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."
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.
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
. . . 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
Warning:
This article has nothing to do with current technology sans a single 1 sentence reference to the DMCA.
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.)
Ironic that this should be slashdotted, since ./ is more-or-less the last bastion of the kind of free-speech, open-debate that exists.
... the list goes on. I am astonished as to the level of thought conformity that goes on here, under the guise of free speech.
Since your uid is about half of mine, I guess I can't call you a n00b. However, this is pretty much the opposite of my experience with Slashdot.
There are all kinds of sacred cows here, that you criticize at your peril: the effectiveness of Linux, the evil of copyright in general and the recording industry in particular; the lack of merit to SCO's lawsuit
Outside commentators (such as those from Forbes) have referred to Slashdot and like sites as "echo chambers", where the same ideas bounce around ad infinitum. For example, just look at any article critical of Linux and you will see that every response is basically the same, and that high moderation is given to anything that restores the proper groupthink. I wonder if this is because a certain type of person is attracted to Slashdot, or if Slashdot transforms people's opinions? Perhaps a little of both.
I think this is one of the ironies of internet communication -- in an environment which supposedly promotes universal communication, people only seem to communicate in enclaves of like minds, reinforcing each other's narrow world views.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
- 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.please, by all means, back your hersies with discussion - I think they could lead to good discussion...
1) I haven't seen too much evidence of israeli involvement, but I think there are lots of interesting things one could say both about this and in comparison of israel v. iraq in their handling of UN resolutions. Since the US administration's stance seems to be 'israel good, other middle eastern places bad' this could be called heresy in the states, but probably not in other places...
2) I wholeheartedly agree with this, the war on drugs has done nothing to combat the evils of addiction, and the human cost of the 'war' has been terrible
3) I disagree with this, but I'd still like to hear your arguments (if you or any other slashdotters present actually want to make that argument)
One thing I find interesting in the article is the test near the beginning: "Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?"
I'd say that I don't, but that's probably more a result of how I define my peers than the acceptability of my ideas. Some of my opinions might not be shared by my peers, but they would be more likely to debate my points than declare me a heretic...
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.
[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!
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.
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.
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
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.
...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
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.
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
1) Never heard of that, and it sounds really implausible on the surface. Have a link?
2) I know a lot of people who are openly outspoken against the war on drugs, including myself. But genocide has a very specific meaning: The eradication of a selected group of people. Who is this group of people the war on drugs is intended to wipe out, and how is it being accomplished?
3) If Rush Limbaugh is saying it, and 20 million Americans are nodding their heads in unison, it's not really unsayable, is it?
Unpopular opinions aren't the same as heresies. Dig deeper. You have to have others.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
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
There are all kinds of sacred cows here, that you criticize at your peril:
First of all, if you consider being flamed/modded down "peril", you really ought to get out more.
Now, I don't know what you're talking about. In every story, I see a wide range of opinions, usually modded up based on merit. I've seen plenty of +5 pro-Microsoft posts that simply made good points.
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
I think the point he was trying to make was that every new fashion or idea starts out as something outrageous in the current context, and then goes on to become "right" some time later, and either goes on to be proven "wrong" even later or goes on to be a long-standing "correct" meme. Like the men's tie or natural selection. Authority of the person making the outrageous leap can lend to quicker adoptions, but any new fashion or idea will be met with resistance by people who have buy-in to the current system. I think the fashion analogy holds.
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
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.
Equally stupid are those that think that because they "think outside the box" that they are automatically correct.
Paul Graham is emphasizing the need to be open-minded, but he is ignoring the need to be "active-minded". If your "outside the box" idea have failed the test, they need to be rejected.
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".
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
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.
As one of the most groupthunk people I know, I have to disagree with you on a couple of points.
/.ers will disagree with that, but I think that nails down the beliefs of the majority.
/., and that's often a bad thing, I don't see that any of the things you've pointed out rise to the level of "unsayable", even within the confines of Slashdot.
Copyright isn't evil. Copyright is an important guarantor of a creator's rights. The whole Linux thing wouldn't be possible without copyright protection. A few
Nevertheless, the current copyright system is too heavily biased towards creators, at the expense of the public and the public domain, and the situation is only getting worse with the recent copyright extension and the DMCA.
