Slashdot Mirror


Internet is Getting More Civil, a Study by Microsoft Says (fortune.com)

While social media may feel like a trash heap at times, Microsoft released a new study on Tuesday that claims civility is spreading on the Internet... at least slightly. From a report: Microsoft's Digital Civility Index fell two points, to 66, in 2018, signaling that Internet users around the world are treating each other slightly better, although there's still plenty of room for improvement. The closer the index is to zero, the more civil people are toward each other. The survey measured the perceptions of teens and adults in 22 countries about their online experiences and the risks they face when spending time online. If the news that the internet is apparently becoming more civil comes as a surprise, U.S. readers may want to hold onto their seats. The civility index in the U.S. fell ten points in the past year to 51, showing the biggest improvement, according to a blog post from Microsoft.

230 comments

  1. Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by ewhenn · · Score: 1
    1. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all starts with indochimp msmash and downs kid beauhd.

    2. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is full of shitty smelly parasites hindu-chimps.

    3. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by dougdonovan · · Score: 2

      People "have" to treat each other nice online or they end up getting sued and yes, printed digital documents will stand up in a court of law.

    4. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, nerd

    5. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People "have" to treat each other nice online or they end up getting sued and yes, printed digital documents will stand up in a court of law.

      You don't have a clue about the real world, you clueless eunuch.

    6. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More fascist censorship and SJW intolerance of freedom of speech turn it into libturd concentration camp.

      I love how people supporting actual nazis talk about SJWs calling them out for their continued bullshit.

    7. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      I have news for you but "actual nazis" have been dead a long time. Nowadays there are just faggots pretending to be nazis.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the actual American Nazi Party has disbanded you clueless ass-dropping?

    9. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *closet unix

    10. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Todayâ(TM)s SJW crack down on free speech, and liberal concentration camp in america is a real thing.

    11. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Dr. Phil calls himself a doctor but he's not a doctor and not licensed to practice medicine. Calling yourself something doesn't make you that thing.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re: Microsoft Tay says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe there are still be some still alive, but they've got to be in their 90s by now and not long for this world. I mean, my grandpa was held in a nazi POW camp in 1944 and 1945 and he's still alive, I assume the same would be true on the other side.

  2. Leave Brittney Alone!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't we just all hug and get along.... bwahhhhhh.

    Because the the verier of civility is only as deep as the knowledge of where your next meal is coming from.

    1. Re:Leave Brittney Alone!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean veneer?

      Your speling hen is broked.

  3. Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ads... Good God the ads. I can't even read the summary because of bullshit ads popping up all over it. Wtf is with this new mobile layout?

    1. Re:Slashdot is Garbage by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      Browsing the internets on your phone? Stop bitching, pleb. You're a 2nd class netizen.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    2. Re:Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm about to give Bernie Sanders a sponge bath.

    3. Re: Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid phones had stupid ad block (on android Firefox) for ages now, grandpa.

    4. Re:Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not seeing any ads on Fire Fox with adblock plus. Years ago I had an ad come through on an older PC with a virus. That was the last time I allowed ads to be downloaded and displayed on my end. I really don't care if sites go under because after getting one infection years ago I said never again to web ads.

    5. Re: Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep talking and give more reason to hunt down ad block for good.

    6. Re:Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to get him his pudding pack!

      His tummy gets upset without his pudding for lunch.

    7. Re: Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You deserve every virus you got. If there were web borne AIDS, you would 100% deserve it.

    8. Re: Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every AC loves webassembly based ebola.

    9. Re: Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >i can control what my phone browser does
      AHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

      You don't have to use a real OS, I ain't your supervisor, but don't pretend you're anything but the ecosystem's bitch

    10. Re:Slashdot is Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have forgotten to root your device and install a decent adblocker.

    11. Re:Slashdot is Garbage by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Firefox on phones comes with an ad blocker. Super useful for a lot of reasons.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no common ground anymore, so there is no point in trying to discuss things with people at the other end of the political spectrum.

    I dont even try anymore, if youre a Trumper, youre not worth my time. You dont believe in objective reality, and since thats what all my arguments are based on, there is nothing really i can say to you that will click.

    Is this the calm before the storm?

    1. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is no common ground anymore, so there is no point in trying to discuss things with people at the other end of the political spectrum.

      I dont even try anymore, if youre a Trumper, youre not worth my time.

