list of words and phrases that they may not use, because to do so would be "insensitive" or show "racial hatred".
I fail to see why blacks (oops, sorry, I'm not one, so I have to call them African-American, even though that phrase can refer to white South African immigrants) insist on claiming special staus and treatment. The fact is that pretty much all races and ethnic groups have both been enslaved and enslaved others at some point in their history. Mine, yours, black, white. It's over. Forget it.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
The only Flamebait comment in the whole story! Groovy!
Thousands of eligible voters purged, thousands of valid votes not counted, hundreds of invalid Bush votes counted, hundreds or thousands of invalid Republican absentee ballots.
None of it is a surprise when the Bush state campaign chair is, essentially, the election referee. The Florida election was stolen.
I think that's a bit of a cop out. I was playing "doctor" when I was 5 or 6 with quite a few different girls back in the day and I doubt I was the only one.
The above is normal and harmless because children are inquisitive. I would argue that it only becomes harmful when issues of control and power come into play, like with an adult to child relationship.
But still, I often wonder at today's recent frenzy on the subject matter. 25 years ago Brooke Shields at age 12 starred nude in a popular feature film called Pretty Baby. I doubt such a film could be made today. It's a taboo that's gotten worse, not better.
People always seem to say this but has any objective measurement done? I don't speak German and I haven't seen a good deal of his speeches but is this a case of fabulous oration or the response of German people to a facist dictatorship? Was it his delivery, speechwriters doing a good job, appealing ideas at the time, or what?
hmmmm Defined, eh ?
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascism
----
"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness."- Friedrich Nietzsche
(and I used the term ironically)
It's still pretty common for a woman to have to fend off sexual advances from coworkers and supervisors, and to deal with a hostile and sexualized atmosphere. When you see what happens to whistle-blowers for outright fraud, you can see what can happen to someone who makes waves for this kind of thing.
Plus, you still have right-wing nutbags like Phyllis Schlafely trying to encode second class status for women. And Walmart pulling a t-shirt from its inventory on the grounds that it was offensive for stating that, "Someday a woman is going to be President."
We aren't there yet. A lot of women's potential is still stiffled.
I will grant that there are a lot of nitwits sheltering under the banner of feminism. But mostly what people think of are straw-women like Rush the Druggie rails against.
Vague statements may indeed lead to `muddled thinking'. I would go further, and say that `muddled thinking' is a better term than sexist. Explaining why a statement is `muddled' or `vague' can lead to a more precise statement. Calling a statement sexist doesn't help generate a more accurate statement. As the article states, calling the statement sexist would simply cause the argument to degenerate further.
In this case, I think evil viper was actually quite clear that although women were currently not as good at maths, on average, this could be changed.
Perhaps, but we have not been alive for centuries. A women being called stupid 100 years ago does not directly cause psychological harm to women today. If all your life it has been encouraged to find and discuss the natural advantages of women, and forbidden to discuss the possibility of natural advantages of men, then an insult to women (but not men) would be a flippant comment.
No I wasn't saying that. But it sounds like you and your sig. other might need some counseling.
What a worthless, long-winded piece of fluff! There isn't a bit of real meat having to do with the purported subject category of "your rights online". I am amazed that such a cool and brilliant nerd wrote such puffery.
As the word continues to decline in usage, no matter what your color, you look stupid by using it.
Haven't kept abreast of the whole "hip-hop" scene, huh? It's definately not declining in usage.
In some contexts it's impossible, and sex still happens. But when it is possible, partners seek seclusion.
As a new Dad, I'm trying to adjust. It's a little like single life.
Other words you can't say,
Kn*ckers
B*m
Semprini.
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
I am sorry that the beautiful symmetry of the swastika, which I remember 'inventing' as a child, has been taken from us forever.
Andy Rabagliati
Reducing what one pays in royalties is something else.
>>>>truth; beauty; unix.<<<<
Graham writes about heresy - moral heresy. Saying the things that would be considered distasteful or would get you in to trouble. He brilliantly notes moralities similarity to fashion; "invisible to most people... Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good."
This is the test that I regularly apply to my own beliefs and which regularly causes my friends to sigh in frustration. There he goes... again. It's great having friends that still love you after you challenge every belief that you share with them. Sometimes I find out that our shared belief rested on a strong foundation of experience and/or tradition, but usually I find out that we've just been thinking what we've been told to think.
If you don't have friends like I do, Graham mentions other ways to seek out heresy besides "The Conformist Test":
Trouble: look for things people say and get in trouble for.
Heresy: look for the label 'heresy' in any one of it's forms ("indecent", "unamerican", "defeatist"). New ones are created to silence current heresy.
Time and Space: compare heresies between cultures separated by time or space. If one culture has a heresy another doesn't than it is likely the heresy is mistaken. For example, taboos against murder are nearly universal.
Prigs: find prigs, subtract lived experiences and examine their thoughts. Kids and teenagers are the best repositories for complete mint collections of taboos.
Mechanism: examine how taboos are created. "To launch a taboo, a group has to be poised halfway between weakness and power. A confident group doesn't need taboos to protect it... And yet a group has to be powerful enough to enforce a taboo" The taboo breakers on the otherhand "will be driven by ambition: self-consciously cool people who want to distinguish themselves from the common herd."
Another rather heretic point Graham makes is that, "Kids' heads are repositories of all our taboos. It seems fitting to us that kids' ideas should be bright and clean. The picture we give them of the world is not merely simplified, to suit their developing minds, but sanitized as well, to suit our ideas of what kids ought to think."
I would however questions Graham's belief that, "there seems a clear correlation between intelligence and willingness to consider shocking ideas. This isn't just because smart people actively work to find holes in conventional thinking. I think conventions also have less hold over them to start with. You can see that in the way they dress." This seems like an assumption that needs to be broken heretically. There are many smart people that use their intelligence to reinforce convention or shape convention to suit their needs. I do think that some people are more 'disruptively intelligent" than others. They have an easier time than others ignoring or challenging convention. For example, people that are classically 'mentally challenged' generally challenge convention more than average. I would argue that their intelligence is just different from the average - they are more intelligent in certain
Complexity Happens
Same reason your wife can say "I am so fat", but you get in trouble if you say "honey, you are fat".
So you're saying they're just insecure about it? That they secretly want to become white because swimsuit season is coming? I dunno about that...
But then what if you're both fat? Then could you say "honey, you are fat" without ending up sleeping on the couch? (or whatever you can find that supports your theoretically immense weight)
I remember this full well. In fact, it came back to me most strongly while reading the Graham article. This was 1989-1993 (undergrad) and the strongest campus movement was feminism, of that particular bent when taken up by the young without a sense of proportion and with what came to be considered "backlash" against male oppressive rule. Oh, I should mention that this was also in the honours psychology program, probably hit harder by this current than, say, electrical engineering.
The thing about stifling dissent is that when a critical mass is reached, it isn't that you have to be strong enough to dissent; you have to be foolish. I can remember a criminology class where the prof spent the same amount of time on feminist theory as all other theories put together, and since she encouraged outrageous emotional attacks on males in general, that became the tone the class as a whole (already 90% female, no doubt due to the prof's reputation which I unfortunately had not known). First I think there were five guys, then four, then three, two, and finally, just me, by which time the critical mass had obviously been reached and half the class would be spent in rants.
Finally the prof makes the observation that males receive heavier sentences than females for all types of crimes, regardless of circumstance and criminal record held constant. This she attributed to discrimination against women. That was it. I'd had it. I dissented. She said that female criminals were not being taken "as seriously" as male criminals and in that way, were not allowed to advance in their chosen career. Well, you can imagine how well the class took my dissent, and I was reviled for even questioning doctrine (ie: the prof's words). That was the last class I attended in that course, but if you blame me, then you have never withstood that measure of social abuse. Also, I was young.
Graham makes the important point: you should exercise the utmost mental freedom but be careful about what you express; the freedom to think what you will is more important than to say what you will, and you cannot join every battle unless you're to become Chomsky. Well, true enough. But every person has their limits.
- Windows actually works pretty well.
- Microsoft is not evil. No more than any other company out for profit.
- Recording artists & record companies are getting ripped off by file sharing.
Slashdot is is a pretty impressive groupthink machine.
Don't mind me, I'm just speaking for recorded history.
Well, you may be speaking for it, but little of what you say is true.
"Africa once enslaved their own people, but for far different terms...."
Africa had slavery before Europeans arrived, and slavery of Africans by Africans continues to this day.
"...far different...more of an indentured servitude, usually reserved for criminals."
