Slashdot Mirror


Ex-NSA Hacker Is Building an AI To Find Hate and Far-Right Symbols on Twitter and Facebook (vice.com)

Motherboard reporter Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai has interviewed Emily Crose, a former NSA hacker, who has built NEMESIS, an AI-powered program that can help spot symbols that have been co-opted by hate groups to signal to each other in plain sight. Crose, who has also moderated Reddit in the past, thought of building NEMESIS after the Charlottesville, Virginia incident last year. From the report: Crose's motivation is to expose white nationalists who use more or less obscure, mundane, or abstract symbols -- or so-called dog whistles -- in their posts, such as the Black Sun and certain Pepe the frog memes. Crose's goal is not only to expose people who use these symbols online but hopefully also push the social media companies to clamp down on hateful rhetoric online. "The real goal is to educate people," Crose told me in a phone call. "And a secondary goal: I'd really like to get the social media platforms to start thinking how they can enforce some decency on their own platforms, a certain level of decorum." [...]

At a glance, the way NEMESIS works is relatively simple. There's an "inference graph," which is a mathematical representation of trained images, classified as Nazi or white supremacist symbols. This inference graph trains the system with machine learning to identify the symbols in the wild, whether they are in pictures or videos. In a way, NEMESIS is dumb, according to Crose, because there are still humans involved, at least at the beginning. NEMESIS needs a human to curate the pictures of the symbols in the inference graph and make sure they are being used in a white supremacist context. For Crose, that's the key to the whole project -- she absolutely does not want NEMESIS to flag users who post Hindu swastikas, for example -- so NEMESIS needs to understand the context. "It takes thousands and thousands of images to get it to work just right," she said.

240 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing can possibly go wrong with this. It has everything: NSA, hacking, white supremacists, reddit, AI. Definitely worth funding.

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Definitely worth funding.

      Unfortunately for them it is missing the most important factor: Blockchain.

    2. Re:Awesome by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate".

    3. Re:Awesome by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But...Nazis. You don't like Nazis do you? If you are against this, you must be a Nazi. Look everyone, a Nazi!

    4. Re:Awesome by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Hmm....why aren't they building this for extremists on BOTH sides of the aisle?

      There's plenty of hate and violence on the left these days to match those on the far, far right.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Awesome by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It takes a special kind of guy to cut his penis off and then complain about being treated differently "as a female in IT".

      And then to go on a crusade against "far-right" symbols? There is no greater "far-left" symbol than cutting off your own junk and then demanding everyone else pretend you're a woman.

      This is what feminism is now? Men are even better at being female hackers? Well done feminism.

    6. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Him and Bradley "Chelsea" Manning are sure making the case that it's a good thing to hire transsexuals to work in intelligence.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do you think they call him a 'hacker'? He hacked his junk off.

    8. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because if you're liberal, somehow you're not an extremist in the current climate. Let me know when people figure out that one man emasculating another isn't love but hate. Let me know when people begin growing and maturing again rather than lashing out at society for your problems (every rights movement save ending segregation).

    9. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because real women don't need feminism.

    10. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When gay people said they didn't want to get attacked for being gay I supported them.

      When gay people wanted to get married I supported that.

      But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes and trans people want to punish people for 'misgendering' or 'deadnaming' them you know what? They can fuck right off. It's not longer about gaining rights for themselves, it's about taking rights away from other people.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    11. Re:Awesome by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Didn't you see the Slashdot posts from the past couple of days? Cold weather and all individual weather events are now officially evidence for global warming.

    12. Re:Awesome by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with it, but I see people complain about "Nazis" and then they start applying it everything else.

    13. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who get triggered when their birth sex is mentioned, are on a personal crusade to silence 'the far right' and have access to all your data. What could possibly go wrong...

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    14. Re:Awesome by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me know when people begin growing and maturing again rather than lashing out at society for your problems (every rights movement save ending segregation).

      Feminism was originally a just movement, true to its stated goals.

      ("Feminism" today is a sick, twisted perversion of the original. It's so bad they retroactively redefined feminism. Now if you want to talk about the feminism that cares about equality, respects men and women the same, etc. you have to talk about "first wave feminism".)

    15. Re:Awesome by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of all the recent politically-motivated protests, the left has been far more prone to violence. Then there's also the property destruction, looting, etc.

    16. Re:Awesome by sexconker · · Score: 1

      When did you stop beating your wife?

      Oh, you're getting your beating tonight, honey.

    17. Re:Awesome by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i'm sure it would go something like this...

      "cold weather is intersectionally related to white supremacy and thus the patriarchy because cold weather is typically found in northern climes, where the white people are originally from. Therefore, cold weather = white people = racism = patriarchy"

    18. Re:Awesome by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Would you also think it's wrong for a baker to be forced to make a cake for an interracial wedding if he didn't wish to? Just for the record, lady. You don't mind me calling you a lady, do you? It's my right.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:Awesome by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Nothing can possibly go wrong with this. It has everything: NSA, hacking, white supremacists, reddit, AI. Definitely worth funding.

      I hope this was sarcasm!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    20. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Funny

      People who get triggered when their birth sex is mentioned,

      I've never met any, then again I'm not on a crusade to be as much as an arsehole as I can to my transgender friends.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re:Awesome by Ichijo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.
      Reg: What!?
      Stan: It's my right as a man.
      Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
      Stan: I want to have babies.
      Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?!
      Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
      Reg: But you can't have babies.
      Stan: Don't you oppress me.
      Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
      (Stan starts crying.)

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    22. Re:Awesome by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate".

      So it complains about working in IT - did I read that correctly?

    23. Re:Awesome by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      H(Sh)e

      You can really save some time and hand wringing by just using the correct pronoun - it

    24. Re:Awesome by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      When gay people said they didn't want to get attacked for being gay I supported them.

      When gay people wanted to get married I supported that.

      But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes and trans people want to punish people for 'misgendering' or 'deadnaming' them you know what? They can fuck right off. It's not longer about gaining rights for themselves, it's about taking rights away from other people.

      It's still about gaining rights for themselves, it's just that now it's more explicit that they are doing so at the expense of your rights. I agree with your sentiment about not promoting violence (hear that Antifa types) and civil aspects of gay marriage (ie inheritance and such). The rest has been utter rubbish and I expect to see the US splinter over it this century.

    25. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jim Crow and segregation is a special case. But not that much of one. E.g. look at the Woolworths case

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      On February 1, 1960, Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair, Jr. (later known as Jibreel Khazan), and David Richmond, four young African-American students from the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NC A&T), entered the downtown Greensboro Woolworth's and sat at the "whites only" lunch counter. Although a Woolworth's waitress told them "we don't serve Negroes here," the four students refused to leave their seats for the rest of the day. During the following days and months the four students were joined by other students in their sit-in demonstration, Sit-in protests spread to over one hundred cities across the United States during the next year, and are considered the onset of the Civil Rights Movement.

      On Monday, July 25, 1960, after nearly $200,000 in losses due to the demonstrations, store manager Harris quietly integrated the lunch counter when he asked 3 black employees of the store to change out of work clothes into street clothes and order a meal at the counter. These were the first black customers to be served at the store's lunch counter. The event received little publicity

      I.e. given a free market, companies that discriminate will go out of business and companies that don't discriminate will prosper. You don't need the government to intervene. In fact the government did intervene and on the wrong side - there were laws enforcing segregation. Get rid of those and let the market sort things out.

      And gay people wanting wedding cakes is not the same thing as Jim Crow and segregation in the 60's. It's not like any of the wedding cake cases meant that the complainers couldn't get a wedding cake somewhere else. For example

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver to order a custom wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is Christian, declined, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins left the store without discussing details of the cake design. The following day, Craig's mother called Phillips, who told her that he does not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states that have anti-discrimination laws against sexual orientation. Craig and Mullins' complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop. The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."

      Craig and Mullins actually got their cake from another bakery - and Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't refuse to sell them a cake, it refused to make them a custom one. I.e. this is not the same as Jim Crow. This is about Craig and Mullins wanting to bully someone they disagreed with politically and threaten them with bankruptcy unless they made a "I support gay wedding" cake and agreed to go on 'comprehensive staff training', aka have some SJW type tell them all they were scum.

      Fuck 'em.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    26. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also if you call a biker a woman and get beaten up the biker is breaking the law. Misgendering laws like this mean you'd be breaking the law

      https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/...

      New York City issued guidelines in December 2015 for employers and landlords on the correct pronoun usage for transgender men and transgender women. Violating the guidelines intentionally or repeatedly could result in a fine as large as $250,000, especially if doing so appears to be malicious. The guidelines say that to avoid the fine, transgender people must be asked what their preferred pronoun is.

      The guidelines require anyone who provides jobs or housing to use the transgender person's preferred pronoun, such as "ze," "hir," "they," them," "he," "she," "him," or "her." "Ze" is the third person singular, used in place of either "he" or "she," while "hir" is third person possessive, used to replace "his" or "her." Pronouns like "ze" or "hir" represent a break from traditional male- or female-only roles.

      "Gender expression may not be distinctively male or female and may not conform to traditional gender-based stereotypes to specific gender identities," said a city official.

      While some say that the conversation over transgender pronouns represents progress toward equality, others note how easy it might be - even for the parents of transgender people - to also sometimes forget or mix up the pronouns.

      The guidelines are the country's first of their kind, coming from the New York City Commission on Human Rights. About 75,000 transgender people live in New York City.

      "I think it comes down to respect. People identify how they want to identify and it's not up to anyone else to determine that," a pedestrian told Fox 5. "There are a lot of social norms that are changing and people need to understand that this is someone's life, it's not just a flippant choice."

      Others however think the fine is too high. "I understand the intent," another pedestrian told Fox, "but $250,000 is excessive." Writer Paul Joseph Watson at InfoWar said the notion of businesses asking every customer what pronoun they want to use is "absurd," given that even Facebook delineates 71 gender options.

      "So people can basically force us - on pain of massive legal liability - to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it's a lie," writes Eugene Volokh, law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

      It's also pretty obvious that laws like this violate the First Amendment as Volokh points out. Be able to threaten people with $250,000 fines unless they call you "ze" is fucking mental.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    27. Re:Awesome by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My parents were married as an interracial couple in the 1940s, they had to rent their apartment through a straw buyer. Now it's all well and good to say, "you have the civil right to marry anyone you want," but it's not very meaningful if that means giving up on a roof over your head.

      Now wedding cakes are a cause celebre specifically because it's a trivial issue. But confronting this level of triviality is an intrinsic consequence of line-drawing. Either you draw no lines, in which case you as a person whose personal life choices may be unpopular are in possession of legal rights are effectively meaningless. Or you draw the line somewhere, in which case somebody is giving up something.

      I'd argue that the fact that what is given up either way on this question is trivial, it's somewhere in the general vicinity of "right" when it comes to line drawing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    28. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fallacy of screaming "fallacy" when confronted with reality.

    29. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wedding cakes aren't a trivial issue. And of the opinions I've read on this, this seems to sum it up best

      https://www.desmoinesregister....

      It was nice to read the essay by the gay couple who got married in Iowa without any discrimination issues to deal with [Glad to live in Iowa, free from discrimination, Dec. 29]. It is fair and reasonable for the government to prohibit discrimination against gay couples and others in the selling of standard goods and services that are offered to the public like most products retail stores, rooms at hotels and meals at restaurants. But when the product or service needs to be customized or personalized by the seller, then discrimination by the seller should be allowed and the buyer should not be able to enlist the force of government to require the seller to provide the product or service.

      So, for example, cake bakers should be required to sell what is what is on their shelves and available for sale without discrimination, but they should not be required to create custom cakes against their will. At the same time, buyers are free to choose other sellers and to organize peaceful protests and boycotts against such discriminating sellers. This way everyone's liberty is preserved and no force needs to be used by government or anyone else.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    30. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even attempting to equate hate on the left with the hate and violence on the right is detached from reality. Why trolls like you get any upvotes ... It's vile.

      Sure. It's all those campus Republicans that shout down speakers they disagree with, and violently attacked the Secretary of Education.

      Dude, what color is the sky on your planet?