      Your sentiment is probably indicative of what is happening here. You don't want to talk to "Trumpers" and they almost certainly don't want to talk to you either.

      Certainly with news sites we're seeing polarization occurring. You can't just have news anymore- you have to have liberal news OR conservative news. People go to their own sites. There is enough internet for everyone now that conservative people tend to congregate around conservative sites and liberal people congregate around liberal sites.

      If there is more civility, it's because we're isolating ourselves more now. We're going places where we are comfortable in our ideology. We don't meet in middle ground anymore, there are special havens online for people that think like we do.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what im talking about.

      No point in talking to children like you. Go back to your comforting lies on fox news, no need to think about whats going on outside your gated community.

    3. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by sycodon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sunday nights there is a radio show called Beyond the Beltway hosted by a guy named Bruce Dumont.

      It has a reasonably wide market I think on AM radio. He usually has an evenly matched panel of self professed liberals and conservatives of various stripes.

      Last Sunday he had a young woman on who worked for Democrats causes in one form or another and made a crazy statement...

      She had not heard of Northam's comments regarding infanticide, which pretty much blew up the internet for a few days until he went all black face.

      The reason she hadn't heard it, and didn't believe it (she stated such on the show) was that it wasn't on NPR, PBS, and a short list of far left sites she frequented.

      Perfect example of what you mention.

      And I should mention, only one side has stopped talking. The side that dismisses anyone who disagrees with them as racists.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you missed the riots at campus's over speakers with differing opinions. Causing those opinions to be censored.

      I guess you missed that these riots started with the Antifa becoming physical and attacking people.

      Who the fuck wants to talk to some pussy like you that doesn't recognize the censorship and hate that comes from the likes of liberal cunts like you.

      I do look forward to civil war, because you low life mother fuckers started it with your own actions. It's time your blood flows instead of conservatives.

    5. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yer a real self prophecy fulfilling cunt, aren't you?

      You behave exactly how you accuse others of behaving.

      I doubt you could have a civil conversation with anyone.

    6. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can do that because i have reality on my side.

      I am talking to you from the point of view that reality exists & is important.

      You are talking to me from some fantasy land where every news agency in the world is lying except fox news.

      I do not respect your world view because it is not worthy of respect.

    7. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about believing in moral reality?

    8. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by sycodon · · Score: 0

      You just proved that AC's point.

      You proudly stand up and proclaim that you are the problem.

      Nice move.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're both proving my point.

      Thanks for helping.

    10. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you provide an example of your "objective reality?"

    11. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha!

      You got called out.

      Idiot. Your stupid little snark is pointless.

      YOU are the people rioting when speakers com to campuses
      YOU are the people assaulting others who express a differing viewpoint
      YOU are the people who DOX people and then show up at their homes.

    12. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1, Informative

      And I should mention, only one side has stopped talking. The side that dismisses anyone who disagrees with them as racists.

      That's not true. Both sides have stopped.

      It was the right that split off first with things like Rush Limbaugh network, Fox News, Storm Front. The left mimicked the right- CNN went to the left when Fox became popular (it may have had a slight left bend before then because journalists themselves tend to be more liberal- but it wasn't a deliberate bias like today); news sites like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed popped up. The left never really managed a viable alternative to the right wing radio editorials like Limbaugh- but they tried to crack that nut too several times.

      The phenomenon of ignoring the main stream and creating a "safe space" where everyone thinks alike, started on the right and was copied by the left.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    13. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell the "infanticide" thing, including the word itself is an emotionally loaded conservative take on what he said. It makes sense she wouldn't have heard that interpretation if she's not listening to right-wing media.

      Were there any examples of a right leaning person who did not see an emotionally charged left-wing interpretation of something that was not on their normal right-wing watchlist?

    14. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This implies that talk radio came from no where. It became popular on the right because they were excluded by other medians.

    15. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I can do that because i have reality on my side.

      Sounds like the crusaders who couldn't lose because they had (their) God on their side. We all know how well that went in the end.

    16. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to comment on the reality that humans are a sexually dimorphic species and some are born male and some are born female? Thought not.

    17. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no common ground anymore, so there is no point in trying to discuss things with people at the other end of the political spectrum.

      I dont even try anymore, if youre a Trumper, youre not worth my time.