It appears obvious to me that the SCO lawsuit is utterly without merit. Obviously, everyone else here thinks so as well (probably even you). Now, there are a few reasons that such a consensus would emerge. The proponents of the SCO suit are being silenced, moderated to oblivion, or otherwise rendered incapable of presenting their side of the argument. Another is that nobody is interested in defending SCO on this forum, where Linux zealotry renders us all incapable of seeing the truth. Finally, SCO supporters may simply not have any reasonable arguments in their defense.
I've also seen a small minority of posts that coherently criticize Linux as a desktop platform, and I don't have to browse at -1 to find them. So while there is a herd mentality here on
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
3) I disagree with this, but I'd still like to hear your arguments (if you or any other slashdotters present actually want to make that argument)
About feminism:
Feminism was once needed, back in a time when 50% of the population's potential was stiffled from birth, being a woman meant that you couldn't do many things simply because you were a woman, and not because you actually couldn't do them. No woman doctors, no woman mathematicians, etc.
That was bad, feminism fought that, and that was good.
But since feminism reached its goals (enjoy that voting and education girls), feminism has stagnated and has decayed into nothing more than a form of sexism.
Now feminist dogma is that men are evil, that every "macho" characteristic are bad. And it both enforces unrealistic feminisation of men and masculinisation of women.
You can't take the sky from me...
Here's an excerpt from The New York Times article dated 2001-09-22 I referred to:
As for The Washington Post story about Odigo, that paper has since taken it down. Here however is the story as reported by Haaretz. And here is a Google search that lists all the hundreds if not thousands of web sites that have copied the Post story for posterity, perhaps this link is the best... it also goes into the allegations about the Israeli spy ring, allegations which are largely confirmed by the Jewish publication Forward.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Since your uid is about half of mine, I guess I can't call you a n00b.
My uid is 1/10th his, and I'll call him a n00b.
You're absolutely right. Slashdot is a bastion defense for a wide array of sacred cows, many of which you mention, and slashdot is largely an echo chamber where people can go to pat themselves on the back for thinking they are smart.
This article by Paul Graham says this at one point, "Ask anyone, and they'll say the same thing: they're pretty open-minded, though they draw the line at things that are really wrong. "
The interesting thing about group think is that any slightly differing opinion is "really wrong", and therefore not worth listening to or properly rebutting. It's a fascinating world, where people pat themselves on the back for being open minded and adopting a new fashion, but at the same time ignore or deflect any criticism of their position.
Graham talks about this as he goes on to say, "But when people are bad at open-mindedness they don't know it. In fact they tend to think the opposite."
It's an interesting article, and I definately agree with your last sentence...
"I think this is one of the ironies of internet communication -- in an environment which supposedly promotes universal communication, people only seem to communicate in enclaves of like minds, reinforcing each other's narrow world views."
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.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Sometimes it's a good thing. One just has to remember to keep it in perspective.
"There are all kinds of sacred cows here, that you criticize at your peril: the effectiveness of Linux, the evil of copyright in general and the recording industry in particular; the lack of merit to SCO's lawsuit ..."
:-)
/. equivelent of Calvin pissing on Ford got noticed by the masses. it works out for both sides and no one is any the less enriched because of it...
It really depends on how you do it...
I am a windows programmer / administrator by day (well, my subordinates actually administer everything), at night I do a *LOT* of work for RIAA endentured artists (to the point that it is generally much more profitable than my university gig -- and my boss knows this and allows my to fly off to LA or Nashville at a moments notice) and I get paid solely because of the enforcement of copyrights from these folks. I guess I could say that I secretly write code for SCO, but that would be stretching the truth
BUT -- I say this stuff and correct the misconceptions and generally I am modded up for my speach. Occasionally, the zealots get to my posts before the guys that read at +2 or better do (the only way to read this site these days) and I'll get zapped, but its not too often.
Yeah, there is a group speak around here and one must phrase your words anticipating the general arguments. I know one individual that seems to stalk the RIAA comments as if he had something personal to loose in the whole thing, and occasionally I notice I comment towards him before he will even start to refute the words.
So -- does the group think help or hurt? For me, it helps to force me to not just throw halfassed comments out there on certain subjects. The idiots in the groupspeak think will get modded up with a simple Copyright Is Dead post, the other end will get modded up with half a page of intelligent speach.
I can live with that...its almost like affirmative-action for the dumbasses. Those that can think on their own must do so more carefully, allowing us to reestablish our own thoughts on the subject...while the idiots can feel good because their
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.
Unpopular opinions aren't the same as heresies. Dig deeper. You have to have others.
I don't know what this counts as, but here's my shot, it's something I've been considering for a while.