    31. Re:Awesome by hey! · · Score: 1

      When you buy a wedding cake you pick the design out of a book. The only reason they're made to order is that they're larger than the cakes people usually need, not because the baker has to come up with a unique design that reflects his opinions about your specific choice of spouse.

      I can see this argument if you're talking about a wedding photographer, who is at least a participant in the proceedings. But a baker isn't. He just needs to make the cake the customer picked out and have it ready on a specific date.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    32. Re:Awesome by skam240 · · Score: 2

      Nice.

      "hate and violence" is on the Left but then only on the "far, far right", Way to advocate for political neutrality while being completely non-neutral.

      Extremism is what defines political violence. Me telling you that probably won't change anything though.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    33. Re:Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      Let me know when people begin growing and maturing again rather than lashing out at society for your problems (every rights movement save ending segregation).

      Feminism was originally a just movement, true to its stated goals.

      ("Feminism" today is a sick, twisted perversion of the original. It's so bad they retroactively redefined feminism. Now if you want to talk about the feminism that cares about equality, respects men and women the same, etc. you have to talk about "first wave feminism".)

      When you get down to it, that's the normal trajectory of pretty much any mass movement which doesn't have extremely well-defined goals which are kept to. Some of this can be easily inherent in the movement from its start.

    34. Re: Awesome by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Maybe conservatives who are triggered by people who want to be refereed to by an opposite sex then their birth?

      How horrible is that?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    35. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's always fun to look to the more or less recent past and find that the craziness we used to mock mercilessly is now mainstream left-wing "thought".

      Other examples

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1tFbZ5kaY8
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJX1kqrAbTg
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4pTejRBxSc

    36. Re:Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Lucky for them that there was another bakery near by. Unfortunately the market doesn't always provide alternatives, so this kind of discrimination can do unavoidable harm to people.

      Imagine if you arrived at the hospital with your wife about to give birth, and they said "sorry we don't deliver white babies".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re:Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So it's fine to force a company to recognise a gay marriage and pay out a pension, but not okay to force them to provide cake baking services.

      Can you explain that logic?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re:Awesome by Z80a · · Score: 2

      It's quite hard to not have an equivalence.
      There are a pool of horrible people looking for an excuse for being horrible, and they will find it on both sides with a bit of distortion.

    39. Re:Awesome by judoguy · · Score: 1, Informative

      ... Maybe hit up a gay night club with an automatic weapon?

      If you talking about the nightclub in Florida, I'm not aware of an automatic weapon being used.

      Oh, you're just making stuff up for fun. Never mind.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    40. Re:Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Lucky for them that there was another bakery near by.

      It wasn't nearby. At the time, gay marriage was not legal in Colorado; in fact, if memory serves, the wedding was to take place out of state and the cake for that wedding already arranged for.

      The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law is actually likely to get struck down for being enforced in a discriminatory way, looking at the way argument went and SCOTUS has ruled in the past--Justice Kennedy, in fact, was the author of the majority opinion in the case where they said you cannot do an end-run by having the text be fine but still being a bunch of bigots. And yes, this is actually rather explicitly stated by Justice Kennedy in the opinion in question. It's not something to protest, because it also means you cannot have a law be a de facto DWB.

    41. Re:Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      When you buy a wedding cake you pick the design out of a book. The only reason they're made to order is that they're larger than the cakes people usually need, not because the baker has to come up with a unique design that reflects his opinions about your specific choice of spouse.

      Custom and made to order are not the same thing. I am not a baker--my partner, though, has worked as one--but I've been inside quite a few bakeries that do custom cakes of various types.

      However, I've also actually been in several different cake stores when people were placing an order for a custom wedding cake, and... A custom wedding cake is a custom wedding cake, not merely a made to order deal. This was not just 'pick a design out of a book' deal; you sit down with somebody and work out all the details, quite possibly with sketches to confirm that the cake designer understands what you want correctly, with prices being negotiated.

      A made to order cake? There is a description and a price under the photo and possibly a couple options. The book will include all types of special occasion cakes, ranging from wedding cakes to "Happy [Pick A Holiday]!" cakes.

    42. Re:Awesome by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      So we need global warming in order to combat racism, better go burn some more coal!

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    43. Re: Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      People who get triggered when their birth sex is mentioned,

      I've never met any, then again I'm not on a crusade to be as much as an arsehole as I can to my transgender friends.

      It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else. If you look and dress like a big burly 1%er biker dude or like a bubble-headed cheerleader? You might wanna wait until you've changed out your closet and been on hormones a while before expecting people will automatically know you're respectively really Jennifer or Bruce.

      Labeling people discussing this sort of issue as transphobic only shuts down discussions--some of which are going to be important discussions among transgender people, given that assuming people have psychic powers does not precisely make us look like we're mentally healthy.

    44. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They refused to design a cake, not bake one. They offered to sell them everything, including the decorations, and they could have decorated it themselves. Are you saying an artist must put their talents into something they disagree with?

      Would you support the same decision if it was a Nazi demanding that a Jewish bakery bake a cake with a swastika on it? And forget the whole bullshit "protected class" angle, because that's another problem in itself.

      This is my issue with the Left. They always have this need to force their views on other people, and they never do it themselves. They cowardly go crying to some other authority. Looking back, you could tell who these people were on the elementary school playground. Always crying to some teacher because someone else wouldn't do what they wanted them to do. It's a mental disorder, and need to be classified as such.

    45. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe conservatives who are triggered by people who want to be refereed to by an opposite sex then their birth?

      How horrible is that?

      I don't get triggered, I just refuse to play their little pretend game.

    46. Re:Awesome by Cito · · Score: 1

      we plan to

    47. Re:Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He didn't say that specific instance, you made that bit up... Just saying, of anyone is inventing straw men here, it's you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re: Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This post reminds me of classic "rational" racism and homophobia. It tries to sound reasonable, by not explicitly stating the assumption that transgender people are not trustworthy.

      Transgender people being deceptive is probably the oldest transphobic meme going.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:Awesome by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      It's because he knows nothing of guns and just believes what the media says.

    50. Re:Awesome by fredgiblet · · Score: 2

      Exactly. And this is a very large portion of what 1984 was actually about. People focus on the other things, but the thought control was perhaps the most important and relevant part of it.

    51. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else.

      They're not. The transgender people I know personally, like most people, just want to get on with their lives in peace.

      If you look and dress like a big burly 1%er biker dude or like a bubble-headed cheerleader? You might wanna wait until you've changed out your closet and been on hormones a while before expecting people will automatically know you're respectively really Jennifer or Bruce.

      And once you have you don't need some arsehole deciding to call you by a gender that you haven't looked like for a decade out of some misguided sense of correctness.

      Labeling people discussing this sort of issue as transphobic

      Try actually read the comments I'm respoding to. This is not "people making a mistake over someone who's made no effort to change their external appearance", this is about people absolutely 100% insisting on referring to someone by their birth gender no matter what.

      Huge difference.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    52. Re:Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The people who are in denial are the ones who think that arbitrary biological factors determine gender.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    53. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm a Britfag too. And I think he's authoritarian fanatic.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    54. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Also if you call a biker a woman and get beaten up the biker is breaking the law

      It still demonstrates my point that people all across the political spectrum care a lot about misgendering. In fact... you that supports my point. Some people care os much they're willing to break the law to prevent it from happening.

      New York City issued guidelines in December 2015 for employers and landlords

      Employers and landlords have a lot of power over people. There are huge numbers of things they are flat-out not allowed to do under those auspices that people in general are allowed to do.

      The guidelines require anyone who provides jobs or housing to use the transgender person's preferred pronoun, such as "ze," "hir," "they," them," "he," "she," "him," or "her." "Ze" is the third person singular, used in place of either "he" or "she," while "hir" is third person possessive, used to replace "his" or "her." Pronouns like "ze" or "hir" represent a break from traditional male- or female-only roles.

      Lolnope!

      Here's the quote from the actual guidelines http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-...

      Intentionally failing to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman him or Mr. when she has made it clear that she prefers female pronouns and a female title.

      There's no mention of those weird pronouns anywhere on the actual page. As far as I can tell that source you linked to simply made it up and you gredily guzzled it down because it's what you wanted to hear.

      "So people can basically force us - on pain of massive legal liability - to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it's a lie," writes Eugene Volokh, law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

      It's well established already that if you're an employer or landlord there are many things you cannot do that provate citizens can.

      If you want to use your free speech, don't be a fucking coward and only use it when you have power over people. Grow a spine and do it as a private citizen where anyone is utterly free to tell you you're full of shit.

      It's also pretty obvious that laws like this violate the First Amendment as Volokh points out. Be able to threaten people with $250,000 fines unless they call you "ze" is fucking mental.

      God job that's not the case then.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    55. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Fallacy of false equivalence, right up there with Trump.

      It sure is. Modern leftists are fare more prone to threaten and use violence against political opponents.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    56. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The guidelines require anyone who provides jobs or housing to use the transgender person's preferred pronoun, such as "ze," "hir," "they," them," "he," "she," "him," or "her." "Ze" is the third person singular, used in place of either "he" or "she," while "hir" is third person possessive, used to replace "his" or "her." Pronouns like "ze" or "hir" represent a break from traditional male- or female-only roles.

      Lolnope!

      LOLYES

      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

      Facebook now offers 50 different gender identity options for new users, including gender fluid (with a gender identity that is shifting), bigender (a person who identifies as having two distinct genders) and agender (a person without an identifying gender). There are day cares that proudly tout their gender-neutral pronoun policies - so kids don't feel boxed in - and college professors who are skewered on the Internet for messing them up.

      In New York City, new clarifications to the city's human rights guidelines make clear that the intentional misidentification of a person's preferred name, pronoun or title is violation of the city's anti-discrimination law.

      The article is clearly saying that if you refuse to call me by my preferred pronouns of His Lordship, I can complain and you will be fined.

      And the NYC legal guidelines make this explicit. NYC have taken down the page, but you can get it back from the Wayback Machine

      https://web.archive.org/web/20...

      1. Failing To Use an Individual's Preferred Name or Pronoun

      The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual's sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual's identification.

      Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

      All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL.

      I.e. you have to call people Ze if they tell you to. Best hope your mailmerge software supports it.

      Not that any of this will survive a SCOTUS case now that Lord Gorsuch is on it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    57. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > "hate and violence" is on the Left but then only on the "far, far right", Way to advocate for political neutrality while being completely non-neutral.
      >
      > Extremism is what defines political violence. Me telling you that probably won't change anything though.

      No. Commonality is what defines extremism of any sort.

      How popular and accepted is the idea "You can hit someone just because you hang some arbitrary label on them". This idea is shockingly popular amongst modern liberals.

      You're trying to redefine terms to suit yourself and that's precisely the problem here. The left likes to distort terms to suit their political agenda. This includes YOU redefining the term "extremism".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    58. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > You mean the same kind of hate that conservatives used to demonize and dehumanize liberals for the past 30 years? The same kind of hate that launched a concerted effort to turn the word "liberal" into a slur? That kind of hate?

      Now who's peddling a "false equivalence". Calling you an idiot is not remotely the same thing as saying we should beat you up for your views. Calling you an idiot is also not the same as shouting you down, rioting when you speak, and seeking to prevent you from speaking.

      You remind me of the 80s Xian fundies that tried to cry oppression.

      As if.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    59. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Quite a lot of people react badly if you misgender them.
      >
      > If you don't believe me,

      You want to comment on this nonsense and you haven't even experienced this yourself. How cute. How much of mundane little Herbert do you have to be to have managed to avoid something like that your ENTIRE life.

      Get out of here you sad little breeder.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    60. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      >> He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate".
      >
      > So it complains about working in IT - did I read that correctly?

      I wonder if it thinks that working in IT would be all utopian and shit if only it was normal. Kind of makes me wonder why I've been wasting my life in all these crappy companies. I can pass for normal (in this one area). I wonder what I've been doing wrong all my life. =p

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    61. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      LOLYES

      Nope.

      Because the guidelines don't say that.

      And the NYC legal guidelines make this explicit. NYC have taken down the page,

      So what you're saying is they're not the guidelines any more. So what are you complaining about?