      Your sentiment is probably indicative of what is happening here. You don't want to talk to "Trumpers" and they almost certainly don't want to talk to you either.

      Certainly with news sites we're seeing polarization occurring. You can't just have news anymore- you have to have liberal news OR conservative news. People go to their own sites. There is enough internet for everyone now that conservative people tend to congregate around conservative sites and liberal people congregate around liberal sites.

      If there is more civility, it's because we're isolating ourselves more now. We're going places where we are comfortable in our ideology. We don't meet in middle ground anymore, there are special havens online for people that think like we do.

      "Good people on both sides" And one side consists of KKK & nazis.

    18. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by nwaack · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I dont even try anymore, if youre a Trumper, youre not worth my time. You dont believe in objective reality, and since thats what all my arguments are based on, there is nothing really i can say to you that will click.

      You know what's really funny? Idiots like you that think their crap doesn't stink are the reason the orange putz became president in the first place. You walk into a conversation already believing you're better than everyone else and then call someone a nazi as soon they disagree with you. You may think you're a big man but you're really just a tool.

    19. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called Karma asshole.

      What goes around, comes around.

      Don't like it, then quit being a cunt.

    20. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by terrycarlino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you listen to the full interview it is obvious that Northam was discussing a baby who was born with a disability. It is quite common for pro-abortion supporters to bring up fringe cases like rape, incest and disabilities because they get more support by ignoring the fact the the vast majority of babies are aborted because they are inconvenient for the mother to bring to term and raise. Yes I said inconvenient. The vast majority of abortions do not happen because of economic issues.

      Now the question becomes: Is it alright to allow a child to die, which can be medically saved because they have a disability? Sure it is more expensive, physically harder and more intrusive to your lifestyle to have to care for a child that is disabled. But do we really want to live in a world where the law allows inconvenient people to be killed?

      Most people don't think so, which is why some pro-choice Democrat probably leaked the yearbook photo.

      And for the record when you kill a child after it is born that is infanticide.

    21. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by terrycarlino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the other side consists of Anti-Fascist authoritarian terrorists and violent anarchists.

      Or we could just admit that some people on one side believe that we shouldn't try to erase history and some people on the other side believe we shouldn't build monuments to traitors and slave owners. But that would require actually talking to each other and coming to some kind of accommodation. I don't know like a big brass plaque next to a confederate statue that says something like: This racist monument brought to you by the Democratic party. The party that tried to destroy the Union in support of slavery. They built this statue after the war when they retook the government by denying civil rights to people of color. Let us never forget.

    22. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you'll find that most conservative pundits/hosts/whatever, when they take questions after a speaking engagement, will ask those who disagree to go to the front of the line.

      Rush welcomes Liberal callers.

      Fox almost always, if not always, has a representative of the Left included in discussions.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    23. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The one thing which moderates see as being the hallmark of the right is stubbornness. The hallmark of the left is projection.

    24. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by bob4u2c · · Score: 2

      I remember reading the local free news paper a few years ago. In it there was an article by a local reporter just starting out. The reporter had been given some expensive tickets by their parents to a BBQ put on by a local politician for fund raising. Obviously the reporter hated the politician with red hot anger, as the rest of the article went on to describe how they choose to boycott the whole ugly affair. But then they spent their time tracking the politician on facebook finding photos of the event. They then proceeded to rip everyone in the photos as the cause for all the cities troubles and for supporting the candidate. The final point of the author was that the politician was trash and that not going was the best decision they every made, they also threw in that the politician should be removed from office for all the types of people who attended.

      Now my take away from the article was; what an idiot they were! Your parents already paid for the tickets, so the politician got the money anyway. You not attending didn't harm them in anyway. You stood in your corner yelling how awful they were and anyone associated to them must be as well. Instead why didn't you use that opportunity to confront the political at an event they couldn't just walk away from? Or how about you call them out in front of their friends and let them explain themselves? Or possible why not have a decent conversation and try to understand their motivations and reason, maybe talk some sense into them.

      Whenever looking at politics I keep thinking back to this story. Politics is now just a game of "us" preventing "them" from doing bad things. Lets not sit down and try to understand each others views and come to some common ground. Nope, now we spent huge amounts of time looking for a way to shame or dismiss "them".

      And yes I purposely was vague and left out details such as gender, race, and party affiliations; because it really doesn't matter.