Nonsense. Slavery was, and continues to be, something perpetrated for a wide variety of reasons: sex slavery, free labor, religious oppression, ethnic rivalry, etc.
"In American, conversely, only white slaves were ever granted such freedom."
More nonsense. There were a lot of blacks who were "freemen" under the law, having been granted their freedom legally for one reason or another. Such a legal category, and the law behind it, wouldn't make sense in a world such as you describe.
This isn't a defense of slavery, which was, and continues to be, an atrocity. It's just nonsense to label it as more of an atrocity if committed by whites than by blacks, or to try to whitewash the actions of the enslavers if they happen to be black.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
The cause of feminism is recent history is partly due to fact that contemporary advances in communication have allowed segments of the population to unite and seek privileges other groups receive. In this case the group was biologically maintained at nearly 50% of the population. It's impossible to contain that many people. Most modern men would agree that women should be treated the same as men. Yet the eraser of the lines between men and women displaces one of the most historically important qualities of manhood. Machismo. The pride associated with the fraternities of mankind. Men love to emulate and feed off each other and the bond of manhood is felt by most men. For thousands of years men have made clubs initiated by extreme rituals to include new men into the male group and to strengthen the role as a man. Men have historically had duties (such as providing for and protecting your family) that were strengthened by the mutual encouragement of other men. Yet the march of feminism went beyond creating equality in living conditions and freedom, and more into completely eradicated the lines between men and women. Women have gone past the office leaving only what they overall dislike about mankind. Contact Sports. Gadgets and Computers. Video Games(if they didn't count puzzle games, there would be few women gamers). Acting like idiots. Construction. Drinking competitive amounts of beer. Smelling bad. Loving boobs. Hating shopping (except in electronic stores). Stealing road signs. And a couple other so-so parts of life in comparison to lots of stuff (but wonderful to guys anyway). Just look at any recent commercial, sitcom, mathematics class, or college fraternity and you will see all of these things basically represent the last bastions of machioism. Any women cannot experience how powerful the feeling of being united with men (and only men). The classification of words into feminist and male categories in many old languages expresses how important this concept is to civilization. Yet as the "duties of a man" erode from providing for your family to doing what ever you want, watching TV and getting drunk, the quality of life in the United States will eventually decline. No real man hates feminism. But since it has been around(at least here in the U.S.), it has been harder to determine if you are a real man.
Open Source Sushi
I think your post is rather ironic in view of the content of the article.
Actually, I disagree with a lot of Bush policies, such as the Patriot Act and all the steel and lumber tariffs.
However, I agreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq, regardless of whether Saddam had WMD or not.
Here are the reasons I supported the war:
1) Saddam had a history of obtaining and using weapons of mass destruction.
2) He violated the terms of the April 6, 1991 cease-fire (terms were to abide by all the UN resolutions). Technically, this gives us the right to wage war under international law. (The Persian Gulf War was legal, and technically we didn't make peace, we arrived at a cease-fire. He broke terms, so we resumed the same war. I don't actually care whether people view the war as legal under international law or not; I just thought it an interesting sidenote.) Also, this sets a precedent of the US and UN tolerating gross violations of cease-fire terms. That's a precedent I don't want set.
3) He persistently thwarted attempts to determine presence/extent of WMD programs and capabilities. Given his track record, the burden of proof to show disarmament rightfully rested upon him.
4) Thwarting attempts to determine presence/extent of WMD despite sanctions is highly suspicious.
5) Given the extent of the atrocities under his regime, his removal will most likely end up in an overall good for Iraqis.
Of course, I can see why a reasonable person might have opposed the war:
1) Evidence pointing to WMD was vague, as intel reports tend to be.
2) Waiting was better. If the problem didn't progress far enough to force action, we avoided conflict. If the situation worsened significantly, we could probably have gotten more countries to share the burden of fixing the problem. (I don't like this approach, though. What could we do if he finally managed to get nukes? The problem becomes much more costly to fix. The US or international coalition could still invade, but the cost would be much higher. Most likely, it would include a large portion of Israel's population; if Saddam also got longer range missiles, he might also take out a European or American city.)
You make the following point: "Saddam had less terrorists in his country during his regime than bush does in the USA right now."
With regard to absolute numbers, I imagine you are right. However, per capita I would guess less. Neither statistic is available. However, it doesn't actually matter. In the US, the terrorists are not welcome. In Iraq, many were intentionally tolerated or supported. That is a very important distinction.
I didn't blink when I saw "saddam bin-laden," but that is just because I thought it was some rhetorical device I didn't quite catch. The people who didn't blink may have just decided to tune out, smile, nod, and back up slowly.
Or, they may read rant-formatted (loose comma and apostrophe usage, inconsistent use of capital letters, etc.) with sub-conscious error correction in the background. For instance, I only noticed on re-reading that you said "osama hussien." I just unconsciously dropped the incorrect surname, because in context you had to mean the one of the pair that had not yet been captured.
Reasonable people may disagree about most political issues. Holding opinions at odds with yours does not mean that person is "inept at paying attention", stupid, uninformed, war mongers, or worthy of hate.
Peace through strength is a strategy that has had some success in the past and is a reasonable strategy to discuss. Likewise, peace through diplomacy, likeability, and working through international organizations is worthy of debate.
The likely costs, benefits, and risks of each approach should be rationally discussed. Name-calling degrades the discussion. Also, it lessens the likelihood of your arguments influencing swing voters.
Well, that's my long post on my position on the Iraq war.
Hey, whoah, just thought of a doozie that may take your taboo even farther: incest.
My old anthropology prof made a few factually backed-up observations which are not part of popular culture:
1. most cases of incest are consensual brother-sister situations, worldwide
2. the "inbreeding is genetically bad" is actually quite false, and the pigheadedness of the argument probably stems from the taboo, not reasoned debate or observation. He noted that several isolated tribes that had been inbreeding for centuries had the purest genes because malformations did occur with multiplication of genetic flaws... and then those people died off, leaving very few carriers of genetic anomalies. Why do we never hear this argument and evidence?
Therefore 3. Since evolution is not necessarily 100% genetic (ideas can be passed on, too, especially if made rigid customs -- or taboos), the taboo may serve the purpose of idea movement as well as genetic. ie: the spread of new ideas promotes survival.
So, several science fiction authors have imagined futures where incest is not a taboo. Indeed, if not, then it would be some kind of insult to not have sex with family members. Of course, to even imagine it, you have to shed the taboo, and this is even harder than it sounds. You sleeping with your sister? (*thinks about it*) Well, maybe. Me sleep with my sister? No way!!
Ah, but calling it "reverse" discrimination does make it more acceptable, and this is why they use it.
Um, no. Asian culture, in some respects, is _heavily_ biased towards males (the mass murders in China of baby girls). In other respects, it is heavily biased towards females (family is dominant structure, and mom rules the household). I am referring specifically to those countries where China is the principle source for the culture. But the fact that Asian females do score well goes against the purposed biased of standardized tests against females and minorities. Whether Asian males score higher than females is moot, since both get into prestigious schools without any compensatory measures, and both do quite well (as you seem to have done as well). Speaking to voluntary vs. involuntary immigration, both aspects have presented themselves in Asian history at various times (and not specific to US immigration either), and those populations managed to be generally successful. Again, what is your point? Reading through your previous post, I am left with a certain amount of ambivalence with how you describe feminism. Women have the right to vote, but are somehow held to only voting white males into office? Considering most of the population in the US doesn't vote, it seems a good portion of the population beyond women are under-represented in the government. To structure the argument in strictly terms of gender is very self-serving and misleading. As to article you pointed out regarding pay differences, the makes mention the variances in pay approaches nil as other facets are taken into consideration. This begs the question as to why these facets weren't accounted for in the first place, nor does it address fields where women do particular better than men in terms of pay (realtor and nurses come to mind first. I'm sure there are others). You mention of possible reasons for inequality in pay, while completely ignoring the plight of males concerning child custody. And did your cousin receive any child support from the mother of his three kids? By the same criteria you use to measure political import (by the numbers), it would appear males are also unfit to raise children (well over 90% of custody cases side with the mothers) as the example with your cousin clearly shows. If you imagine being a single mom hurts your chances for gainful employment (and equal pay), imagine how it works for single fathers. It is even difficult to come up with viable statistics concerning the earnings of single fathers compared with their counterparts (nothing like being marginalized to the point of non-existence). In short, a difference of 12 cents an hour difference in pay vs. well over 90% difference in custody. Inequality indeed. As you point to compensatory measures women had, perhaps the 12 cents an hour could be viewed as a compensatory measure for child support and alimony. No? Would you be willing to cede all compensatory measures? And as you point to societal notions of what women can and can not do, do you think these same notions apply to men? Speaking as a man who works in nursing, I assure you discrimination works both ways, and I've endured the slings and arrows of being a man in a female dominated profession. Quiet honestly, this has no relevance either way. It is par for the course. You mentioning wanting to maintain "compensatory" measures as applied to women quite honestly makes me ill. Either you can stand on your own or you can't (and isn't that at the heart of feminism?). Will a bigger cage and a longer chain be a sufficient compensatory measure? Really, wanting to maintain compensation and equality are mutual exclusive. One would question if it is really equality that you are after. Men paying for meals and opening doors actually is hold back from the Troubadours, specifically the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine. More specifically, notions of chivalry. Even through the notion of chivalry is held in disdain by most feminists (which is odd considering Eleanor's stature and influence), the intention was pure: most notions of Western style love originate here. You would do well to consider her. AS most anthropologist point o
If someone replied to me, saying "You can't say that," I would respond with "Well, YOU can't say it. However, I CAN."