      In other words you're complaining about an old set of guidelines wich

      I.e. you have to call people Ze if they tell you to.

      Is that smoke I smell because your pants are on fire!

      You already said yourself that they took these guidelines down.

      The actual current guidelines are online. I gave you the link. The thing you claim IS a requirement is not a requirement.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    62. Re: Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else.

      They're not. The transgender people I know personally, like most people, just want to get on with their lives in peace.

      Please note my choice of pronouns here, it might help you slightly since you missed my point--and are clearly thinking I'm leaving other transgender people out of the 'everybody else' when nope, they're being an arsehole to us too.

    63. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Your page links to this

      http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/d...

      Which is down. But if you go to Wayback you find this

      https://web.archive.org/web/20...

      Which contains

      Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and
      titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns
      other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir.10 Many
      transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than
      the one they were given at birth.

      A broken link on a web page doesn't mean the guidelines have been retracted. It just means they suck at running a web server.

      If they wanted to retract the legal protection for ze/hir/zxhim/zxche, they'd have to say it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    64. Re:Awesome by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Oh shit, I got the weapon used wrong! My whole point is discredited because I got something wrong that has fuck all to do with my point! What a brilliant conclusion you've come to! You are truely a cut above!

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    65. Re:Awesome by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Unless they take offense at 'it' - the government revoked a coworker's security clearance and he lost his job for using that pronoun to refer to a trans that didn't like it.

      I'm sure that endured 'it' to it's coworkers. This makes them feared and despised. The backlash will be fierce.

    66. Re:Awesome by skam240 · · Score: 1

      """You can hit someone just because you hang some arbitrary label on them". This idea is shockingly popular amongst modern liberals."

      No. No it is not. You're making that up.

      "You're trying to redefine terms to suit yourself and that's precisely the problem here. The left likes to distort terms to suit their political agenda. This includes YOU redefining the term "extremism".

      Please observe word order. I did not define extremism at all, I defined political violence. Do try to keep up.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    67. Re:Awesome by JillElf · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about "the breaking of contracts" you speak of. If someone asks the baker to create a cake and the baker says no (for whatever reason), there is no contract. If someone asks the baker to create a cake and the baker says yes, then there is a contract. The state and/or city where your business is located may dictate that you either serve everyone or no one but I wouldn't consider that a contract. That said, I sure as hell wouldn't want to consume any substance that someone was forced to make for my own peace of mind. Also, the baker that shows any reluctance in creating a cake or attends a holy roller church (or other place of worship) that frowns on or goes postal on certain issues is now going looking at a very real possibility that the purchaser will complain that the cake wasn't right because the baker is discriminating against them. The fact that it *may* have been a perfectly good cake won't matter. Luckily, I am not a baker and I really don't care what two consulting adults do anyways.

    68. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But if you go to Wayback you find this

      Yes if you go back you can find something that's no longer applicable.

      So why are you complaining about it? It's gone away.

      If they wanted to retract the legal protection for ze/hir/zxhim/zxche, they'd have to say it.

      There is no extant document you can get to from their website which says those are protected.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    69. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      http://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/...

      Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

      http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/acs...

      New York City Human Rights Law

      The following are excerpts from the New York City
      Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement
      Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender
      Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); NYC
      Admin. Code Section 8-102(23):

      * The NYCHRL requires employers and covered
      entities to use an individual's preferred name,
      pronoun, and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs./Mr./Mx.)
      regardless of the individual's sex assigned at birth,
      anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or
      the sex indicated on the individual's identification.

      * Most individuals and many transgender people
      use female or male pronouns and titles. Some
      transgender and gender [expansive] people prefer
      to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/
      hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. Many
      transgender and gender [expansive] people choose
      to use a different name than the one they were
      given at birth.

      * The Commission can impose civil penalties up to
      $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for
      violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or
      malicious conduct."

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    70. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The point is that you can't discriminate and refused to sell a good to someone but you can refuse to perform a service.

      As Ben Shapiro put it "If you're the one forcing me to do something, you're the bad person because that's tyranny"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      And if it's all so stupid, why doesn't your side back down?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    71. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

      That as far as i can tell is non normative text. Also, with the arguable exception about ze/hir, it's 100% reasonable.

      http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/acs...

      Interesting. That's different from the one I found and different from the no longer extant one you were initially referring to. It's also substantially weaker.

      Not only that, it's a document specificaly about juveniles and kids in positions where the adults in question have vast amounts of power over the kids. Yes I think it's entirely reasonable that people cannot use the full force of their free speech at a juvenile over which they have full power, and should err very much on the side of caution here.

      Nonetheless what you have provided is links to the guidance, not the law. Here is the text of the actual local law:

      http://legistar.council.nyc.go...|Text|&

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    72. Re:Awesome by spkay31 · · Score: 1

      Because the left is protected from this. Hatred spoken from the left against conservative principles = Free speech. Spoken from right/conservatives to the left/liberals = HATE SPEECH.

  2. signal to each other in plain sight by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Dude, there isn't some sort of secret hate group code. Everyone knows those douches when they talk about "dem liberuls" or "dose imagrunts". They are not even trying to hide, they wear their status proudly.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's even better than that. Not only are they not drying to hide, they pop up whereever some offended snowflake deems them appropriate. Can't win an argument on merits? Call the other guy a Nazi and you're golden! I'll demonstrate:

      1. American immigration laws should be enforced.
      2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens.
      3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy.
      4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age.
      5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime.

      All of those are either factually true or present an opinion within the mainstream of acceptible American thought. How long will it take for someone to label one or all of them extreme and me an extremist beyond the pale of acceptable civil discourse.

    2. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Glock9mm · · Score: 1

      I also consider the Obama "O" (known as a "GOATSE") to be offensive. So what of that symbol?

    3. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Wrong facts alone cannot constitute an opinion.

      Welcome to the modern world.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      No, they aren't false. The myth that they are is pushed by people who stand to profit monetarily and/or politically from a wide-spread belief that they aren't true.

      You can usually tell when a talking point is propaganda by the fact that it is asserted to be incontrovertible fact and that it is already commonly known, thus there is no point talking about it. Both of those tactics are repeatedly employed by both the gun grabbers and and ghetto strongmen politicians to score points in the sound-bite competition that we have allowed to pass for public debate in this country.

      You've just done it yourself.

    5. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

      While I do agree these claims by themselves are not racist, I did notice a strong correlation between these claims and people who are racist or support racists. Does it mean that everyone with these opinions is racist? No. Does it make sense to mistake them for one? I dont know, for me it is just the same as commenter "Train0987" who used "trans" as a pejorative.

      Ironically enough, i just realized, I admitted the reason to associate these claims with racism is because the person doing the association is a bit of a bigot on his own. Like all of us, I guess.

    6. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      This is all true, and part of my point. You can read it either way, but there will be people who assume the worst and demand censorship immediately without discussion. Discussion will be pre-empted by labelling the speaker a nazi sympathizer and shaming any who would engage in the conversation as "normalizers" of extremism, using as justification for this overreach the assumption that the statements are meant to be read in the worst was, and that they are "dog-whistles" to use the terminology from the summary.

      Some people hear dog-whistles all the time, not aware that it's just the ringing in their own ears.

    7. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      I live in a similar part of the country. But I arrived there as an adult after having been born and raised elsewhere.

    8. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ugh, here we go.

      https://www.vox.com/cards/poli...

      https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

      I hope these facts will persuade you to stop spewing lies.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Train0987 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all I didn't use "trans" as a pejorative. I did use "crazy" as one though.

      Since you call me a bigot/racist, exactly which race do you imagine me to be? That I've put you on the spot with that question should indicate that you're already wrong and that you've been caught. The only dog-whistles here are those in your own head that you've been conditioned by others to hear. In other words, you are the bigot - not me.

    10. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slightly more blacks per capita are killed as compared to whites, but when you look at the racial breakdown of violent crimes they are disproportionately committed by blacks. When you scale for criminal activity, blacks are actually shot less than whites.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ugh indeed.
      1. Vox and Mother Jones (which one of your links cites) are partisan publications, not neutral reporters of fact.

      That aside,

      2. Disproportionate police use of force with and arrests of members of different population groups do not imply different enforcement standards unless there is parity in overall rates of crime among those groups. Black Americans commit more crimes per capita and live in higher-crime neighborhoods on average. Thus more encounters with police. And often for good reason. Your purported source of neutral facts tacitly assumes things like that don't matter and you tacitly assume that disparate outcomes implies disparate treatment. It doesn't. White people who charge at cops also tend to catch a bullet for their troubles.

      3. Sloppy wording and lose definitions make for the best scatter plots, don't they? "Gun-related" deaths includes suicides. Whether you chose to count it in the same statistic as homicide by firearm is nothing other than that: a choice. Count it to pad the numbers one way. Exclude it to pad the numbers the other way. Half of "gun-related" deaths are suicides in the US and while I don't have numbers for the other countries on the plot, let's say the slope of that line drops by half.

      The per-state chart is another cart-before-the-horse abuse of statistics. My statement was about gun restrictions. The chart is about gun ownership. The two are not the same, and while the correlation is weak to start with, the argument for causation is not there. Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Utah and Oregon have large populations and high gun ownership but lower gun deaths per capita than Colorado, Nevada, Maryland, and Florida which also have high populations but lower gun ownership. Then there's Chicago and Maryland and Camden NJ in particular which has strict local and state laws and insane homicide rates.

    12. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Oh, and there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and gun murders.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually there is abundant data confirming that minorities get different treatment by police than whites. For example epidemiological research says whites are slightly more likely to use weed than blacks, but law enforcement statistics show that blacks are roughly 3x more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.

      It is also true that police actually shoot roughly twice as many white people per year as blacks, but there are five times as many whites as blacks. This doesn't mean that every time a cop shoots a black man that race is a factor, but statistically it is bound to be a factor in a large number of shootings, although not in the simplistic way favored by many left-wing blogs on the topic -- although that probably happens at least some of the time. Assuming that the police are no better or no worse than society at large they must have enough racist sociopaths to produce at least a few shootings like that per year.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      This isn't about Nazis or even red neck conservatives. This is about having an excuse to call stuff like kek far right. Which is mostly just a symbol used by contrarian kids, quite a lot of non whites, but they don't follow PC.

      "Our impartial AI calls them Nazi, you believe me now they are Nazis right? How can you not? Are you a Nazi? Here, let me tweak my algorithm ... see, you are clearly a Nazi? AI can't be wrong, you are a Nazi, you are wrong, I'm right ... oops, I meant my algorithm is right."

    15. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by malkavian · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a great example of Cherry Picking.
      A rather fuller examination of the data, and a proper conclusion can be found here.
      A quick hint, Vox are basically using mis-framing of the population statistics to give a completely wrong picture.

    16. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      How? The data presented is linked directly to the FBI. Or is this a case of the messenger causing the message to be ignored? Intolerant of the messenger, thus ignore the message... How very "tolerant" of you!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Wait, did you just refute his argument with facts and NOT calling him literally Hitler?!?

      Unpossible!

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a professional statistician, let me explain one big problem in your attempt to analyze racial shooting statistics:
      Populations.

      You are attempting to count the number of people shot of a given race against the ENTIRE US population for that race. However, that's not the group your sample is being chosen from. Your group is being chosen from amongst those that are interacting with police - if you never see a cop, you are not at risk of being shot.

      The correct population to use is the number of white/black/etc people that interact with police (stopped, ticketed, arrested, anything) and compare that with the sample proportion that is shot/otherwise killed. Anything else is wrong, either due to ignorance or to perpetuate a deliberate falsehood.

    19. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      To state that that black crime rates justify police violence against the black population requires acceptance of racial profiling. See this article from a conservative publication:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/...