Nothing we do actually matters. At firs this may not sound shocking, especially to those of you who are, like me, unreligious. Think about it though - I could destroy the planet, erase every life here and every achievement that humanity has ever made, yet it would not cause anything that mattered to happen. Maybe other planets would be affected, maybe the solar system would fall apart, so, who cares? I may get many replies saying 'All life matters' or 'It matters if the solar system is destroyed' but I challenge any of you to back that up factually.
I would readily admit the evidence against Afghanistan/Iraq might not be strong (the latter, in particular) but I think there's a large amount against Al-Qaeda.
Got a link to the Washington Post story?
Also, arguing that only one Israeli died indicates that Israel warned "its citizens" (and, therefore had a hand in the attack) is pretty ridiculous.
The fact that 5 Israeli's were reportedly seen 'high fiving' also indicates nothing.
You're grounds are, so far, that the Washington Post (supposedly) claimed an Israeli company was warned in advance of the attacks.
Evidence that Al-Qaeda were involved includes Osama Bin Laden saying that they did, as well as more evidence (trail of funds, trailing the hijackers, etc).
Forgive me while I still consider your post flamebait.
Manta
Two things strike me as odd about the WTC Israeli angle theory.
First, the Odigo employees who were "warned" were in Israel. The warning was non-specific, and didn't mention the WTC. This could be no more serious than an e-mail warning of a kidney theft ring.
More seriously, the behavior of the alleged Israeli spies was odd, to say the least, to anyone who has ever had any contact with real members of Israeli intelligence agencies. I've seen such people who would duck for cover at the sight of someone pulling out a camera in a public place. I can't imagine spies who would dance conspiciously on top of a van. I would have to conclude that they were just ordinary idiots (they're plentiful in Israel, just as they are everywhere else), rather than spies.
The rest of the evidence against them is even less convincing. They had box cutters in their van - they worked as movers, a common occupation for young Israelis staying in the US illegally. One of them had two passports - he was a German citizen. The FBI held them for a long period of time - well, the FBI had their hands full around that time, don't you think? They held a lot of innocent people longer than they normally would.
The current copyright system is not biased towards creators. It's biased towards copyright holders, an entirely different animal.
The monopoly position of media companies enables them to foist unfair contracts on creators. Similarly, levies on blank recoridng media and the criminilization of tools prevents creators from using new technology to bypass the monopolies. Copyright extensions maintain the profits of copyright holders, while actively harming creators by (like software patents) increasing the chance that they will be sued for an accidental violation.
Argue with idiots, and you become an idiot.
Well, I guess this is my last slashdot post.
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.
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?
Quite honestly, I believe you are taking a series of randomly connected concidences and trying to spin this into a conspiracy theory. Police frequently have to filter through all the random events that occur leading up to a crime to find the ones which are directly connected.
This goes back to one of my old arguments about probable and possible. You're not doing the filtering to deselect the probable out of the possible grouping.
And it's not like I'm a big fan of Ariel Sharon or the neocons controlling the White House either. I think there was a horrible failure of analyzing intelligence leading up to 9/11, the focus wasn't in the right place. I said it back then, that the Bush administration, despite warnings from the CIA, was more focused on the least probable risk(rogue nations with ICBMs) versus the most likely risk.(someone sending a bomb via FedEx or some other common every day thing, like an airplane)
So my views are already semi-favorable to your cause, and I still doubt your claims without more solid evidence.
Hell, there's stronger evidence that the Bush family planned the Reagan assassination than what you have linking Israel to 9/11, and I don't believe that was anything other than a coincidence.
On point number 2, roughly 12% of all drug users are black (National Household Survey on Drug Abuse). Slicing the data another way indicates that while 12.2% of all white people use drugs, only 10% of blacks use drugs.
To go even further with this, 35% of all people arrested on drug charges are black (US Department of Justice). Roughly 53% of all people tried for drug charges are black, and 70% of all time served for drug charges is served by blacks (US Department of Correctional Statistics).
Please check the facts before you try to push your truths on others.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
I know I'm feeding a troll, but:
You can say anything you want to. But you should be prepared to back it up. Carl Sagan once said something like "Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof". If you could reference specific repudable works (not just general things), we might believe you. Ignoring facts is one thing. But if you have quite a bit of stuff, and nothing to back it up, there isn't any reason why we should believe you. It's not simply pointing and yelling "heresy", it's saying "you have a claim that most people would ignore and laugh at, but if you can show us some proof, we'll look at it" Also, just becuase you think you have proof, it doesn't mean we'll believe it.