This is similar to: "Noone should be able to read my email. However, I should be able to read yours."
Score 5, funnnneeeee...
*drool*
sweet georgia brown! what a terrible article!
not only is it dumb, but it really is quite illogical and make all sorts of false (at least questionable) assumptions.
"I know that blacks enslaved blacks. Africans enslaved other Africans, but not nearly in the same way Americans enslaved Africans"
The African slaves brought to America were originally enslaved by other Africans, so I'd have say they were enslaved in pretty much exactly the same way.
"I wouldn't put much stock in those moral beliefs."
You'd rather put stock in the moral beleifs of those who also practiced slavery, but never changed their minds? Nice plan.
Section 1091 (a), sets up a two-part definition.
A necessary, but insufficient condition for an act to be genocide is the "specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group."
In addition, the act must be one (or more) of those specified in the 6 subsections of 1091 (a).
Is the war on drugs waged "with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group"?
There is at least a prima facie case to the contrary. Most importantly, intent to harm is not the same thing as intent to destroy. Second, it is not even clear that there was an attempt to harm. A reasonable person could believe that harsher sentences were an overall good to the group because they would serve as a more effective deterent and would reduce the pernicious effects of drugs. Political cowardice is a potential (and I think credible) explanation for why drugs of choice for the white majority are not sentenced as harshly.
"The propensity to use drugs can therefore be described as being related to culture and genetics, two of the components which make up ethnicity, and the targeting of an ethnic group is the definition of genocide." First, the targeting of an ethnic group (for purposes other than destruction) is not the definition given in the site you cited. Also, claiming that the group of drug-use-susceptible people is an ethnic or racial group is way too much of a stretch. "Being related to" and being are two very different things.
My second major point: The war on drugs does not fit any of the six subsections of 1091 (a).
(1) It does not kill members of that group. (No death penalty for pure drug crimes, except maybe for Texas.
(2) Causes serious bodily injury to members of that group. Incidents of police brutality are not part of the war on drugs.
(3) Extensive jail time might qualify as "caus[ing] the permanent impairment of the mental faculties", but it is not through "drugs, torture, or similar techniques." Therefore, (3) doesn't apply.
(4) The war on drugs does not submit the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part.
(5) The war on drugs does not impose measures intended to prevent births within the group. I suppose someone might argue jail time might have had this intent, but I don't see this as likely.
(6) I don't know of any cases of (6) related to the war on drugs.
I assert that neither condition of "USC Section 1091 - Genocide" is met by the war on drugs.
P.S. I disagree with you about the relative safety of alcohol and Ecstasy. Many studies have shown moderate consumption of alcohol to have either no effect or a mild positive effect on health. The studies are not conclusive on the human effects of Ecstasy, but there are tentative links to long-term brain damage.
"look at what the English did to Native Americans and later Africans, look at what the Spanish did to the Aztecs"
Look at what various Native Americans did to each other and what various Africans did (and are still doing) to each other. And when it comes to having commited atrocities, the Aztecs are hard to beat!
You say my ancestors did terrible things? I say yup, almost certainly; pretty much everyones did.
But let's assume for a moment that my great-great-grandfathers (all of them) spent their lives oppressing/torturing/enslaving your great-great-grandfathers who (along with every other ancestor of yours going back forever) were the sweetest most innocent people you could imagine. So what? How is that at all relevant to you and me? I am not my great-great-grandfather; I am not responsible for his actions, nor for those of any group he was part of. If I did something to you, you have cause for complaint. If some group you assign me membership in did something to some group you assign yourself membersip in, that's not my problem.
From footnote 10 of Graham's article:
"Like other scholars, many scientists have never directly earned a living-- never, that is, been paid in return for services rendered. Most scholars live in an anomalous microworld in which money is something doled out by committees instead of a representation for work, and it seems natural to them that national economies should be run along the same lines. As a result, many otherwise intelligent people were socialists in the middle of the twentieth century."
I wrote the following on my journal (above) concerning this very topic. The quote that I'm referecing in the first paragraph actually was a quote from slashdot's quote of the day:
One of my favorite quites (currently non-attributed) is "there are four sides to every situation" what he said, what she said, the truth, and what really happened." My personal take on this epistemology follows.
The difference between the "truth" and "what really happened" is this: "what really happened" is a reference to actual facts. This is however not always the truth, in that personal connotation., perspectives, experience, et cetera, often take actual facts (often regarded as "truth") and corrupt them internally and form bad or incorrect impressions. It is therefore necessary, at times, to tell "the truth" which is designed to lead the person to the correct interpretation of events, even though the actual facts of those events would be misleading. (I admit to a certain amount of disingenuousness here.)
People are not binary machines, yet information from humans, about humans, is handled as if it were either true or not true; information is not taken by all people the same way. Retelling of situations or characteristics involving people may involve readjustment so that people simply don't take things the wrong way. Had they been in the same situation, they may be able to take the actual facts of the situation and reason with it; but as long as they are unable to do so, bad conclusions may be reached. (This is not lying: lying is knowingly deceiving a person so that the person may be defrauded with a version of truth that could never have been explained, under any perspective, by the actual facts.)
Therefore, it can be said that the "truth" as we know it is simply misleading.
It may also be said that you can't handle the truth.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
"For the reasons above, the racial 'minorites' of the US (such a stupid term that is, it does much to perpetuate racial tension all by its little lonesome - minorities, that is, not US =P)"
"Minority" is a stupid term?!?! WTF, it's an accurate term. It's so far from being predjudicial that it's mathematical! You're talking about certain racial groups in the US. You quote the word "minorities", which ought to mean you're calling attention to the fact that while this is what these groups are called, but not what they really are. But they really are in the minority. As in, the majority of people are in one racial group, and you're talking about the other ones.
two male friends confess to me that they like thin girls. They find it attractive. They felt the need to confess it, in whispers.
You bastard! There I was reading /. late at night with the wife sleeping soundly in bed and you make me go spray coffee out my nose!
You insensitive clod!
I do not believe in the tenants of NAMBLA, but sadly its existence squashes any discussion of what the real age of consent should be. Fear of PC backlash requires that I say I don't know what the age of consent should be, that I am not for lower it, just that it should be possible to discuss the issue. Ideally it would be based on some testable mental maturity of a minor wishing to enter adulthood.
Interestingly, many cultures seem to set adulthood at 13 (like when youre bar/bat mitzvah happens.) There are countries with an age of consent this low, but not in North America.
Having said that, age of consent is there for parents, not for anyone else. It simply makes them feel better much like anti-tattoing laws (for minors.) Therefore drives to raise it seem to come from parents.
Hawaii recently raised their age of consent from 14 to 16, entirely because of conservative/religious pressure on the state legislature.
Interestingly, they did it as a trial for a few years, made a report, and then made it permanent. The report makes for a very interesting read...as far as I can tell, the task force came to the conclusion that there wasn't any particularly good reason to raise the age of consent to 16, but it didn't seem to harm anything either.
But another reader may examine the report and disagree.
Election fraud is a war crime? Well bucko then I guess disenfranchising the military vote in Florida was just Democratic business as normal. Vote Early, vote often.... 4 recounts and Gore still lost. FOUR TOTAL recounts, not selective recounts, but counts of every stinking ballot. No Kreskin devining what the voter thought, or would have voted if they were not so old and febile, but counts of what was punched. I use butterfly ballots in my county, and I get it right, so does my 76 year old grandparents, they have no problems with hanging chad.