    25. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to disagree, he didn't have a wide market and thinking he does makes you a racist.

    26. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      controversy sells, and so does the appearance of being fair and balanced...again both sides guilty of that.

    27. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      And the other side consists of Anti-Fascist authoritarian terrorists and violent anarchists.

      Or we could just admit that some people on one side believe that we shouldn't try to erase history and some people on the other side believe we shouldn't build monuments to traitors and slave owners. But that would require actually talking to each other and coming to some kind of accommodation. I don't know like a big brass plaque next to a confederate statue that says something like: This racist monument brought to you by the Democratic party. The party that tried to destroy the Union in support of slavery. They built this statue after the war when they retook the government by denying civil rights to people of color. Let us never forget.

      Yesterday's Democrats are not today's Democrats.

      Yesterday's Republicans are not today's Republicans either.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    28. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rush welcomes Liberal callers."

      As someone who's listened to his show for 20 years, I haven't heard him take a call from a lib since at least 2008.

    29. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This implies that talk radio came from no where. It became popular on the right because they were excluded by other medians.

      And they may have had a fair point with that, I wouldn't say they were excluded, but there has always been a slight bias against the right in media; it wasn't a deliberate bias though. In general, I think the kind of people who are most into journalism tend to lean to the left. Historically, the more artsy people have been left leaning, and journalists have been recruited more from the language arts crowd.

      I think TV and radio may have had a gentle bias because of that towards the left. (newspaper media has always been polarized politically on both ends of the scale).left mimicked them and we ended up with the ridiculous polarization of the media that we have today).

      What people like Rush, and Fox News did in reaction to that "accidental bias" against the right was to go full scale right-wing with a deliberate bias. In the course of three decades we've gone from small natural biases to massive opposing armies of biased journalism.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    30. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They all put on the 'other side'. They all pick morons to represent the 'other side'.

      Fox news loves Antifa tards. MSNBC loves David Duke. Just two sides of the same dimwitted coin.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    31. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A 75th trimester abortion is not 'infanticide', it's 'adolesenticide'. I'm all for it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    32. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      Your sentiment is probably indicative of what is happening here. You don't want to talk to "Trumpers" and they almost certainly don't want to talk to you either.

      The problem is most people are not qualified to be political, you can't have a politics that literally rejects the laws that govern the unvierse and is anti-science, and that is the entire republican party. Most americans would never accept that science shows they are not authorities on what they do and don't know about the world. AKA human perception is much more direly flawed then we've imagined. There is no sound politics that rejects reason and evidence, you can't have a functional world where people can't accept that science shows people are not very good at seeing the world clearly and building accurate political perspectives from the data.

      Science on reasoning...

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

    33. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by greythax · · Score: 1

      The quote actually uses the word "non-viable." As in can't be saved by medical science. Aa in a baby born with Sirenomelia, who doesn't have the body parts needed to survive. Some babies just cant survive without an umbilical cord. With the proper care, we can tell this in advance. And forcing a lady to carry it to term is just cruel to her, and the baby, as once it is born the only thing that will happen is that it will die, slowly and painfully.

      This is why we can't make any headway on this issue. Because people believe in this mythical boogeyman that is going to go through the pain and discomfort of carrying a baby for 9 months and decide ON THE FUCKING BIRTHING TABLE that they don't want it and it should just be killed, as opposed to giving it up for adoption. It's ridiculous. It's a fairy tale.

      I used to think it was lack of education on the issue, but now I am convinced that people believe this shit, or are comfortable with lying about it for the "greater good."

      I swear, I just wish medical science would come up with a different term for removing a dead foetus from the womb so we could stop talking about these "late term abortions."

    34. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by greythax · · Score: 1

      That's weird. I heard it on NPR. The day it happened. They actual audio of the quote. And then again when the "infanticide" mischaracterizations started up. Maybe you should try listening to some of their podcasts, like Up First and Weekend Edition. I find them extremely non biased sources of news. Though maybe not as entertaining as an AM radio pundit.

    35. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you proved his point. You didn't want to talk to him. You didn't even closely address his point, you just dropped an insult like you're some kind of hot shit. Your mind is made up. His mind is made up. My mind is made up. There is no point in arguing about it anymore. Either everyone accepts the new reality and moves on with life, or we fight it out.