      All the facts it uses are true, but it fails to confront its implicit acceptance of racial profiling. In the US, statistically a black person is 3 times more likely to commit a crime than a white person, and 3 times more likely to be a victim of (nonlethal) police violence. But violence is not being dealt only to criminals. If there were no racial profiling going on, you should expect similar rates of police violence against all races. Of course you only mentioned lethal violence, which is more specific than the topic at hand.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    20. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Gun ownership isn't what we were talking about, it's gun control. Check my link again, especially the differences between countries, particularly Switzerland which has a high gun ownership rate and heavy gun control.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    21. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      2, Your defense only works if you find nothing wrong with racial profiling:

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      5. Stay on topic. We're talking about whether gun control reduces violent crime. Look at this chart and tell me how gun control doesn't work. If you'd like to imagine that the presence of more guns justifies more gun crime, remember that Switzerland has nearly as many guns as the US, and they're far more evenly distributed among the population there.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    22. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      *Of course I mean that Switzerland has nearly as many guns per person as the US.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by mjwx · · Score: 2

      It's even better than that. Not only are they not drying to hide, they pop up whereever some offended snowflake deems them appropriate. Can't win an argument on merits? Call the other guy a Nazi and you're golden! I'll demonstrate:

      1. American immigration laws should be enforced.
      2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens.
      3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy.
      4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age.
      5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime.

      All of those are either factually true or present an opinion within the mainstream of acceptible American thought. How long will it take for someone to label one or all of them extreme and me an extremist beyond the pale of acceptable civil discourse.

      Ignoring the fact that 2 and 5 are demonstrably wrong. You are the one trying to change the definition of Nazi, not anyone else.

      The problem you have is that Nazism is a far right wing ideology based on extremist nationalism and institutionalised racism (the difference between a fascist and a Nazi is the fact Nazism has racism baked into it's very foundation). You have trouble reconciling the fact that right wing philosophies can be bad, so you need to change its definition to suit you.

      Further more, you're trying to change the definition to make yourself look like a victim when you aren't one. I'm going to say something controversial... White males remain the most privileged group in modern western society. The problem you have is that you cant reconcile that with your desire to be a victim.

      Finally, if you find you are being called a Nazi often, you either need to examine what you are saying (and how you are saying it) or find a different audience... However its more likely to be what you're saying rather than who you're saying it to.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    24. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so a culture like Switzerland - which is nearly mono-culture, mono-race, and highly wealthy and educated - has different gun results than Somalia? Shocker! Guess what - it's CULTURE, not control that makes the difference. Go to Thailand, and you'll find gun laws more permissive than the US - and a lot less gun death. The CULTURE is different. But go ahead, ban those inanimate objects because of fear...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    25. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      LOL is that what you think? Here's a quick overview of Thailand's gun laws:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Also Switzerland isn't much wealthier than the US:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/co...

      There's no relationship between monocultural and monoracial places and lower gun crime. Look at Somalia or any other war-torn African hellhole. Or on the other end of the spectrum, look at France, England, or eastern Canada. Those places are also not far from the US in wealth and have much lower gun crime. Or look at Australia or NZ - mostly white, monocultural or damn near close to it, incomes in the same ballpark as the US, and much lower gun crime.

      On that note, you're right that the US' gun violence is due to a cultural difference. The US has a cultural problem called gun culture, and it keeps them from having sensible gun laws. Australia used to suffer with it, but they got over it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's what you can get away with when you have borders and oceans separating you from jurisdictions with the loosest gun laws this side of a failed state.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    27. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who should we believe...someone who gave us concrete examples, or someone whose links rarely show what he claims, who didn't even bother to provide one this time?

  3. Should be fun by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    I give it a day before someone convinces the rainbow flag has been co-opted and is now a symbol of hate.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To many, the rainbow is a symbol of hatred and intolerance already

    2. Re:Should be fun by hey! · · Score: 1

      You can get any result you want out of a machine learning approach to classification. Training the model to give the answers you want isn't cheating, it's how the algorithms are supposed to work.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well there was this: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.797650

      So if you are Jewish you must be anti-Gay

      And Anti-Gay people are clearly Nazis.

      Therefore Jewish people must be Nazis.

    4. Re:Should be fun by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You can get any result you want out of a machine learning approach to classification. Training the model to give the answers you want isn't cheating, it's how the algorithms are supposed to work.

      ... and proof that such algorithms area terrible method for producing unbiased information.

      Of course, that's hardly the intent.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Should be fun by hey! · · Score: 1

      I think the question is broken. These methods aren't supposed to produce unbiased results. They're supposed to automate human judgements.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Christian crosses are actually Roman torture devices and clearly symbols of hate and agony. Fortunately people are not yet context free, stateless actors, even if the Internet tries to put their wits into network order.

    7. Re: Should be fun by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And interestingly, socialists who are Statists are about the closest you'll find to a real life fascist - using the State to coerce/force business (and thus, society) to do their own bidding. Meaning populists who are libertarian leaning/small-government focused are about as far from fascism as you can find. And oddly enough they are the ones called fascist by most of the media...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Should be fun by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      These methods aren't supposed to produce unbiased results. They're supposed to automate human judgements.

      Well thank goodness for that! God help us if more people actually thought critically and formed their own opinions, rather than having a corporate algorithm decide our beliefs for us.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. And the far left by mschuyler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the far left gets a pass!

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:And the far left by Noishkel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course. After all far left academia have been rewriting the definitions of everything for years now. Be it the idea of what is racism to the very concept of gender. All while the news media covers for them by writing puff piece after puff piece proclaiming the virtues of these bat-shit and abjectly false notions.

    2. Re:And the far left by taustin · · Score: 2

      Maybe he'll open source it, and it can be tuned to any hate speech. Left, right, misogynist, misandrist, racist, even people who hate goats.

      Or maybe it won't work worth a shit, like all the rest of the algorithms that are supposed to flag stuff on social media.

    3. Re:And the far left by taustin · · Score: 1

      Actually, some people can't. They're equally common on both ends of the political spectrum.

      Where I come from, we call them "stupid."

    4. Re:And the far left by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the far left isn't dumb enough to actually call themselves Nazis.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:And the far left by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Did you know that your personal interpretation of "hateful" is just that, personal and therefore meaningless when you try to apply it to real life people. Could be that *you're* the hateful one and just projecting.

    6. Re:And the far left by taustin · · Score: 1

      Everything is funnier if there's a goat involved. Except porn. Porn is not funnier if there's a goat involved. But everything else is.

    7. Re:And the far left by mjwx · · Score: 1

      And the far left gets a pass!

      Because the far left doesn't really exist in western societies. Marxism, Trotskyism and Lenninism have long since died, Maoism isn't actually communism any more (China is communist in name only) however fascism (which is extreme right wing) has been coming back with a vengeance.

      As a centrist (centre right, objectively) I view all kinds of extremism as bad, especially authoritarian extremism such as fascism or Stalinism. I'm also acutely aware that our society is more tolerant of the extreme right rather than the extreme left. This means the extreme right can surreptitiously gain more power than they would be permitted to in the open and before you know it, there are enough of them to start causing problems for the rest of society... basically like the did in Germany in the 1920's. I dont really want to live under an extremist government or have standover men at polling booths, The biggest risk of extremism in western society comes from the far right.

      However absolutely nothing is stopping you or anyone else from doing the same thing as the person in the article for symbols of the far left... the problem you've got is that there isn't really a big problem with the far left and well... most people who would bother with this have no idea what the left actually is so you'll get so many false positives that everyone will ignore you.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. What about the left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about far-left wing symbols of hate, violence, and oppression?

    Antifa flags, socialist fist, hammer & sickle

    After all, the Communists have killed far more innocents than the Nazis did.

    1. Re:What about the left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You got it wrong, communists never killed anyone. The ones you are referring too aren't real communists because of some stupid criteria I made up.

    2. Re:What about the left? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      aren't real communists

      Exactly this. The "no true Scotsman" argument. Except, we have a new modern version called Venezuela which raised the praises of Bernie Sanders when all was "good". "“These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Venezuela ”"

      Now, that doesn't represent socialism at all, because it has failed, and people are literally starving to death because of the policies of governance that caused people to stop producing because success is punished.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:What about the left? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh it was socialism alright. It was also complete oil export dependency and suicidal agricultural policy. Socialism isn't what ruined them.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:What about the left? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Antifa has literally never killed anyone and isn't communist.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:What about the left? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What about far-left wing symbols of hate, violence, and oppression?

      What about it?

      If you care go do something. Sto whining that someone else is trying to do something about a different bad thing.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:What about the left? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Never is. It is always something else.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:What about the left? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Correct - Antifa isn't communist, it's fascist. At least in its actions and stated goals...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re: What about the left? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Fascists as well. They just want different ends with different groups silenced/oppressed/killed.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  6. Needs a good Xenophobe filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It definitely needs to find a way to filter out ANYTHING that might be Xenophobic because that's always racist.

    Unless it's about Russia.

    Or unless it's about Boycott, Divest & Sanction which is the politically correct way to literally act like 1933-era Hitler but OK on the UC Berkeley campus so not a hate group.

    Or unless it's misgynistic AND xenophobic remarks about Melania Trump because reasons.

    Or unless it's antisemitism directed at Ivanka Trump because similar reasons.

    1. Re:Needs a good Xenophobe filter by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Or unless it's about Boycott, Divest & Sanction which is the politically correct way to literally act like 1933-era Hitler but OK on the UC Berkeley campus so not a hate group.

      Literally Hitler started building concentration camps in 1933. If you thing a bunch of noisy students is equivalent to mass genocide then something is very wrong with you.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  7. Hate and far-right symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's sounds fine.

    The problem is when the definition of "hate" keeps expanding to encompass anything a particular group does not agree with, which seems to be a trend now a days. Twitter has become the on-line equivalent of the American university safe-space where nobody has the right to be offended by anything at all whatsoever.

    1. Re:Hate and far-right symbols by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The problem is when the definition of "hate" keeps expanding to encompass anything a particular group does not agree with

      Deplorable hatemonger nonsense. See definition here:

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  8. Trans SJW wackjob by Train0987 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    https://www.self.com/story/tra...

    Can't find anything claiming he worked for the NSA, simply Army intelligence (which is anything but intelligent).

    1. Re:Trans SJW wackjob by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      ...and someone did some research...but...Nazis!

  9. Should be looking for Che Guevara by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Communism is both much deadlier and more socially-accepted than any other kind of hateful school of thought today.

    Anything "fighting evil" that ignores images of Che Guevara and like symbols is simply partisan b.s.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by ABEND · · Score: 1

      Hm, what about communism as a popular movement where those who believe in communism start, freely, working to the best of their abilities then, freely, sharing the profits of their work with those of less ability? Let's see that happen. Let's not see communism forced upon us.

      --
      In all seriousness:
    2. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hm, what about communism as a popular movement where those who believe in communism start, freely, working to the best of their abilities then, freely, sharing the profits of their work with those of less ability? Let's see that happen. Let's not see communism forced upon us.

      Interestingly, if you read the chapter Acts in the New Testament of the Bible, you'll find that perfectly described as the way early churches and congregations lived. In commune with one another. Out of mutual love and respect for each other and for those of society, and simply preached their own moral code to others - no force implied or used.

      Now days, those same people are attacked and labeled as haters by the left, who seek to cloak themselves in modern "communism" which demands force from the Government to coerce actions and beliefs amongst all...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      With what the NSA collected on Communist nations a deeper understanding of what Communism is should have been understood.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by hey! · · Score: 1

      Wait -- so some Buzzfeed editor's twitter feed is how you find out what is socially acceptable?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by mi · · Score: 2

      Wait -- so some Buzzfeed editor's twitter feed ...

      I offered two links, not one. And there are lots more. Communism is cool again — even if not everyone at Buzzfeed think so.

      Heck, most of the "Antifa" are not-so-crypto Communists...

      ... is how you find out what is socially acceptable?

      Make an experiment — walk through Greenwich Village in a Che Guevara T-shirt. Then change and walk back in a Trump one. Keep track of the number of middle-fingers and other expressions of hostility.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  10. Outsource it to Microsoft by omnichad · · Score: 2

    Just see who Tay follows on Twitter.

  11. Taking on IBM by makerfixer · · Score: 1

    The cataloging and inventory of undesirables used to be their job, I know even the Germans were amazed by their efficiency, now some startup wants to run them out of business.