How about editing absentee ballots to make sure that they were correctly filled out after they were sent in? Not only was that illegal, but the republican shithead who did it confessed and was convicted. They Judge should have thrown out ALL the absentee ballots in the district. But didn't. Incidentally these mis-filled out ballots were mostly from US soldiers. Gramdma and Grampa, who vote Democrat, didn't have that kind of help. But our highly competant servicemen did.
> Do you have any opinions that you would be
> reluctant to express in front of a group of your
> peers?
No, because I do like to raise and discuss controversial and thought provoking issues, and those I consider my peers love to hear and participate in them too.
This is not quite the same as being a troll (it is the resulting thoughts and insights I like, not the controverse or provokation by itself), nor quite the same as being a kook (since I don't repeat the issues ad nauserum and actually step back or change side).
Maybe if you didn't hold beliefs that are amongst the most hateful and repugnant in the world, you'd have friends who didn't think you're an asshole.
What did you expect?
Our warplanes these days fly at Mach2+ in "supercruise" mode (i.e., do not need afterburners to do it), and have misiles that can kill 'over the horizon'. I.e., the enemy plane is often destroyed before they even know ours are in the area.
I'd love to have the kind of eyesight that could see and be distracted by the 'hustler scene' painted on the target aircraft under those conditions (tho our telemetry does operate at that level, just not in the visual band).
I appreciate your effort at a point, but it would be nice if it has a shread of realism to it.
But if you're wife/girlfriend constantly needs to be asking you for reassurance, that can become seriously annoying.
You could try answering something outrageously truthful for a change (to keep in line with the theme of the article). Or at least fantasize about being that honest.
Her: I'm afraid that the only reason you're interested in me is for the sex!
You: That's absolutely not true, honey, you are so bad in bed that if sex were that important to me, there's no way I'd be with you!
Information about ways to find child porn on the Internet is apparently among one of the heresies of our time, even though it is legal and true. Just like the article describes, people become upset when they see it and try to censor it, while labeling it with some really dirty words I don't want to utter here.
See this Slashdot post for an example of a text which was banned outright from Everything2 (even though one of the gods, a laywer himself, was against the ban and argued it is entirely legal), then it was deleted from Wikipedia in violation of Wikipedia internal content deletion rules (no warning, no waiting period). It was later restored on Wikipedia, only to be bastardised by a joint committee of prudes. It was also rejected by a site selling "Banned CDs" with information about making explosives, drugs, detecting federal agents, etc., etc.
P.S. I fully understand that I go against the recommendations in the article to keep silence. But just like Winston Smith, I believe you are not really free, unless you can say that "2+2=5" and then act on this.
P.P.S. Feel free to downmod and thus prove my point.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Going by what Paul Graham says, association your political opponents with a criticism that does mean "wrong" is an indicator there's a contraversial taboo being used!
Snotty Boldra
I've been posting on the net since 1994 and I still haven't come up with a good sig!
I have some Asian friends and it doesn't matter if they are male or female. They are almost all pushed to work hard and their parents lead by example.
My room mate's mother and father came over from Korea poor as shit.
They live in a 1.5 million dollar house now.
How did they do it? They fucking worked their asses off like no tomorrow.
His mom owns a store and cash checking business. She works a 12 hour shift and his dad works the other 12 hours. They are RICH but they still run the story, even though they could easily toss all their money into stocks and be set for life.
Asians work harder because their culture encourages it, where as American culture encourages people to be lazy as fuck.
Some times I think that Asian parent are too hard on their kids and they should sacrifice some test scores for some stress relief for their kids.
BUT you can't argue with the results.
I am a very NON PC (not talking about computers) person. I make racial jokes all the time and if some one gets offended they a go fuck themselves. People who get offended are weak; they have been taught that certain things are offensive so they go with the flow.
And on the issue of Asians being less sexist, you are WAY wrong.
The grand parents on the father's side of the above family came to visit form Korea, my room mates had to act like their dad was big and macho and wore the pant in the family for 2 weeks.
But in reality his mother makes all the decisions. And as a result I've noticed that it has hurt my room mate in many ways that are just now becoming apparent. He is extremely passive in relationships. And I'm not talking about just being too nice, a girl could ask him to fuck him and he would say "uh, what are you trying to say? I think you want to have sex with me but I'm not sure"
He over analyzes everything he says and thinks there is connotation to everything (like most women) to the point where he wont speak his mind at all. Unless he gets mad then everything comes out, it's really unhealthy, and it's because he had no true father figure in the household growing up.
Now physically he is pretty manly, he isn't ripped but he's pretty strong and he doesn't even really work out.
But mentally he is way too feminine.
He made Eagle Scout, and his dad didn't even fucking go to the ceremony because he was working the store.
Stereo types are just that, stereo types but they get there for a reason. They aren't invented (for the most part though). The Asian stereotype is that your family is rich your parents work their kids asses off and they work their asses off. Also strict discipline, and because of these they are "smart" really just more educated...through hard work in school.
Of course there are exceptions, I know a couple lazy fat Asians that are dumb as fuck, but they were still in the AP classes in HS, they could make C's with out trying so they just didn't try. If they worked hard they would have made A's.
I was a grade Nazi in HS I was always "smart" so I didn't study much. And my parents expect nothing better than a C, though I would get scolded for sure, I still made sure I made A's in almost all my classes, the only class I ever had trouble with was English, I would always make Low B's in English. As such, please don't kill me for bad writing, though I did grammar and spell check it.
Now in college I am not a grade Nazi, I don't see the point in pushing myself so hard so I am fine with making B's of course I still try to do my best and get A's cus I know I can, but the difficulty of college classes can require much more study time than I am used to and therefore one of my grades was a B this semester but I'm not sweating it. I don't plan to go to graduate school so I don't need a perfect 4.0.
I don't know what my point was or if there even was one, I am just telling some anecdotal stories that I have experienced.
Some main points:
Asians work hard
Asians are just as
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all...
And a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2004, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "America" in the Western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual orientation of the wishee.
This wish is limited to the customary and usual good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first. "Holiday" is not intended to, nor shall it be considered, limited to the usual Judeo-Christian celebrations or observances, or to such activities of any organized or ad hoc religious community, group, individual, or belief (or lack thereof).
Note: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. This greeting is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. This greeting implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for the wishee her/himself or others, or responsibility for the consequences which may arise from the implementation or non-implementation of same. This greeting is void where prohibited by law.
Hmph. I voted Libertarian, but had someone put a gun to my head and forced me to pick one of the majors I would have voted for Bush in that election. Why? (1) Reading _Earth In The Balance_ had long ago convinced me Al Gore was a pompous nitwit. (2) Bush claimed to be a fiscal conservative, (3) Bush claimed to be noninterventionist, whereas Gore was big on "nation-building". Subsequent events have pretty much demolished points (2) and (3), but that's only obvious in hindsight.
But getting back to the main topic under discussion, here's something you can't say in America:
It doesn't really matter who wins the presidential election.
Seriously. There's no way to know in advance which candidate will make a good president. They both lie about who they are and what they believe and what they intend to do, and they both will get diverted and distracted by the bureaucracy and the opposing party and world events to such a degree that basically all bets are off. (The weirdest thing about the last election was that Bush pretended to be strongly pro-life and Gore pretended to be strongly pro-choice to fit the expectations of their respective parties, and voters bought it and thought that it mattered.)
Even if you could know what the presidential candidate intends to do, the chances are pretty large that he won't be able to do it, and the chances are even larger that nothing the president does will directly affect your life or that of anybody you know.
National politics is basically an expensive form of entertainment, not a way of getting much useful done in the world. And your vote doesn't matter. Even if it mattered statistically - which it doesn't - even it determined the outcome between the top two candidates - which it doesn't - it still wouldn't make much difference, because those two candidates have been chosen to look and sound pretty much the same and have no preformed opinions of their own that they wouldn't sell in a heartbeat.
Incidentally, that's why the last election was so close. Because there was really nothing to recommend either candidate over the other, it was basically a coin flip. It's silly to call the people whose flips came up Heads "flaming idiots" just because yours came up Tails.
I play Nerd-Folk!
This statement is dependent entirely upon the context in which you put it. (Of course this is ignoring that this is just trying to get us to proove a negative.) You are heading in the direction of saying that our entire universe from Big Bang to now is just one of zillions of universe-bubbles that randomly pop into and out of existence in a frothing sea of quantum foam, and that the existence of one never matters. (Or some other such world-view)
The problem is, if nothing matters, why do you do ANYTHING? Why did you write that post? Why did you eat food recently? Why have you not starved from not bothering to eat, or why have you not already killed yourself, or someone else for a trivial reason (since it really doesn't matter)?