It's not just poorly-supported fringe opinions or racist comments that are frowned upon in modern universities. It's ANYTHING that doesn't toe the line with the established orthodoxy. Supported non-racist opinions that are not orthodox WILL be denounced as unsupported or racist.
Two good examples. First, casually mention anything that counters the current tenets of environmentalism. Dispute the data supported global warming. Or suggest that it isn't caused by human activity. Or that electric cars cause as much pollution as gasoline cars. But first make sure you're wearing asbestos underwear! The creed of environmentalism CANNOT be questioned. It's heretical to do so. It's not because anything else is a "poorly-supported fringe opinion", because there are plenty of scientists and climatologists that offer support to contrarian views. It's merely a difference in interpreting the data, or using different models. Much of environmentalism still rests on untested and inviolate premises. Question these and your career as a university researcher is finished.
Second example. Mention that you hold a conservative view on an issue. Any issue. It doesn't matter if you are liberal on every other issue. Just this one will get your branded as a racist or reactionary. I'm not talking about extremist conservatism. Mainstream conservatism is equally despised. Suggest that capital gains taxes should be lowered, as an example, and see how fast you're ostracized.Go to Berkeley and argue against rent control if you really want to see how intolerant the capital of tolerance really is. Sidenote: I'm not claiming that modern universities are "liberal" though. They're something else entirely.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.
But since feminism reached its goals (enjoy that voting and education girls), feminism has stagnated and has decayed into nothing more than a form of sexism.
There are all kinds of things wrong with the way the modern feminist movement has approached the problem of gender inequality. But the notion that the feminist movement achieved its goals is, at best, fantasy.
Yes, women have the right to vote, and I don't know of any evidence that they are unable to use it, though the still terribly few number of women in the political arena suggests we still have a long way to go there. Yes, women are no longer barred from most educational institutions, but in spite of massive evidence showing that test like the SAT and ACT are biased against women (as well as minorities and the poor), they are still used by most colleges to determine admittance. Years ago, when I was an undergrad, a not-too-suprising article in the Daily Bruin noted that GRE scores were a lousy predictor of performance in grad school, especially for women vs. men. Women with the same GRE scores could be expected to get significantly higher grades.
Furthermore, all that education (which is really only beginning to actually balance out, and is doing so fastest among minorities), isn't really repairing the disparities in employment and pay. When you control for experience and education, women still only earn 81% of what men earn.
There are a lot of explanations for this. Most common is that women are more likely to take lower-paying jobs that offer more flexibility, so that they can be available for child-care duties. However, men with children don't seem to experience a similar pay disparity, so this indicates a disparity in how child-care duties are distributed in households. It's still the case in most US states that, if a couple divorces, the mother generally gets the lion's share of custody of the kids. (My cousin in Arkansas raised his three kids singlehandedly *and* paid court-mandated child support to his ex-wife, because a mother who was a prescription drug addict wasn't, in the court's opinion, less fit to care for the kids than their father.)
But the fact that, as a society, we assume that women take care of the children affects women who aren't in this situation. My husband and I are having our first child in July. Since I'll (theoretically) be getting a master's degree in June, I can probably make more than he currently makes. So, after a few months to recover, I'll start looking for a job and, assuming I find one, he will quit his job to be a full-time dad. However, I'm already carefully considering how I'm going to handle my job-seeking, because if an employer knows that I just had a baby it will probably hurt my chances of getting hired, no matter how illegal that is. It's also very difficult to prove.
Then there are just general societal notions about what women can and can't do, as well as what they do and don't want to do. Women who are into computers and technology find this all the time. I had a classmate in my graduate program start "testing" me when I said that I was a computer geek. (He starts off with "Well, then, if I want to get a new Pentium 4 computer..." to which I responded "Why a Pentium? Why not AMD instead?" I tried to engage him in a conversation on what uses might indicate one over the other, and the issue of motherboard chipsets to support each processor, but he quickly changed the subject.)
Frankly, I'm angry with the feminist movement for getting rid of the compensations that we had without *first* fixing the problems we have. Why did men always pay for dates? Because they generally make more money. (It was always my policy to pay if I made more, and let him pay if he made more, and alternate if it was about the same.) Why did men open doors for women? Well, that's harder to answer, but maybe because women are more likely to be loaded down with kids and their accoutrements.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.