  12. An MJ Blockchain approach would be better by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Obviously, given the funding sources for these extremist groups, you could also identify them thru people who, for personal gain, are against legalized MJ, and then correlate that with Blockchain ads. I find a lot of the fake FB and Twitter bots in those groups.

    Bitcoin and tulips both look pretty, and have about as much use.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  13. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like a good way to fight racism.

    I know..go figure, right?

    I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.

    Seriously?

    Geez....common sense has gone 101% out the door in the US.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  14. First job: identify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After you've found the people you want, you round them up. Inconspicuously at first - call them terrorists, or nazis, or commies, or whatever. They are undesirables right? Make sure they have criminal records. Later, when the population has accepted mass incarceration, you can more easily eliminate them.

    Yep we are nearly there aren't we. Only this time with AI to help us automate the process even more.

  15. Obsessive much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of a friend who sees Illuminati symbols in every triangle or one-eyed photo.

  16. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.

    Well, dredging strawmen from the bottom of the YouTube comment barrel is hardly epistemologically impressive.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. Blaming one side of the political spectrum is nuts by Glock9mm · · Score: 1

    This business of blaming one side of politics for all "hate" is nonsense. Someone also needs to read up on the 1st amendment which doesn't only protect politically correct speech. That kind of speech doesn't need protecting. It's speech you disagree with that needs to be protected the most.

  18. Done better in 2007 with CRM114 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A better neural net, faster, lighter, and more trainable was written back in 2007. It's called "crm114", adter the infamous piece of signal validation equipment broken in the plane dropping a hydrogen bomb in "Dr. Strangelove". It's in pure C, it's trainable on any axis or now multiple axes you want to use, and it's also the most effective spam filter in the world, and it's GPL software available at http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ .

    So why are these fools re-inventing the wheel? Oh, wait!!! They might have to publish their modifications to their clients, so they re-invent, and re-invent, and re-invent the wheel, and they make it bulkier and in Java and Rust an dPerl and Ruby and *ignore the algorithms and training*, which are the crux of any recognition system. And is crm114 progressing much? No, because it doesn't *need* to. It's already in use commercially in places you would not *believe*. Ask the author, Bill "Crash" Yerazunis, former American team lead on the American version of "JunkYard Wars", and holder of over 50 patents. The man is scary.

    1. Re:Done better in 2007 with CRM114 by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It's written in C? Clearly it's alt-right hater code! It has to be in Rust, otherwise it is clearly alt-right hater code!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  19. The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Indeed. As it happens, I believe that (at least in America) the far right is much, much, much more dangerous than the far left, but that doesn't mean these pathetic hypocritical leftist witch hunts put a smile on my face. I mean, this is so stupid. We KNOW that the American leftists are not sufficiency energized by this tactic, hence why there was dip in the turnout of Ds last year, leading to Hillary's loss. Over a year later, and it's nothing but more self-sabotage, more of the War on Humor, etc.

    And yeah, the hypocrisy does really hurt. It bolsters the right wing media and disillusions the pro-rational, pro-truth left. (That's not even the same as "moderate". I don't believe in moderation for moderation's sake, just sanity for sanity's sake and truth for truth's sake.)

    Show of hands: are there any leftists in the audience who don't know, or still refuse to admit, that Black Lives Matter was/is a centrally planned movement run by a organization that openly quotes and openly idolizes the fugitive "domestic terrorist" and cop killer, Assata Shakur? Because it was, and they do. For a very long time, they had an attributed quote from her at the top of their website and you could find dozens of videos of BLM protesters chanting that same quote in unison at their rallies and protests. And the other major populist leftist movement of the past few years, that Women's March thing? Also centrally organized, and they openly celebrated Assata Shakur's birthday.

    The people on the left don't know this or want to hear any of this; they don't want think about it. But guess what? The right wing knows about it and they are using it (plus the War on Humor, plus a few of the actual lies printed by the "MSM", plus a thousand other groanworthy missteps by leftists who foolishly think they can beat the far right at its own game) to win over the hearts and minds of a new generation.

    I have zero fear of the "far left" directly doing massive damage to America; our left-wing politicians are way too moderate-ized (and also too unpopular) for that to ever happen. But these jokers are ruining it for everyone else, all the millions of us who despite what the Republicans stand for right now. They're ruining it for everyone, because they actually think that they can out-stupid and out-demagogue the right wing in America. And you can't; you just CAN'T god damn it.

    A left wing pro-PC / witch hunt mentality led directly to Trump and six months before that, it led directly to Brexit. How many clusterfucks is it going to take for people to wake up and realize that this has been a FAILED strategy and move on?

    1. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      How many clusterfucks is it going to take for people to wake up and realize that this has been a FAILED strategy and move on?

      Based on my experiences? All of them.

      It will take all the clusterfucks.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Yet all your exhortations continue to give short-shrift to it, you pretend to be concerned about the left, but after months, you continue to fail to make a convincing show because all of your phony hand-wringing is directed at the left.

      I lost interest in mindlessly bitching about the right in November of 2004. Not sure which universe you've come from or what cave you've been hiding in for the last 15 years, but dissecting the right's bullshit is CLEARLY not a strategy that actually delivers electoral results.

      Don't worry, you'll be ignored, and the left will win because it turns out Republicans can't govern.

      With a whipping boy like Trump still around? No. This is a horrible idea. EVENTUALLY it will work, sure, but the GOP establishment has tons of momentum and distractions left in it before the chickens come home to roost. Giving the GOP enough rope to hang themselves was Obama's standard operating procedure for 8 years and how did THAT shit work out for him?

      I'm not advocating masochism or meekness. Since you are quite the busy beaver little anon coward, if you care to, you could verify that I repeatedly spoke out in favor of an electoral college revolt against Trump. And there are a hundred other ways the democrats could toughen up, get people interested, fight back.

      An emphasis on political correctness (not anti-racist policies but anti-language stuff) makes the democrats weaker, not stronger. It is inherently divisive, corrodes the base and makes the overwhelming majority of fencesitters say "jesus fucking christ, are we STILL on this shit? Can we please talk about the economy or healthcare or something?" It's weak sauce. It's a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of Americans. And it's hitting the Republicans where they're strongest.

      Just close your god damned eyes and try to picture an electoral outcome where political fucking correctness (not fighting against overt discrimination, but language police and senseless identity politic divisiveness) wins elections. It will NEVER win an election in America; at best it's an irrelevancy in areas that were blue to begin with. It's a distraction. It's a parasite sucking up sound bite time that could better be spent on shit that people actually care about.

    3. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The US political scale is way off. What you call the far left is just the centre ground in other countries. To us the Democrats are the moderate right.

      The hard right government in the UK recently published a report about how badly black people are treated by the justice system and vowed to do something about it. You know, the exact thing that BLM wants.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Actually, following through with the political dogma of the right's simmering outrage was what Trump used, not that it really helped him achieve his much-touted landslide

      Which was my very thesis to begin with: the right can manage manufactured outrage politics just fine. The left sucks at it. When the left tries, it just energizes the right because it lets them double down on charges of hypocrisy. But that's ok though; the American left has other weapons at its disposal that the right lacks.

      What illness do you have that is causing you to come up with these ideas? Obama did more to excuse the GOP and take the blame on himself and the Democratic Party. He was absolutely TERRIBLE at being anything but the scapegoat.

      That's what I just said, or rather, that's the exact and obvious implication of what I just said. How many hours, no, how many MONTHS of your life have you wasted away as a faceless AC, pounding out replies reflexively without even noticing when people agree with you? I hope you're being paid for it because clearly, you aren't getting anything of substance back out of it.

      Yes, that is exactly right. Obama tried the passive, nice guy approach as part of his "hey let's give enough the rope to the Republicans to let them hang themselves so they look stubborn and insane and I look reasonable and awesome" approach (most famously he did this with his Supreme Court nominee, but he also did it with the 2011 budget crisis and at other point.) And he was repeatedly steamrolled and ignored for his trouble. That is MY point; thank you for helping to flesh it out. And you just implicitly advocated for a continuation of this abysmally passive policy: "You're wrong / don't worry / we don't need to change! The Democrats will finally win now that the Republicans have all the power and will show themselves to be incompetent asshats". yeah, sure. Except they've managed to dodge responsibility for a very long time already and now they have Trump, whom they will not hesitate to throw all their sins on the instant he's out of office.

      why do you admit they so easy to outrage over it?

      Because leftist partisans, like right wing partisans, are not average people. The things that outrage them do not equally outrage average leftists. Average right-wingers ARE much more easily outraged, and they tend to be older and have more free time on their hands to ruminate in their echo chambers and work up a good frothing rabid rage over non-issues like, say, Benghazi.

      I'm not worried about proving myself to anyone. The voting numbers speak for themselves (hey look, Trump got more Latino votes than Romney! I guess you just needed to scream that he was a racist nazi 200 more times and THEN the Latinos would've voted against him, right?); the attitudes speak for themselves, opinion survey results speak for themselves.

      You have nothing whatsoever to support the continuation of this laughable, fratricidal masochism of the left. All you have is 1) misunderstanding me continually and 2) an laundry list of irrelevant talking points you keep trying to jam into everything.

      This isn't an argument any more than it's an argument that the world is round. I don't engage in protracted, point by point debates with flat-Earthers. This is just me reminding people like you that reality does exist, and that everyone with a microgram of objectivity has already seen that this is not a cause that has helped liberalism grow or win.

    5. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      That is only a tiny piece of BLM's stated agenda. Again, an important macro point thesis statement: the American left (or leftists talking in American forums, I suppose) can't get away with being sneaky, sloppy or tolerant of partisan nonsense like the American right can.

      I believe I already acknowledged that our left wing politicians were very moderate indeed, but the far left (the same far left you guys have, more or less) DOES exist over here and is politically active, and this is a huge liability in ways that it is not over there in part because the distance between it and our mainstream left is so much larger than the distance between it and your mainstream left.

      There's some other stuff going on here complicating things but yes, the horseshoe is unbalanced and no, nothing I said applies to the UK. Y'all got your own distinct issues.

    6. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Then why the hell did he nominate a moderate like Merrick Garland and then refuse to raise hell after the Republicans refused to do their job? You characterize that as some sort of a proactive fight, do you?

      What of compromises offered to the Republicans in 2011 (and his refusal to push back with tactics like the trillion dollar coin threat after they began to seriously threaten to actually default on the debt)? What of unwillingness to be proactive and open about his support gay marriage (Biden had to drag him into it with his big mouth), his refusal (like Hillary) to consider used Trump's election to be used as a springboard for electoral college reform (or conceivably even a revolt), etc. I don't know what universe you come from but our Obama was not a fighter; he opted at all times to try for compromises and then quietly complain when the Republicans spat in his face. He was not proactive; he was reactive and image-oriented instead of results-oriented. His message: All we need to do is show we're better people than the Rs and we'll win!

      Again, this is isn't a theory; it's what he actually said. Go listen to his reaction to Trumps' nomination; he is clearly saying that nothing needs to be done, the Republicans are beyond the pale, the battle is already won, all we need to do is sit back, virtue signal to remind people that we're not asshat racists like he is, and reap the easy victory. And you can set those words next to the Pied Piper memo which shows, in clear black and white, an explicit Democratic policy based on encouraging Republican nutbags (such as Trump) in the primary because they would surely end up hanging themselves. The memo may have been Re: Hillary's campaign but it was part and parcel of the same D-establishment strategy that Obama subscribed to, as evidenced by those comments after Trump was nominated if nothing else.

    7. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Again, swinging wildly at nothing. The paper I linked clearly describes a strategy of giving someone extra rope so that they can hang themselves. I'm not going to explain common English idioms to you or do any more Googling for you showing how Obama's policies and attitudes and quotes were entirely in line with that paper produced by the Democratic Party establishment.

      Your refusal to admit to simple facts is quite Trumplike.

    8. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Again, just Trumping your blessed little heart out. Go little Trumpeteer, go! Don't bother actually addressing the real black and white facts you were given or assert an alternate explanation/interpretation of Obama's behavior and statements or anything. This is definitely you winning the argument here, you just stubbornly saying "Nuh-uh!". This is a great and noble victory.