The evidence is that it does actually matter, although we might not know exactly how.
The evidence also indicates that the things we do matter more when we think about them first, instead of just (re-)acting based on habit, instinct, emotion or whatever. When we think first, our actions tend to cause more change.
To take this to its logical conclusion, if you truly and fully believe what you say, the only ethical thing to do is to kill yourself immediately, so you do no harm to others who do think that things do matter. Short of that, move very far away from anyone.
More realistically, you will likely find thinking to be more productive and happy if you bring it closer in line with the reality that something does matter (to you), you just need to figure out what.
A friend once told me: "Never say 'never see Never Say Never Again' again."
Seuss - I'm telling you this 'cause you're one of my friends. My alphabet starts where your alphabet ends
" it tends to open my mind to options and ideas "
/. are good (and popular) because you generally expect to find like minded freethinkers with whom you can have a good argument about your differing opinions.
Yes! The very same reason I seek out intelligent company here and elsewhere. As a basic principle of freethinking its important not to hang out with people that only reinforce your own ideas.
In real life life you have to be far more cautious. Mixing 'with the enemy' is fine to expose yourself to new alien ideas and opinions but never assume that others are as open or inquisitive as yourself, most people are not.
Places are like
The main point of the article was that in the real world you still have to watch what you say because stupid people will still _kill_ you for your ideas. You need to pick the right crowd to rap with.
I had a freethinking attitude thrust upon me in life by virtue of being partly Jewish and partly Arabic. Yes it's cery empowering in life to able to ride both sides of an extremist debate but I've also learned to never assume that others have the same capacity. Most people are fragile and turn quite nasty when deeply held beleifs are challenged.
He's been reading slashdot!
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
Malaysian PM Malathir said it, and everyone flipped
95% of your physical problems are psychosomatic.
It's the truth.
I have lived in both, North America and Europe. I can see where most of you are getting precisely into a taboo-led discussion over the split between America and (part of) EU on Bush's policies.
Let me apply the suggestion in the article and stipulate that what the Americans regard as ridiculous and heretical of the Europeans may in fact be the truth. And what the Europeans deem as heretical of the US may also be true.
Most of you will ask now: It's the same thing! That's why we're arguing. But I say that it probably isn't the same thing, because both sides are just as stubborn. I think each argues a different point.
The Europeans think that, in general, the US is the world's bully. Bush's strategy is just the latest volley. And the EUs use this as a starting point to argue that the US shouldn't be in Iraq.
Notice that America does not think it's the world's policeman as a starting point on why it should be in Iraq in the first place. America is acting *in self defense*. Europeans scoff at this justification.... but this really is the justification; it's no veil for another "fascist" agenda.
On the other hand, Americans think Europeans are chicken and undecided on what they should do, and that the EU politicians are trying to put the best face on letting the opportunity to do the right thing and lead the fight for good pass them by. This, of course, is not why the EU was reluctant to act in Iraq. I'm sure Europe would support an agressive plan that dealt with Israel and Palestine.
Really, I could write an essay here, but I assume that most of you are open minded and inquisitive enough to think about this on your own.
Here I used my own life rule, which I would like to add to the article:
When there is a viscious fight about an issue, and both sides are standing strong and unyielding this is a sure sign that they're fighting for different issues.
I find this out every time I get into an argument with my wife.
-Statistics are very useful: your experience is a fscking statistic anomally.
-You could have complained to the police all the same, I can't believe you would have not been taken seriously.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What is so threatening about putting one's feet up?
I, for one, find it very relaxing.
Just quickly because I don't want to waste much time:
-Men and women should be equal under the law. Nobody pretends that women have male organs or that men can give birth. Don't be dense.
-Define race.
-Refer to both above. If your method to generalize is louse you should be rightly ridiculed (and in extreme cases banned) to sprouting nonsense.
Quickies:
-You don't know enough black people, I know many and most of them are crap when it comes to dancing.
-Sports: could it be that the facilities required for athletics are less expensive than for swimming? (thus allowing more black people to participate) And why many countries from Africa never had a sprinter of any relevance?
-It is valid to segregate male and female because the evident physical differences in muscular mass would make it unfair for females to compete against males. This is not a tendency, this is a bloddy fact. Now, based on what would you choose to segragate based on so called "race". Again, give me your definition for such and you may have a point.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well, as a transhumanist I can tell about this one. Telling ordniary people that it will be soon possible to live forever through technological means, telling about mind uploading or nanotechnologies, all that is heresy in a modern society. The immortality is a particularly big one.
Most people immediately start giving extremely lame and fake reasons why nobody should/wants to live forever (it will be boring, society will stagnate, I don't want to live if my friends die, it's against the nature, etc.).
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
that spiderman sucked, there is immediately some twit who will moderate you as troll - tsk tsk.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
it's called reverse discrimination
As long as we have a topic dedicated to ranting, I'd like to say that if I could remove one phrase from the English language, it would be "reverse discrimination." Descrimination is discrimination. If you are a Japanese store owner who charges me more because I'm Korean, that's discrimination. If I am an African-American employer who won't hire you because you are white, that's discrimination.
"Reverse" discrimination would be not discriminating against someone.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
Thats pretty much a heresy whether you live in the US or in one of the former communist countries. Its rare that someone will get into power lying 100% of the time. More likely their philosophies will be a mixture of truths, half-truths, naive ideas, and deceptions.
A couple of interesting ideas include:
That the economy, history, and society can be scientifically analysed and scientifically improved. This was a heresy in the 19th century when these things were either considered an act of God, random, or too complicated for science.
That societal conflicts drive society. There always seem to be major divisions, whether between people of means, ethnics groups etc. These constantly arise, develop, and sometimes resolve violently or non-violently.
There is a superiorly educated group that can guide society. M-L-M supported violent actions by this group, if necessary. Are fundamentalist Christians of Muslims any better than atheistic Commmunists in this regard?
Once you reach the logical conclussion you'll see why it is nonsense and a waste of time to talk about Evolution constrained to the artificial construct of human "races".
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's a double standard and it's called reverse discrimination.
I've yet to understand why some people insist on using the term "reverse discrimination." From what I understand, many people use this term when a member of the minority discriminates against a member of the majority. But is that such a useful distinction?
It seems to me that the term "discrimination" should suffice to describe the exclusion of someone based on irrelevant criteria (such as race, sex, religion, etc.). Using the qualifier "reverse" adds no value, but turns an apt description into political rhetoric.
The truth is, of course, much more complicated, but I think it must fit nicely with their opinion of Americans in general.
I have a friend traveling in Indonesia right now. When she got off the plane with her husband and child, a neighbor of her relations there was nice enough to give them a ride to the home they're staying in. Guy had an Osama Bin Laden sticker in the window of his car.
My point being: things are a lot more complicated, you bet. For example, a quite moderate, friendly, helpful Muslim from a pretty typical rural area has this sticker in his car. He told her he put it up there after Bush's "Crusade" comment early on after 9/11, speaking of W.'s gift for finessing international relations. Her impression was that he regarded it about on the level of the "Support OUR Troops" stickers you see in the US. And this person is quite capable of seeing the difference between "Americans in general" and the policies of a particular administration, and remembers, in excruiciating detail, the claims made about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. More than I can say for my Southern Baptist relations, who've sort of let those details slip if they ever followed them at all.
It ain't just a stereotype on that end. Nor is it in Europe. Like you say: more complicated. If anything Americans have much more stereotypical ideas about French people 'in general' than the other way around, from my experience.
This sort of falls into the same category as effete upper-middle-class liberals sneering at NASCAR fans and Wal-Mart shoppers; apparently arrogant elitism is no longer considered rude.
You maybe haven't yet learned that that entire chapter of Ann Coulter's book was based on a lie? The New York times did run a story the day after Earnhardt's death, you can look. The Walmart reference came from another story a few days later, written by an "effete," Southern, Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist. (Is it rude, or just unscrupulous, to make stuff up like that? You'd have to ask Ann.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I agree that in some cases, ending lives is socially and morally acceptable, but I take exception to a couple of your examples:
Euthanasia - I believe that Dr. Kevorkian is doing some jail time because this is *not* legal where he gave it a shot.
Abortion - is not recognized as murder, or even death of an individual. It is protected under the constitution under a perceived "right to privacy" for the mother. At the time of that Supreme Court ruling, it was not scientifically clear that a fetus was human life from conception. Now we know differently, and should behave differently than we did then.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
It's an issue because he was trying to get sanctions against people who used the term "black" instead of "African-American". He may not have been the one he originated it. He was the one pushing it.