    9. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Weirdly enough I haven't grown bored of this quite yet.

      I am sorry that you don't understand what it means to give someone rope to hang themselves. Maybe English isn't your first language. You see, it means to not only be passive but to even tacitly encourage someone forward, going with a strategy of letting your opponent damage themselves (in this case with a strong taking the high road implication.) Which is bedrock of everything I've said, going back to the original point about unhealthy obsessions with political correctness.

      Obama was passive, and you agreed with me. I explained WHY, and had written proof that this mind-rotting philosophy was present in the D party and observed that he said it in his own words if you listened to his verbal statements after Trump was nominated. You not only didn't responded to the argument, you haven't even bothered explaining the passiveness that you yourself agreed with.

      Obama did it for eight years, and it more or less backfired for eight years. In retrospect, it even turned out to be mistake for him to intentionally milk the birther thing, though at the time I thought it was brilliant of him. People don't need condescension, however well deserved; they need results.

      There only error here is that you seem to think that agreeing with half of my argument somehow invalidates the other half. Obama was passive and image-obsessed for 8 years. He and the Ds most clearly revealed the strategic thinking behind this passiveness in their reaction to Trump.

  20. I think by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    The media throws around the term " AI " a bit too much. They make it sound like we're bringing AI systems online on a daily basis to solve all of our problems.

    I doubt we're anywhere close to a true, sentient AI and won't be in our lifetime.

    Then again, this is the same media who calls everything an " assault rifle " regardless of what the weapon truly is.

    I guess " building an AI " sounds sexier than " Bob is writing code " :D

  21. Please Stop by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    >twitter
    >decorum

    just fuck off already

  22. "I disapprove of what you say, but..." by imperious_rex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The famous statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (incorrectly attributed to Voltaire) has always been the best summary of the principle and right of free speech. Given the sad state of civics education in the past three decades, we're seeing the result of this failure to learn this basic idea. When we put "feels" above principle, we get garbage like NEMESIS that ignores the far left crackpots and singles out the far right crackpots. People really need to listen to their elders' take on free speech and democracy and not be a sucker.

    1. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Updated version:-

      "I disapprove of what you say, but I defend your right to agree with me."

    2. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      The famous statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (incorrectly attributed to Voltaire) has always been the best summary of the principle and right of free speech.

      Note how he said "I will dedend the to the death your right to say it".

      Not "I will defend to the death your right to have a company provide a platform to you fror free".

      Nor "I will decfend to the death your right to never have any criticism"

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by deepwell · · Score: 1

      ...People really need to listen to their elders' take on free speech and democracy and not be a sucker.

      What I love about the sucker video is that its intent was to combat fascism, by explaining that fascists segregate a population into groups. Which is exactly what the identity politics is all about. Back then it was the Jews, Free Masons, Catholics and 'Negros' Today it's the Jews, Blacks, LGBT, and Rich people. History is doomed to repeat itself, it seems.

    4. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by hey! · · Score: 1

      Right, but this is really about trying to infer what is being said when the speaker employs circumlocution.

      Isn't close examination of your words part of the whole marketplace of ideas thing?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by Terwin · · Score: 1

      I should point out:

      Christians bakeries sell cakes to anyone but this one group. (illegal)

      Except the bakery in question was willing to sell them any cake in the store or any cake in the catalog, the only thing they refused to do was to create a new 'gay wedding' cake design for them.

      'refused to sell them a cake' was the sensationalist headline the couple was trying to create(after visiting most of the christian bakeries in the area), and even then it was only vaguely relevant to the only actual refusal they received.

      If forcing someone to create and perform a creative work against their belief and against their will was ok, then any racist bastard could force [famous black musician] to write and perform a 'Blacks deserve to be slaves' anthem.

      (where create = write song/design cake and perform = perform song/bake cake)

  23. Sounds like an attempt to build a straw-man group. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    "Crose's motivation is to expose white nationalists who use more or less obscure, mundane, or abstract symbols -- or so-called dog whistles -- in their posts, such as the Black Sun and certain Pepe the frog memes. "

    The Black Sun - fine you can call that one - I had to look that one up. Just about anything Pepe the frog is a post meant to troll people like this ex-NSA hacker.

    In order to be a proper victim there has to be a group that's in power and victimizing you, and if one doesn't truly exist, or isn't as organized as you would like you have to take the extra step and create one. The group that is making fun of people fighting to be top-victim is obviously the best choice. We can ignore the fact that group isn't actually all-white, or even all male because if you say "certain Pepe the Frog" meme's and exempt any that are from minorities or females while declaring any from a white male racist you built a nice little sifting box.

    How victim are you?

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  24. Re:Odd by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because it's Salami Tactics by the Far Left.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    The term Salami tactics (Hungarian: szalámitaktika) was coined in the late 1940s by the orthodox communist leader Mátyás Rákosi to describe the actions of the Hungarian Communist Party. Rákosi claimed he destroyed the non-Communist parties by "cutting them off like slices of salami." By portraying his opponents as fascists (or at the very least fascist sympathizers), he was able to get the opposition to slice off its right wing, then its centrists, then the more courageous left wingers, until only those fellow travelers willing to collaborate with the Communists remained in power.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  25. Bullshit by sexconker · · Score: 1

    The real goal is to educate people

    Whenever a liberal talks about "educating" someone, they're really talking about indoctrinating them.

  26. Automated SJW brownshirt by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    So awesome. Grooming deplorables off the public network will make everything so nice. Should be a big help when hiring as well. Maybe voter registration some day. Yay.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  27. What about extreme left-wing hate and threats? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Twitter is absolutely flooded with death threats from Muslims.

    Load of "kill all cops" and "kill and white people" tweets.

    Hateful messages against whites is commonplace.

    That left-wing stuff all seems to be just fine with twitter.

    Even the most moderate conservatives get censored, suspended, or have the accounts pulled all the time.

    1. Re:What about extreme left-wing hate and threats? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Twitter is absolutely flooded with death threats from Muslims.

      That left-wing stuff all seems to be just fine with twitter.

      If you think death threats from religious fundamentilsts are left wing then you know so little about the political wings that you should probably refrain from using the term.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  28. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Ten years? I got that back in a feminist class in college in 1992 that I was forced to take since I needed the credits and it was the only thing that fit my schedule. Only men could be sexist. So myself and the one other guy in the class sat around getting glared at for a semester, until we received a shining C for our effort.

  29. Great precedent by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they will open source their work, so that other like-minded individuals can use their program to ferret out communists, or Sufis, or Jews, or whoever else they want to round up.

  30. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by hey! · · Score: 1

    So in your mind, the only area of inquiry epistemology applies to is epistemology.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.

    Why the fuck have you been seeing that?

    I mean sure, you can find the most crazy peope on you tube and watch the videos but... ... ...well, everybody needs a hobby I guess.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  33. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by hey! · · Score: 2

    I'll tell you what I told my kids when it comes to information literacy: in a world with seven billion people, you can find examples of any kind of you can imagine. Christian terrorists? Oh, please, that's easy; there are even Jewish Neonazis out there. It doesn't make everyone who calls himself a Christian a terrorist.

    What this means is that if you set out to confirm your preconceptions about some group people, you can find examples that do that. If you set out to disprove other peoples' preconceptions about that group, you will also find examples.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  34. Re:Odd by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    Speaking of fascism, dirgisme (private ownership but state control over the means of production) historically has been closely associated with fascism. Can you name an elected Republican who opposes cities forcing businesses to provide abundant, free parking for their customers? (Big Oil funds the Republican party, so probably not..)

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  35. Re:More signalling by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    What the Slashdot submitter meant, besides a click-bait headline that causes SJW signalling, is the rabid left doesn't use logos or graphical devices (images) to create an identity.

    Then the submitter is axiomatically incorrect.

  36. Re:Fear this powerful nation! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Ahh the Netherlands. Or better known as Northern Spain! :) But really, get it together. Everyone else calls you Holland, you call yourselves the Netherlands, and you speak Dutch! Choose a freaking name for godssake!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  37. Re:DDR Witchhunt! Wir schaffen das! by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    AC Re "I am always wondering why?"
    The first step is to track free speech. Then find the origin of people who want to publish and who is visiting the sites.
    Once a NSA like database is created of the entire 4 hops of the site then the reports to the FBI, state/federal task forces and city police can be made.
    Two law enforcement officials will then do a field interview to ask why a person in the USA expected to have freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
    If the need to comment online is not stopped by the chilling chat down then interview the persons work colleagues and friends.
    Go full Soviet and a request a state medical review on why a person feels they have the freedom to comment on news, history, art, culture, politics?
    If the comments have not stopped go for a formal police interview and stop that freedom of speech.

    The USA is going full DDR with its need to watch comments and then track people enjoying their rights. Freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably to assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, freedom of the press and the tools to publish.
    Why the internet needs to hold back any and all such rights in the USA is getting interesting.

    Most people can understand how the DDR used Zersetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to stop people asking questions, publishing, protesting.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  38. Re: Only white supremacists, right? by hey! · · Score: 1

    Because when you can't compete, change the rules to your favor.

    And your point would be? The argument *for* affirmative action is that the status quo ante competition is unfairly rigged so that people in certain groups can't compete. This can be contested several ways:

    (1) denying that the status quo is rigged.

    (2) denying that the status quo being rigged is a problem.

    (3) accepting that the status quo is a problem but denying that anything can be done about it.

    (4) accepting that the status quo should be changed but denying that affirmative action is the right thing to do about it.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  39. Re:Sounds like an attempt to build a straw-man gro by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Now frog related publications, comments are banned and tracked in the USA too?
    What next songs about satellites?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  40. No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, conservatives have seen fit to re-brand feminism by pointing to its extreme elements. Is a small government type an anarchist? No but an anarchist would advocate for smaller government. Is someone concerned about illegal immigration a racist? No but a racist certainly would be. Likewise a feminist is not a man hater just because they advocate for treating women equally.

    It makes me crazy to hear female conservative commentators make statements like "I'm not a feminist but..." and then state they're in favor of equality of the sexes or in other words, lay out a completely main stream feminist agenda. They're literally participating in the negative re-branding of feminism while saying they're all for it.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's part of an effort to make nationalism more mainstream, by pretending that it already is the mainstream centrist view and everything else is extreme in comparison.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by malkavian · · Score: 4, Informative

      I used to listen to Radio 4 in the UK (that's a pretty "middle of the road" station).. At the hours I was in the car listening to it, Women's hour was often on; it was interesting to hear what the subjects were that women were focusing on, and sometimes came up with things that were worth pondering a lot from the male perspective..
      I gave it up when day in, day out, they were getting further and further into 3rd wave/intersectional feminism.. Now this is a "mainstream" station, not an extreme or "out there" kind of place. I gave it up and just listen to the music stations now.
      I'm finding 3rd wave being more and more "normal feminism".. If you're first or second wave feminist, it's not called "feminist" by a huge section these days, just "normal".. After the war of sex in feminism that led to 3rd wave, there's no agreement on what it means to be feminist, so you say what it means, and anyone who disagrees is an oppressor. I've had loads of 'mainstream' women tell me it's perfectly valid to put me down and be as abusive as they like, as I have "male privilege", and it's their enshrined right to do this.

    3. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many people claiming to want equality actually don't want equality at all, they want inequality which favors them.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nationalism has always been mainstream. It's this recent bout of globalism that is the outlier, it's being pushed by greedy corporations, and they are using the Left as their useful idiots to promote it and attack their opponents.

    5. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nationalism is normal, healthy, and rational.
      It's only fairly recent that the political left has decided loving your home, family, and society is bad.

    6. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Redundant

      The bulk of feminist philosophy is not in dispute. The third wave stuff is 10% of the total, and it's not even particularly controversial for most people. All it's really saying is that a white guy and a black guy have different issues with different solutions, because gender isn't the only thing to consider.

      That's literally all intersectionality is.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      Virtually no one will come out against equality between the sexes, if that's all that it took to be a feminist then the word would be useless. Whatever the word may mean, it's more specific than that.

      I think what the parent is complaining about is what I call "internet feminism," which is very much like "internet political commentator" or "internet expert on [foo]": it's a sort of perversion of an otherwise rational person into... something else. I think Penny Arcade had a strip about this. The trouble is that as people spend more and more time yelling at each other on the internet, that internet personality starts to bleed over into their regular personality...

    8. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Basically. Like all things nationalism can go to far, but a greater regard for your tribe than a tribe on the other side of the world is healthy and natural.

    9. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it leads to massive generalisations about people's experiences and different cultures as if white men are all part of this gigantic hive mind where a Slovakian factory worker is exactly the same as an Australian billionaire merely because they have the same physical characteristics. I'm a leftist. I voted for Corbyn twice however I don't want to be a part of a movement that hates me because of my appearance.

    10. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, that's the very thing that intersectionality avoids doing! Being white intersects with being male and being Slovakian and being a factory worker. The whole point of it is to consider those other factors and differing experiences.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      No that's what it's supposed to do. What actually happens is it divides people along racial and gender lines. I've seen comments sneering at white homeless men because how could they fail with all that privilege or white men are doing all right because some are billionaires. In the meantime amazingly privileged white males make up the majority of suicides in the US and UK. What's wrong with treating people like individuals instead of as a collection of characteristics?

    12. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Mainstream news invites the fringes of oppinion in all the time. If its a radio show about feminism then the extreme elements are just going to pop up from time to time. Meanwhile you'e abandoned your subjects "worth pondering" because you heard some things you didnt like.

      As for your anecdotal story, that's just you associating with shity women. In another era they'd just have found some other reason to be a jerk to you.

        I have plenty of female friends and associates and have personally never experienced anything remotely close to what you describe.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    13. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You consider random internet trolls be more definitive than the mainstream movement?

      Unfortunately you are not alone, and there is little anyone can do about the trolling.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Let's say a conservative on the internet or anywhere else espouses clearly racist ideals. Does that make conservatives racist? No, of course not. Plenty of idiots espouse plenty of idiotic ideals on the internet and sure, they should be confronted, but that doesn't mean we need to change the meaning of a word.

      I'll leave you with the literal definition of feminism: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

      There's nothing bad there.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    15. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      If a person, conservative or otherwise, espouses clearly racist ideals on the internet, does that make even that one person racist? The point that I was making in my second paragraph is that I think the answer is: not necessarily.

      Your link has two definitions. The first is the milktoast definition that you give above, the second rings truer but I'd consider carefully whether there's nothing bad there, as you claim. Promoting one group over others is an explicitly anti-egalitarian stance. The argument is usually made that women are disadvantaged and so promoting them increases equality, and while this may be true in some contexts... that isn't how advocacy works. There's no one counting equality points, ready to turn off feminism once it has filled it's quota.

      There's also a matter of discrimination: it isn't specifically related to egalitarianism but if we take it as a rule of thumb that reducing discrimination generally has a positive effect on equality (call it "good vibes" or something), then advocacy through promoting one group to the exclusion of others is discriminatory and counter to that goal.

      Anyway, this has gone long for a response to a single sentence. Maybe I'm in internet loudmouth. (I'm not in real life)

    16. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      By your reasoning one could never support anything because then one would be "Promoting one group over others" and would therefore be "explicitly anti-egalitarian". That is of course complete rubbish.

      "2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

      There is absolutely nothing "explicitly anti-egalitarian" about that definition.

      How would the first definition ever even be achieved without the second? Without "organized activity" on behalf of any social movement women wouldn't been be able to vote and there certainly wouldn't have been a civil rights movement.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    17. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      By your reasoning one could never support anything

      ... What? How? I think you may not have thought this through, not every cause champions one group to the exclusion of others. How about, just throwing something out there, a soup kitchen? Very few soup kitchens say that they'll only give soup to members of group A, perhaps quoting some statistics which show that members of group B are less likely to be hungry. A real soup kitchen might end up serving group A more often for this statistical reason, but they're not leaving hungry B's out in the cold.

      So this soup kitchen promotes equality, because it serves group A more often and thus reduces the imbalance of hunger. And it accomplishes this in a non-discriminatory manner, because it also serves group B when members of group B need it.

      This is just an example off the top of my head, but... come on. I'm sure you could have come up with an example like this for yourself if you had tried.

    18. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      From my prior post

      ""2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

      There is absolutely nothing "explicitly anti-egalitarian" about that definition."

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    19. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      Okay, maybe it's my turn to link the dictionary then. I explained above, in this post, why I think those ideas are contradictory. I didn't go into great detail, since it all made sense to me, but I will go over anything that you don't follow or disagree with.

    20. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I really don't see how you can read that definition and see "2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" as non-egalitarian. Narrowly pursuing the goal of improving women's rights does not have to come at the loss of any one else's any more than those who narrowly pursued the civil rights movement were.

      No one can pursue any individual agenda (civil rights, gay rights, women's rights) without falling neatly into "organized activity on behalf of _________ rights and interests." Sure a person can pursue any social movement at the expense of others but it is absolutely not a requirement.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    21. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      How would you respond to this: "Net neutrality advocates are dumb. No we don't want ISPs slowing down some traffic, that would be censorship and anti-competitive and wrong. But those idiots keep complaining about fast lanes. Going fast is good! Fast lanes are just fine." ?

      Egalitarianism is specifically about people, so I can't call net neutrality egalitarian, but the idea is the same: equality is good and it is the opposite of promoting one group (of internet traffic) while excluding others. There's very little difference between promoting group A exclusively, and inhibiting everything that isn't in group A.

      So you bring up civil rights and the civil rights movement, and there's an interesting feminist angle there. Civil rights, of course, are for everyone - not black people exclusively. But the civil rights movement, at least in the United States, was pretty much exclusively about civil rights for black people. There were a couple of women, civil rights activists, who felt disenfranchised and ultimately quit the civil rights movement for this reason. But not before writing a fairly famous memo (here) which is considered one of the founding documents of second wave feminism.

      In other words, a couple of women quit an exclusionary movement for being excluded, only to inspire their own exclusionary movement. I wish I could say it was surprising that they would just perpetuate the same problem, but this is a common reaction to being mistreated.

      So this is a criticism of the civil rights movement, but there's a question of whether they could have achieved what they did if their focus had been broader. And if you compare to the Black Lives Matter movement, going on right now, well... there are some positive and negative things to be said about that comparison, but this is now meandering. (I wrote two more paragraphs here before I realized that this was a dumb tangent.)

      I'm not sure what you mean by "individual" agenda, but it is the agenda that is the problem. So... yes? I gave you an example above (the soup kitchen) of a way to pursue an agenda (mitigating hunger, particularly the greater hunger of group A) without excluding anyone. It's just a matter of identifying a problem and helping with that, rather than identifying a group of people and helping them.

    22. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty much done with you after this as you seem to just want to perceive that pursuing something means diminishing something else.

      If an issue like civil rights for minorities is failing to meet the standards of egalitarianism then it should be pursued. If individuals fail to meet the standards of egalitarianism in pursuit of the movement for civil rights that does not mean that the movement is not moving towards proper egalitarianism. It only means it is imperfect, like all things. Also...

      HOW THE FUCK ELSE WOULD AN ISSUE LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS BE RESOLVED IF PEOPLE DIDN'T PURSUE IT.

      You've completely failed to answer this question multiple times. Please, before you respond in any other way to me, explain to me how the American civil rights movement that ended segregation should have gone. I ask because to me it literally represents the beauty of our republic in which inadequacies were brought to bare and our great country rallied behind the purity of our country's vision and sought to resolve them as best they could. Was the movement pure? of course not, your example is spot on. Is our country better off for it? Absolutely yes it is.

      Honestly it's like you're from some other planet to me. Pursuing the equity of a minority group is the very definition of pursuing the goal of egalitarianism. Can there be negative side effects from this? Of course there can but that does not mean it isn't further the cause of proper equity.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    23. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      HOW THE FUCK ELSE WOULD AN ISSUE LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS BE RESOLVED IF PEOPLE DIDN'T PURSUE IT.

      You've asked this question three times now and I've given you multiple examples of ways in which you could pursue it and ways in which is has been persued poorly with negative consequences. I gave you the hypothetical soup kitchen example, which can be broadly adapted to many situations, in which the problem is addressed without discrimination and in which inequality decreases as a result. This is not purely hypothetical, incidentally, soup kitchens are a real thing and this happens every day. The only hypothetical part is applying this method to other problems. I've given you the real-world civil rights example, which was discriminatory enough to not only cause these women to quit but to found their own movement in response. I've given you the network neutrality model, which... apparently you disagree with? You seem to think that promoting something does not mean diminishing something else? You're okay with fast lanes, or you just think that's different... somehow?

      Don't answer that, I don't care. If you're just going to ignore me and keep asking the same question over and over again, as though I hadn't responded, then yes: I guess we are done.

      For the record, I criticized the civil rights movement. I didn't say that it was bad, or that it was all bad anyway. Obviously there are a lot of positive changes which can be attributed to that effort. The real question is: Could the civil rights movement have been better? ... Maybe. As I have already said, there's a question of whether they could have achieved what they did if their focus had been broader. Sometimes changes have to be incremental. So that's an argument in favor of it exactly as it was, in which it ignored the civil rights of women and everyone else. On the other hand, if we look at the Black Lives Matter movement - almost all of the very significant pushback is stemming from their decision to focus solely on the racial aspect, and not on the more general topic of the militarization of our police force. If they had been more inclusive from the start I do think that they could have achieved more than they are achieving, both in their narrow goal of addressing the treatment of black people by our legal system and in the broader goal of addressing the treatment of everyone by our legal system. (This is an application of the soup kitchen example, which you apparently never read.)

      But, seeing as we're not talking anymore anyway: what the hell? How is it that I have to explain in such detail that explicitly discriminatory behavior is anti-egalitarian?

      A: "We're here to help people."
      B: "Great. I'm a person in need of help."
      A: "Ha ha, no. You're a B. Fuck you."

      This is exactly the opposite of what egalitarianism is supposed to be. Sure it can potentially have positive results, two wrongs do sometimes make a right. I said that way up at the top: "The argument is usually made that women are disadvantaged and so promoting them increases equality, and while this may be true in some contexts..." So what? That changes nothing.

      Whatever. You know I put a fair amount of work into writing this shit, only to have you ignore it. I'm glad we're done. Trying to have any kind of discussion on the internet is a huge waste of time.

    24. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "A: "We're here to help people."
      B: "Great. I'm a person in need of help."
      A: "Ha ha, no. You're a B. Fuck you.""

      But it's not that at all. All you want to see is exclusion. To put it in the language you just used, what the scenario really is that If category B enjoys a score of 10 in terms of civil rights and category A enjoys only a 6 then helping category B get to 10 is the very definition of egalitarianism. If category A comes up comes up and asks for help in terms of civil rights then yes, they would be rejected. They don't need the help

      Now if a category C person along, who also gets a 6 in civil rights, then they are referred to groups for C. Now that I'm thinking about it this is probably where you see the exclusion but really it's just focusing on doing one thing really well as opposed to spreading yourself too thin. Major corporations do this type of thing all the time to improve focus on core agendas.

      Your soup kitchen analogy is terrible by the way which is why I ignored it. Their category of specialization is feed the poor, not everyone. This is why you don't find soup kitchens in upscale neighborhoods. If everyone came to them they wouldn't be able to afford to operate.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    25. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      If I make an analogy that you don't like or don't understand, you don't just pretend I didn't say anything and keep asking the same question over and over again as though I had never given a response. That is not a conversation, that's just being an asshole.

      Also, this is not accurate: "Now if a category C person along, who also gets a 6 in civil rights, then they are referred to groups for C. Now that I'm thinking about it this is probably where you see the exclusion" a third category isn't necessary. The point is that I'm differentiating between groups and individuals, egalitarianism isn't all about groups. The exclusion that I'm talking about is happening at the individual level.