At the same time he had no trouble referring to white people as "WHITE". If he truly fealt that it's insulting to refer to someone by their skin color, he would have used the term "Euro-American". It was Jesse hypocrisy at it's highest.
That's the kind of shit that makes the black activists look like a bunch of whining, lazy hypocrites. Personally, I know this isn't true. But you have to remember that you're putting up a poor front and really pissing of southern voters and otherwise alientating people who would be sympathetic.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
If you look at the moderations, the extremist spam apologist comments about how spam is protected speach, not really a problem, or at most a minor crime which should be proscuted with a small fine, and in particular, comments flamming people with a more sensible attitude to spam are almost always moderated up.
While articles stating a more moderate and sensible opinion, namely that spam destroys communities and should be prosecuted with death, preferable painful and including the spammers family, are consistently moderated down as flamebait.
You own comment is a perfect example, moderated up like other spam apologisk articles. While this comment will almost certainly be moderated down, if the moderators even sees it.
There's one thing that you can say in any time period and ruffle some feathers, get fired, beaten, or killed:
"You're wrong."
~To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation. -Yann Martel
This particular debate seems to crop up every time censorship hits center stage on slashdot.
The problem with sexuality and children is that sexuality today is mostly portrayed badly. I could talk my head off trying to get my daughter to understand the ins and outs of sexuality and intimacy and love, etc.; but the fact is that the rest of society (media, etc.) portray sex as simply a form of entertainment or diversion.
My beliefs don't see it that way. And again, I can talk my head off; but the visual images that bombard us tell a story that's much easier to grasp: that sex is harmless fun disconnected from any consequence, as long as you use a condom. How do I compete with that? I compete by upping my discussions with her (in other words, talking more) and lowering the amount of sexertainment so that I can at least attempt some parity.
I don't want my daughter to grow up afraid of sex. But I also don't want her to grow up thinking that it's an isolated physical issue.
I will totally agree with you that children from whom sexuality is hidden the longest seem to have the most trouble exercising it responsibly. But that doesn't mean that we go to the opposite extreme. Everything in moderation.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
You mean like the GNAA?
You mean like this?
WARNING: somewhat racist.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
It's popular here to whine about groupthink, but the fact is that these are the ones who can't stand to be disagreed with.
You're still able to participate in the discussion, hindered only by the fact that a lot of people disagree with you. How unjust! Your freedom of speech is being infringed. Whiner.
Sacred cows? Hello dumbass! People are lynched for killing a sacred cow. Maybe you regard disagreement or moderation as comparable with lynching, but that just demonstrates that you truly don't get what actual oppression is, nor value real freedom of speech properly.
People will hassle you if you speak out for what you believe. Deal with it, coward. There's a difference between argument and oppression.
You claim slashdot has sacred cows, but the fact is that you're the one that can't tolerate disagreement.
Yeah, I'll get modded into oblivion for this, but I believe it's worth saying so I'll burn some karma. BFD.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
I think it's like the word 'geek'
.. both of these have had very negative feelings associated with them ... if they didn't, the abuse in high school would have been much easier.
... I am a Geek, and I'm proud of it. Instead of slinking away and hiding from it, I wear my copyleft GEEK shirt whenever I can.
It used to have a very negative connotation (someone who bites the heads off chickens as a circus sideshow act - a freak by any other name).
We have adopted this word as our own. Same with Nerd
But now, we've taken those words from our tormentors and we use them
However, if someone I didn't know started calling me a geek (and I wasn't wearing my shirt) I'd probably get pissed, because they aren't using it in the good spirit - the spirit in which I use it.
It all comes down to context and the manner in which the word is used.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
At the same time, I hear people damning the "conservatives" who insist that a woman's place is in the home, taking care of the children.
To me, the most visible conflict between the sexes is whether or not women and men get paid equally for doing the same kind of work at the same level of skill. I don't think a person's sex should matter in determining his or her rate of pay (indeed, in the U.S., this type of discrimination was made illegal in 1975), but it still does matter, sometimes. I think most of us would agree with the idea of equal pay?
I think the idea that men should be paid more is valid for this reason: Men are more likely to be supporting a wife who is at home taking care of the children. A woman is unlikely to be supporting her spouse, and at worst, is supporting only children.
I know a lot of women who haven't gotten anywhere career-wise and are looking for a man to pay for everything so they can stay at home and not work.
#!/
I actually believe that African-Americans using "nigger" to refer to each other is a good thing. Why? By using this word themselves in a different context they are (intentionally or not) helping to neutralize an extremely emotionally charged word, slowly but surely. This is similar to the gay community's deliberately using the word "queer" to refer to themselves.
Actually, no. None of my gay friends mind me using the word "queer." "Nigger" is just as racially charged as ever. (Even, if you agree with the following distinction, among African-Americans.)
If one black guy calls another black guy "nigga" he's just being friendly. If he calls the other black guy "nigger" they're about to fight. Same if a white guy uses either variant.
> People always seem to say this but has any objective measurement done?
;-) Of course he made use of the special german situation. The people were rather willing to follow a leader who promised to restore their nations glory (that was in ruins after WW-I).
How do you measure that in any objective way?
Anyway, here my subjective opinions.
> I don't speak German
I'm german
> and I haven't seen a good deal of his speeches but is this a case of fabulous oration
Yes, it is. Of course, with our hindsight, you instantly recognize the complete lunatic that he was. But it is very emotional and hit the weak spots of the time. The one thing that make his speeches stand out IMHO is, that he is very believable. You just believe him, that he means what he says. Not like a lot of todays politicians (in any country, I believe) who craft their speeches to have the desired effect. Sure, Hitler did that too (or had it done by others, I don't know). But it's not that obvious. Sometimes he got so much carried away, that it looked completely natural, and not like the planned show it probably was and usualy is.
> or the response of German people to a facist dictatorship?
For obvious reasons I tend to hope that this was not a major reason. At least, that it was not somehow genetical
> Was it his delivery, speechwriters doing a good job, appealing ideas at the time, or what?
All of it.
All the best,
rob
The word you are looking for is not "race." It's "culture." The statement "black people are better dancers than white people" is flawed even as a generalization. Similarly, the idea that asian students are smarter than their white peers is also a dim characterization. Identifying the difference between two individuals is one thing. Identifying the difference between two groups is much more complicated. Properly attributing the difference requires a look at the respective cultures.
-Hope
I don't have to back it up factually: by your own argument, whether I do or not doesn't matter, and the truth or falsity of things mattering doesn't matter. So even thogh I know things don't matter, I will continue to pretend that they do, because it feels better than the alternative.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
> For the two things listed above, the parents must give consent
...but how the HELL does my having sex improve yours?
Yes, but the parents cannot legaly give consent for their kid to have sex.
>
It's not about the "greatrr good for mankind" any more than going to the dentist is. And anyway, it's the other way round. The supposed greater good he talks about is the kid not having sex, regardless of consent. The short-term benefit, that is denied, would be the kid enjoying sex.
> but the definition of "children" extends down to, and includes, infancy.
True. But children of _any_ age can and do "say" what they like and what they dislike.
His point still stands: kiddy-sex is a taboo, and you cannot question it without getting yourself in deep shit. And rational arguments against it are usualy not the reason for the troubles.
PS: I'm against sex with children to, but I realize that I cannot make a good rational argument against it much less prove that it's bad. It's just a feeling, a tradition, whatever, that it surely must be bad.
The only reason they can't do things is because of the government. In fact, corporations DO do those things in some countries (like many parts of Africa, where government is non-existent). They even did some of those things in America, back before the US government exerted real control over America.
Remember slavery? The US government was the one that banned it, while it was business interests who decided that slavery was so great that it was worth a civil war.
And she said Hitler was the most incredible speaker she had ever heard.
Well, that would make for a good flame/troll then, as I might have gotten two indignant responses for the price of one.
And no fair using humour, you bastard!
We are ALL ACs.
Genetically, there is as much difference within a given race as there is between races. In fact, looked at genetically, we are virtual clones. What genetic markers do you use to determine race? Skin color? Why not lactose tolerance, or resistance to malaria? Besides, nowadays, there are almost no pure blooded humans of any race. Most everyone who identifies as white, black, or anything else has a significant bit of other races mixed in. The whole racial issue is a red herring that makes us forget that it is always the elite of our own race that oppress us the most.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Aslam Alaikam Mulla Paul Graham!! Guess you are born in the wrong country ( from your name ) ;)
Hey, we're all humans, right? If we stop thinking in the box, "like me vs. not like me" maybe we can start to see the truths underneath other people's 'lies.' Listen, use the other person's symbol set and beliefs, in a loving and accepting way, to move them a little closer to what you feel to be the truth. It isn't "The Right Thing To Do" but it's not wrong, either. And it is fun. I have enough faith in humanity to believe that if we all started preaching our own individual truths to the rest of humanity, that the most resonant and useful truths would rise to the top.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Is it wrong to believe both sides?
Our consciousness, etc. are manifestations of genetics, as those genetics play out in present environmental conditions, which includes the existence of our genetics. Claiming that genetics and evolution are the reasons for our existence, or saying that the search for The Reason is the reason: both miss the point. Reasons exist in human minds. Your reason for existing is what you make it, and no more or less valid than anyone elses. If we were to discover that the 'real reason' our whole universe exists is that some euper advanced beings were bored and wanted a 'reality show,' would that make our personal reasons invalid? No, no more than relativity makes Newtonian gravitation invalid. It's still valid in a particular scope.
As for the genetic tendencies of men and women: most men are stronger than most women. Is every man stronger than every woman? No. There are natural tendencies: ignoring them will get us in trouble. We have the ability to adjust and redirect those tendancies, and ignoring that will get us in trouble, too. In fact, it appears that most men have a left brain that is more specialized for mathmatics (i.e. computing the trajectory of that rock so it hits that moose) and most women have one specialized for communication. Is every man better at math, and every woman better at communicating? Again, no. Thus, forcing men to do one thing and women another without regard to the individual is counter-productive.
Lastly, understanding 'fluid mechanics' helps us be better surfers, and to take a greater pleasure in what we do. And that is a cool thing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The article was about suppression of statements, not suppression of names. But since you bring it up - a label such as "nigger" (or "geek") is exclusive (and so offensive) if used by someone who doesn't identify with the label but inclusive (and OK) if used by someone who does.
I really have to disagree with this terminology. It's not used, for the most part, the way other hyphenations are used: to indicate dual citizenship or recent immigration. Many people who call themselves "African-Americans" haven't even traced their ancestry back to Africa. Of course, some of them can't because of slavery, and that's a terrible thing, but that almost strengthens my point. Exactly how are you associated with Africa?
Checking out the culture, music, and foods of Africa is a wonderful thing to do. I do this too, but it does not make me "African-American". I can trace my family tree back to Germany, I've studied the German language, and I enjoy many German foods, goods, and musical groups, but I don't consider myself a "German-American". People would think I were weird if I did. Why can't we just come up with another generic term like "Caucasian"?
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Check out John 7:17. Seems to me to be suggesting that you do an experiment. YMMV.
Lasers Controlled Games!
He isn't left of center; he is merely claiming to be less conservative than he really is. And that is why you can respect his viewpoints.
Now this may simply be a matter of circumstance (black defendants had multiple charges, prior convictions, etc.), but to see it turn out similiarly on two separate occasions really made me realize how our racist and classist justice system operates. The black defedants cannot make bail, get worthless public defenders to represent them, and stand before a judge who would prefer it if they did not exist. Isn't justice supposed to at least pretend to be fair?
===========
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
While I agree with you that fear was used in part to pass legislation (e.g. the Patriot Act, which itself has both valid and harmful aspects) and I am concerned about and wish to fix its harmful aspects, the legislators did not cause the terror, which is fundamental to the common notion of "terrorism".
At first glance, your definition of terrorism seems reasonable, when in fact it is ridiculously mild compared to the commonly accepted usage of the word. In common usage, terrorists cause terror through their heinous actions, not merely "use terror". i.e. merely taking advantage of people's fear is not commonly considered "terrorism"... at the very worst it is fraud, which, I hope you'll agree, is significantly different from mass murder.
e.g. In 1999, money was made by taking advantage of people's nebulous fear of what may happen in the year 2000. People bought generators and supplies. Was that fraud? Was that terrorism? Insurance companies make much of their money off of fear that something bad will happen, are they terrorists? There can be a fine line between substantiated risk assessment and unsubstantiated fear used to make a decision.
To reduce the meaning of an emotionally charged word such as "terrorist" and then apply it to a very select group is terribly misleading, since at first glance you are equating the US legislature (and Bush) to Bin Laden, when in actuality, your definition is probably applicable to most of the world.
I just had an intellectual orgasm when you said those things. Would that be an intelligasm? Anyway, I totally missed out on the evidence that implicated Israel in 9/11. As a non-fan of Israel in general, I'm surprised that I missed it. Can you give me some links?
Oh, also about how feminism ruined America... are there books or pages I can read?
Thanks!
--- 11 meters/second, or 24 miles per hour - the airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow. Really.
-that meaning and purpose is somehow built into the nature of the universe, as it was/is for the religious point of view. Even among most atheists and existentialists we've carried this over without realizing it. It forces you down some rationally untenable paths..
I suspect that we can construct rationally very stong points of view about what is 'right and wrong', 'good and bad' without abandoning a sense of reason and the righteousness to compare competing views for their strength. On the other end of things, I also think that we overestimate the infallibility we place on the so called hard sciences.
Here's a heresy for you- the victorians were in some ways heroic for reaching for a better, more moral, more intellectual world than their grandparents had created. 20th century thought was largely a masturbatory wrong turn.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while. eh?
Unless your acts echo down the chain of cause and effect.. the cyberpunk view.. Jesus encoding himself into the form of his religion and church.. an aspect of him living on..
General interest stories elicit more responses than new KDE version 1.2.3.4.5. Write a story asking "What do you think about religion and politics?" and see the flood.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Two web sites:
http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/index.asp
http://www.mises.org/
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
And just when, in the last 2 millenia or so, has it ever been "acceptable" to be, say, a Christian?
One of the main reasons why people left Europe to travel to the New World was to escape religious persecution: if you weren't a Christian, or if you were the wrong type of Christian, then you were a social pariah in most of Europe from the medieval period until today.
Indeed, Christianity was such a dominant force in Europe that exporting it to other lands by force was seen as good and righteous. Or haven't you heard of the Crusades?
Furthermore, until recently, being a non-Christian was the biggest social stigma possible in most of the western world. Getting an education was impossible to non-Christians as universities only practiced religious persecution.
Virtually any educational institute that you care to name that's over a hundred years old will have been founded by one religious order or another, and the names of many universities and colleges gives this away (eg, Notre Dame, Brigham Young University et al in the US; various Oxford and Cambridge colleges called Jesus or Christ, Magdalen, St Andrews University, et al in the UK). In fact, when University College London was established in 1826, it became the first university to accept people regardless of their class, race, religion or gender. Such a liberal attitude towards religion had others deriding UCL as "the Godless of Gower Street".
To say that being Christian has never been acceptable in the last two millennia is laughable, especially when it's the exact opposite of the truth: not being a Christian has only just become acceptable, and even today that's not a universal truth in the so-called "free" western world.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Tossing the label "politically correct" is doing the same thing it's supposedly rebelling against. How much critical thinking does it take to blurt out "polticially correct"? Just like racist or sexist, it's a lazy word to discourage critical thinking.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
yea, he is both a chimp in cowboy gear AND a coke-head in a suit. There is also a good bit of "puppet on a string" in there too.
Not to wander into the Hitler camp all un-awares but...
Most of the true viliany of WWII Germany wansn't really Hitler. They had this vague but extremeist leader. He never said "lets put all the jews and homosexuals in camps and invent all these cool ways to kill them." He just gave "vague direction" like "I don't like jews and homosexuals, and don't even get me started on the Gypsies."
It was RAMPANT CRONYISM to a vague and "dynamic" but "nonspesific" anti-leader who "led" by astitute popularisim unvarnished by detailed planning or intellegence.
It was the "lapdog intellectuals" (no really! 8-) in his cabnet that were falling over one-another for the Furher's attention who set themselves to currying favor from their "leader" who came up with the real atrocities. Hitler's main role and contribution was to inspire the base cronyism and ruin the "real" plans of any general who had the _gall_ to try to do their jobs instead of currying favor.
Then there were the real personal sick-o's like Mengle who just took advantage of, and masterfully played, the situation so that they could indulge their apetites.
Now, do some name substitution and allow for companies now where individuals were then. Ashcroft, Rice, Haloburton and so forth.
This president LEADS NOTHING and the yappy lapdogery (8-) crammed in behind his pandering to an imaginary "core constituency" leads to a chaotic and pointless result.
We even have starter concentration camps in Cuba, and bush managed that in less than two years.