      This is the problem right here: "If category A comes up comes up and asks for help in terms of civil rights then yes, they would be rejected. They don't need the help" - If someone is in group A, and group A is, on average, better off than group B, this does not mean that this particular member of group A does not need help. It only means that they are less likely to be in need of help. Rejecting them based only on the group that they are in is outright bigotry.

      The soup kitchen helps with a specific problem, hunger, rather than helping a specific group of people. The soup kitchen does not help those who are not hungry, which is why you don't find soup kitchen in upscale neighborhoods, it only helps those who need it but it does so regardless of what group they are in. Because a larger portion of group B are hungry, the soup kitchen helps members of B more often than members of A. Thus in doing so not only does the soup kitchen help everyone who needs it without discrimination, it also reduces inequality between groups A and B. So it is egalitarian at the individual level and at the group level.

      This was the point in structuring your help around dealing with problems rather than helping groups.

    26. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry for you that you want to see exclusion in a group devoted to raising up an individual group who has suffered discrimination. In pushing a category of people towards proper equity all you want to see is discrimination rather than progress.

      You're either an alien or some one who is so committed to denying the virtue of civil rights groups that you've poked your own eyes out.

      Where would America be without the very specific effort to get women the vote? Where would America be without the civil rights revolution that brought social equity to blacks? America is quite obviously a far more egalitarian society because of these movements

      How about you explain how those movements are bad to me?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    27. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      I've already given an explanation for one of those things, and the other can be extrapolated fairly easily. Second-guessing the past is always a dubious prospect anyway. Maybe it's time for you to offer something: you say that I "want" to see exclusion, when obviously, from my perspective, all that I see is what's there. There's no "want." That claim doesn't make any sense, it's clearly just a passive-aggressive insult. Exclusion exists, and so I see it. The question is - why don't you see it? I've spelled it out as clearly as I can, from my perspective it's undeniably there. You have given no reason to deny it's existence, and you've had plenty of opportunity to do so here, so it seems to be undeniable for you as well. Yet you continue to focus only on the positives and apparently remain completely blind to the negatives. Maybe you don't "want" to see them?

      How about an explanation: why are you incapable of seeing this discrimination, or recognizing that it is bad? Actually, I'm getting the impression that you're struggling with abstraction, so before you answer let's try some of the more concrete examples:

      The National Organization for Women is a large group which operates through many member chapters. The organization does a lot of things, and I'm sure that the chapters operate in a semi-autonomous manner (that's usually the case with organizations like this), so I'm going to focus on a single action by a single chapter. Specifically, this is a scholarship offered by one member chapter of NOW. It directly benefits the people who get it, and directly harms no one. It exclusively helps women who identify as feminists. This is very clearly "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests," so I am identifying this as a feminist action, per the definition that you linked above.

      The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is likewise a large group which operates through many member chapters. The organization likewise does many things, yadda yadda. This is (or was) a scholarship offered by one member chapter of the KKK. It directly benefits the people who get it, and directly harms no one. It exclusively helps white people who are christian.

      Planned Parenthood is also a large organization, but its individual locations are less autonomous than with the other two. This organization likewise does many things, one of those things is services related to the screening and treatment of breast cancer. Women suffer breast cancer at a rate two orders of magnitude higher than men do, but some men do get breast cancer. For this reason these services help vastly more women than men, but help is available to anyone who needs it, without exclusion. This is organized activity, but it is in the interest of anyone who has breast cancer, not specifically women. So I am identifying this as a non-feminist action.

      By now I'm sure that you can figure out my opinions on these three examples: these scholarships by this chapter of NOW and this chapter of the KKK are focused on promoting their respective groups. It is my opinion that they are detrimental in this way, even though they directly harm no one. The indirect harm of discrimination is significant, and discriminating against anyone who doesn't fall within your preferred group is anti-egalitarian. Meanwhile, like the soup kitchen, Planned Parenthood is addressing a problem rather than a group. Just like the chapter of NOW, Planned Parenthood's action mostly benefits women. Unlike the chapter of NOW, Planned Parenthood's action doesn't exclusively benefit women - it is available to anyone who needs it.

      I included the KKK here because most people agree that they are a discriminatory organization. I'm hoping that this will make the point unmissably obvious, but we will see.

      So: I would like you to explain to me

  41. Complete Strawman by skam240 · · Score: 1

    The definition of a strawman. Please mod down.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  42. Or another way of seeing it by skam240 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes "

    How about another way of seeing it? How about gay people don't want to be denied basic commercial services provided to everyone else? If a baker can tell a gay couple they won't make them a cake they can tell a black couple the same.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Or another way of seeing it by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      "But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes "

      How about another way of seeing it? How about gay people don't want to be denied basic commercial services provided to everyone else? If a baker can tell a gay couple they won't make them a cake they can tell a black couple the same.

      A whole bunch of bakeries have been found for you to go and protest and wage lawfare on! I'll be waiting with baited breath while you stir up the left wing mobs to run these folks out of business.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:Or another way of seeing it by skam240 · · Score: 1

      How about I let gay folks sue them along with say, the civil liberty union and let the courts settle these issues on an individual basis? No need to make the fuss you seem to want. Like with any criminal behavior, when the crime is actually commited, the legal system can be brought in and resolves the issue.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re:Or another way of seeing it by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      How about I let gay folks sue them along with say, the civil liberty union and let the courts settle these issues on an individual basis? No need to make the fuss you seem to want. Like with any criminal behavior, when the crime is actually commited, the legal system can be brought in and resolves the issue.

      That's a bunch of rubbish. The two noteworthy bakery cases out there are plain instances of agitators seeking out Christian bakeries to ruin.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    4. Re:Or another way of seeing it by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Well if these Christian bakeries followed the law of the land then they wouldn't be ruined. It's really terribly simple.

      If a gay person walks up to a Nazi skin head and says "I'm gay" and then gets the shit beaten out of him it's the Nazi skin head who will be punished. There is nothing wrong with a gay person asking for a "gay" wedding cake any more than just announcing their sexual preference. If one had a problem with gay folks that's ones own problem and shouldn't be put on the gay people in question.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  43. Hate and Far-Right Symbols by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    What about Far Left symbols?

  44. Point by Point. by skam240 · · Score: 2

    "1. American immigration laws should be enforced."
    Sure but some common sense compassion is just what's right here.

    "2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens."
    How about the first link I found on the subject that even sites its research. https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
    So basically, white folks do far less time than black for selling drugs on average. Sure, it's not police exclusive but it is most certainly tied to the same core problem.That's a single example on the issue.

    "3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy."
    Sure but on the other end forbidding immigration to some of the most vulnerable peoples of the world is criminal (in a moral context). Just because a person is Muslim doesnt mean they should be treated differently when they seek aid from mass violence. Proper screening? Of course. Banning? These are fucking human beings suffering here.

    "4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age."
    So children in poor families should go malnourished thus greatly diminishing their future competitiveness and thus increasing the likelihood they will be unproductive as adults? What a truly amazing idea that is.

    There's nothing truly racist happening here but minority communities who are disproportionately poor will suffer far more with such a policy than others.

    "5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime."
    Please see gun violence and homicide rates for any first world country of comparable wealth. You're creating the purist of fictions on this claim. Our mass gun ownership is making us far less safe than in comparable countries.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Point by Point. by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Do you think that the ONLY difference between the US and those other first world countries is gun ownership? Do you think that there's no other possible reason that there could be a difference in violence?

    2. Re:Point by Point. by skam240 · · Score: 2

      Sure, Americans could just be culturally hyper violent compared to the rest of the the first world. From my own personal experiences traveling in the US and abroad i doubt that though. Furthermore if you look at overall crime statistics you'll see that US citizens isnt really more prone to criminal behavior.

      If you read any European news it becomes quickly apparent that they have far more knife violence then us. But guns are so much easier to kill some one with so why arent these people using guns? It's because they can't find any to buy legally or even illegally as all illegally sold guns come from a legal source at some point. Some European countries like the UK even provide a knife violence rate much like our own gun violence rate because knife violence is such a significant issue for them

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re:Point by Point. by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      What about poverty rates and economic inequality? Social safety nets? Social divisions? Any chance any of those have any effect? The Swiss issue assault rifles to a large chunk of their populace and have (or had the last time I checked) lower homicide rates than Britain. At the same time Obama's election ushered in an era of unprecedented firearm sales in the US, but homicide rates continued dropping until 2015.

    4. Re:Point by Point. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "What about poverty rates and economic inequality? Social safety nets? Social divisions? "

      All of these is why one uses first world nations in comparisons.

      As for the Swiss, they are very clearly an outlier. A small country with an even smaller population? That's a very common place to find outliers in data sets in social studies.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  45. Lack of brilliance by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    No, nothing can go wrong. Targeting hate and far right? We see more hatred and violence from the left, now and historically.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  46. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  47. Re:Fear this powerful nation! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Saviours of the Just, protectors of the Golden Child.

    Bearing responsibility for yet another K-Pop boy-band is not exactly something to be crowing about.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  48. guilty if we say you are by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Tranny anti-freedom activist ex-Stasi agent builds magic box that declares people to be witches even when no external sign of witchcraft is visible to normal people. No chance for abuse here, no, none at all...

  49. Finally! by Shemmie · · Score: 1

    A tool that can identify Pepe, the flag of Kekistan, cartons of milk, and the "Okay" emoji.

    All of these have been deemed "white supremacist dog whistles" in the last couple of years. I'll let you in on a tip; each time, you're being trolled. Hard. And the clever thing is, by having a meltdown over something as benign as "they're drinking milk!", you're desensitising a lot of people to words like 'racism', 'nazi', 'white supremacy', by tossing them around so freely.

    These were words used to carry an awful lot of impact. Now, you can be a racist for doing the "okay" hand signal, while sipping milk.

    This revolutionary NSA hacker with her AI (is it just some sort of idiotic neural network trained to spot Pepe / look at Richard Spencer's Twitter feed and track new memes?) is going to be a massive success.

    It'll be up there with the advances in AI used to power Twitter blocklists.

    1. Re:Finally! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      not to mention the swastika that has been the symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism for centuries (in both right-handed and left-handed spiral forms).

      we're going to find a lot of airport prayer rooms and temples, must be dens of racism!

  50. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    The great innovation that created the web was hyperlinks. Since the 90s we have been able to not just say "I saw this on YouTube", but provide an actual link directly to the content!

    For some reason some people don't use this facility to enhance their arguments.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  51. Re:Odd by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Hilariously you just described this story's comments exactly.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  52. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

    Yep. Racism has been redefined by the Left to include "power" you can't be racist if you don't have "power" which conveniently means that they can be as shitty as they want, then claim that they aren't racist because they don't have "power."

  53. Same in Europa ... by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

    Often so called anti-fascists end up being fascist and intolerant themselves due to a lack of true empathy. The only empathy they can feel is exclusively for those they choose. Usually people they see as victims of injustice. They cannot see the other side of the story and are unable to see nuances. I personally blame this on egocentric and possibly narcissistic disorders. You see them on both sides of the political spectrum.

    --
    Bach says it all.
  54. Yankee doodle. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    What happens when the symbolism gets co-opted by the targets? This has happened before, and the most recent case I can think of is Jewish forum posters choosing to put (((Echo Brackets))) on their handles.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  55. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Seems like a good way to fight racism.

    I know..go figure, right?

    I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.

    Seriously?

    Geez....common sense has gone 101% out the door in the US.

    And I have seen of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white colour you are inferior to whites... Amazing what you can find if you look for it.

    The difference between you and I is that I know that the subjects of these videos are nutters and not representative of their society as a whole. Nor would I use such a nutter as a strawman.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  56. Hard mode: by qe2e! · · Score: 1

    It's a corporations video describing how they make steel tubes. The subtlety is extraordinary (except for the part where they say "final solution heat bath". That's just lingual gymnastics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  57. Why stop there? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    "Ex-NSA Hacker Is Building an AI To Find Hate and Far-Right Symbols on Twitter and Facebook"

    Why not include far-left "dog whistle" symbols, too?

    Or do you just need to look for things like "This is CNN" or "Copyright 2018 New York Times" and such?

    (The preceding paragraph was hyperbole for effect, and possibly humor.)

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.