It took almost a decade for Hitler's little system go get *that* far.
So I guess Bush has excelled his archtype.
Then again, I could be wrong... But in a few more years this sort of criticisim will be punnisable by law (even retroactively) so I need to say it now while I have no idea the true personal cost...
(no, this isn't really funny...)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
It's because the Fed is such an easy target. By printing money, it robs citizens of their savings by creating inflation. It ensures that bank executives who abuse their position are insulated from having their banks fail due to their mismanagement.
9 5& id=64 ...and...
8 9& id=64
It also means that the government gets to print money to pay for programs any time that it would not be able to fund by direct taxation due to cost or unpopularity of the program.
With a commodity standard of trade, such as gold, the government cannot simply print money. It must balance its budget, it must justify its taxation to the taxpayer without being able to hide the true costs.
I suggest the following article:
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=13
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=13
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I've wondered this...
What's the correct term for a white person who was born and grew up in Africa, but then moved to the USA and got her citizenship?
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
I would argue that your page should be "optimized" for a particular resolution as little as possible, if at all. Don't force your readers into a font size they didn't want, whether larger or smaller. Use percentages and let them decide (they've decided already; you just have to go along with it).
Fixed-width pages and fixed-size fonts are, except in some corner cases (none of which come to mind right now), Pure Evil. Just Say No. It's so easy to do it right.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
I think my white blood cells are concerned right now that I have a cold. Something matters to them, and I doubt that they have an idea of the importance of their role in my little "universe"
Who was it that asked, "Am I taking my mitochondra for a walk, or are my mitochondria taking me for a walk?" (Tried Googling, no luck... Google is not my friend today.)
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
The history of science is full of sad, disparaged, ignored geniuses dying in obscurity - or failing to be recognised decades later when their views finally are taken seriously. Even in science it can take many decades and a huge mountain of evidence before fashion changes and people will listen to a heresy.
Advance the theory at the right time, and you're a genius. Advance it too early, and you're a crackpot who will be quietly ignored. Look at Mendel. No-one argued that Mendel's published views on genetics were wrong, they just ignored them. Or look at the early proponents of the idea that Ice Ages occurred ("Ice? I know what Ice is, I've got some in my whisky glass now. Ice move boulders for miles? Absurd!") or the immense difficulties that early proponents of Plate Tectonics hit
The problem if someone tries to deviate *radically* from accepted views in science is not that their views will be debated carefully and seen as false, but that their views will be seen as nonsensical and ignored (unless they have immense personal status). We just don't talk about that stuff.
But for about three decades between 1900 and 1930 physics was different. I wish I knew why.
Sean
PS: Okay, maybe Paul's right the scientists are more open-minded that the rest of humanity - my point is that is still not saying much.
This stuff actually happened. And worse: Tom Delay organized a riot to stop the Dade County recount.
It's funny how the police riot during predominantly peaceful protests by left-of-center folks, but right wing thugs get a free pass when interfering with an election.
Nor is incorrect spelling an indicator of lack of knowledge.
PS. Damn it is so spelled, damn you.
PPS - I'm probably a better speller than you are - does that make me any righter?
Maybe if you didn't hold beliefs that are amongst the most hateful and repugnant in the world, you'd have friends who didn't think you're an asshole.
Ah, another shining example of "liberal tolerance".
Think about it though - I could destroy the planet, erase every life here and every achievement that humanity has ever made
Remember, the point of this post wasn't to offend people, it was to express deep thoughts without fear. Unless I misunderstood the point of the whole article, and everyone in the thread is trying to make people mad, heh. Sorry if I offended anyone, don't really mean those thoughts, just think them deep down, and thought this would be the most offensive thing to society.
Sig: I stole this sig.
It's an issue because he was trying to get sanctions against people who used the term "black" instead of "African-American".
Really, now? How's that work? Maybe little black trolls with tipping jars would follow everyone around. If you get caught saying "black" instead of "African-American" then the troll makes you throw some of your Hard Earned Tax Money(TM) into the jar, to be distributed to "whining, lazy" black activists, of course.
I suppose it could happen but Jackson would have to sanction himself since the word "black" is all over his own web site. I guess he wouldn't, though, since we've already established he's a hypocrite. Unlike most politicians.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's been fun, but at this point, I'm calling "shenanigans" on you and I'm done.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
First post I have seen from you that I completely agree with. Congratulations (if you even care).
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
You post the truth, but will never get modded up since you don't agree with popular slashdot (leftist) opinion.
She doesn't yet know enough to check herself
How can you be certain? Is it possible that your daughter can feel extreme distress or anger? I'll bet it is. Did she learn "shit" or "dammit" from an adult who was also experiencing such a moment? Possibly. So is it possible that she has properly learned that "argh!" or "shit!" or "grrr!" or "dammit!" are all entirely reasonable ways to communicate frustration (among other things)? I think it is. But then I don't really know your daughter.
At some point in her life she's going to start swearing, but at two? No.
That fact that you have a label for 'swearing' indicates some serious bias. Here's a continuum. There are many, many words in between the ones I show. In fact, these words may be out of order for you. I use one order from least-to-most intense. You use another. But you have more insight than I do if you can lay discrete labels like 'swear word' and 'not swear word' onto parts of this scale:
rats - aw - darn - grr - geez - doh - lordy - argh - poo - poopie - shite - shoot - shucks - frick - crud - fudge - crap - bitch - dammit - god - damn - son of a bitch - jesus - christ - shit - fuck
Your thing on cliches was insightful. I was too late to comment though.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Are those Anti-Linux posts just flamebait though? If you go to a Photoshop forum and say "Photoshop sucks" it's flamebait, even if by an objective standard, Photoshop could be proven to suck. It's like me going to your house, bulling my way in, and insulting your kid's fridge art.
If however, you have a valid criticism and don't make stupid blanket statements while making your point, it's not flamebait.
When I browse at -1 I see a lot of flames and crap - maybe they're meant well, but if so they're from people who never learned to work and play well with others. In other words, I think they belong down there.
You're suggesting that Slashdot is the home of Linux? Granted, there are more than a couple of Linux supporters here, but this is also a forum for discussing a great deal of other issues.
At the moment, I really like what I see Apple doing with iPod/iTunes. What I've seen from them appeals to me as a consumer much more so than what I've seen from the competition. Even so, I don't want someone pushing the iRiver/OGG agenda to get squashed in the middle of the mini-iPod thread, simply because a fellow iPod fan doesn't like what he has to say.
I've got a pro-truth bias. If I'm wrong about something, I want someone to point it out to me, so I can stop being wrong. I don't want someone to moderate a dissenting opinion down as Flamebait, thus causing me to never see it (default viewing at +3), and me lose the opportunity of correction.
Years ago, my father instilled in me the notion that if something is true, further examination won't reveal it to be less true. This has served me well when discussing theology as well as technology, where "religious" debates abound.
I agree completely with browsing at -1, and generally do so only when I've got moderator points. I want to make sure that I see everything, just in case something new comes in, or in case I know enough about a topic to mod up something that has merit.
Tim
No, Slashdot isn't *the* home a Linux. A home perhaps, but nothing more.
The point about Flamebait though is that a truthful post can be a flame, and the most polite post can be complete trash I suppose. But nobody is going to listen to the flamer long enough to know.
I think a lot of people come to Slashdot, flame some "sacred cow", and then say nobody at Slashdot is willing to discuss the issue because they didn't get any positive responses. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Or maybe an example people on slashdot could relate to better. I'd guess most of us have called ourselves or our friends geeks, nerds, or dorks at some time. On the other hand if someone who didn't like you called you one of these things, you'd probably be pretty offended.
It's because the meaning of a word changes based on it's context.
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
I wish I'd found this topic before it had picked up 1000+ replies, but in case anyone is still reading, here's my "you can't say that":
Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, throws out an off-the-cuff quip while on tour in England. She said, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Country radio stations, especially the corporate soundalikes, pull the Chicks' "Travelin' Soldier" -- a song about war and sacrifice in the Vietnam era.
Of course, this leaves people with the impression that country listeners are uneducated rednecks with a shotgun in the truck window and truck balls hanging from the bumper. That's not the case... not all country fans steamrollered their CDs, and those that did probably bought more (the album's 4x platinum). But it's hard to listen if the radio doesn't play something... so as long as Clear Channel & co. treat their listeners like fools, the Chicks won't get play.
Meanwhile, with a dozen Americans a week dying in Iraq (and my cousin serving in Tikrit to boot), I can't say I'm terribly proud of the Texan in the White House, myself.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.