    36. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we can't make any headway on this issue. Because people believe in this mythical boogeyman that is going to go through the pain and discomfort of carrying a baby for 9 months and decide ON THE FUCKING BIRTHING TABLE that they don't want it and it should just be killed, as opposed to giving it up for adoption. It's ridiculous. It's a fairy tale.

      Of course. Not one woman has ever drowned her kids in a bathtub. Not one strapped them into car seats and let the car roll into a lake when dad was at work. These are fictional events. Boogeymen.

      Mothers are the most likely to kill their newborns and the least likely to be charged. It's so bad, in fact, that The risk of being a homicide victim is highest during the first year of life

      It's far past time to not see women as objects not responsible for their actions and as actors as evil as any man.

    37. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just Rush, either. Most of the other hosts like David Webb, Andrew Wilkow, and Michael Medved, take liberal and/or disagreeing calls every day. There are certainly hosts that don't deal with disagreement as well as those three.

    38. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by mentil · · Score: 1

      AKA strawmen. If someone actually believes strawman arguments, then a strawman seems like an accurate representation of the position. So this may be more ignorance than malice.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    39. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There are actual idiots making the arguments.

      It's more cherry picking morons to represent your opposition. Neither side is doing that by accident or stupidity.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    40. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by greythax · · Score: 1

      Of course. Not one woman has ever drowned her kids in a bathtub.

      Not with the supervision and consent of 3 doctors. Did you read the bill, or just ignore that part? Stop feeling your way through public policy issues and start THINKING your way through them.

    41. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Game on Bitch!

    42. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just proved that AC's point.

      You proudly stand up and proclaim that you are the problem.

      Nice move.

      Different AC here. No, the problem is you seem to believe there isn't a correct and an incorrect. Facts matter. Reality matters. The truth matters. Trump supporters and largely the GOP in it's entirety do not live in reality. What they believe is true is objectively, demonstrably false. It's that simple. The fact that you can't see that means that YOU'RE the problem and also, ironically, the minority. Being a fool that lives in denial doesn't make you correct, it just makes you a useless fool. Gaming the system and the gullibility of desperate morons doesn't make you the majority, though I concede it does make you good at exploiting a broken system. Arguably that's because you're evil and don't care about the spirit of said system, only how you can hurt brown people with it.

      2+2 != 5 no mater how much you may want it. Luckily, it seems you've publicly made fools of yourselves enough and simply destroy EVERYTHING you touch so the GOP will most likely never be in charge again and you'll be remembered as the assholes of history, much like the Nazi. That's why people make the comparison. It's not our fault you insist on being so Nazi-like. Thoughts and prayers.

    43. Re:The two sides have stopped talking to eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add to that: hidden posts (not deleted, but still hidden from view), deleted posts (actually removed including sometimes subposts off the deleted post), sometimes extra account verification "due to recent activity" as a hurdle from logging back in, some cases account suspension... has anyone had an account fully locked but otherwise revoked from any access indefinitely?

      It's been censored to appear that much "civil" even when what's been said doesn't cross any boundaries of discrimination or hate.

      Sometimes they just don't want the truth... or if it's been said already, they don't want the other posts reaffirming it.

      (Just like this one posted as AC... is it deleted, or left alone and remains at its default score even if no one mods it higher or lower?)

  5. That was me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stopped calling everyone faggot online. You're welcome.

    1. Re:That was me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have kissed your first man.

    2. Re:That was me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I called everyone faggots long after that happened. Just because I kissed a man doesn't mean I think that faggots aren't nasty.

    3. Re:That was me by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I stopped calling everyone faggot online. You're welcome.

      For once, Anonymous Coward posting expletives is relevant to the discussion!

      Thanks AC!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    4. Re:That was me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If I'm so gay, why do I fantasize about my wife when I'm having sex with dudes?"

  6. benefits of censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    when more than one 'side' is way too many..

  7. The Internet is Getting More Civil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If by civil you mean spam or hateful or divided, then yeah, I agree.

  8. Treat others the way they treat them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a trolidiot or flattard or creotard or libertarian fool or whoever treats others like "snowflake" or "globetard" or "god hater" or "communist" then they deserve to be called trollidiot et al. When they try to shame you for being mean, or others do, AND YOU REFUSE TO BACK DOWN, then the trollidiot brigade no longer see the spewing of hate and vitriol and insult and blatant assertion is their field alone and suddenly they don't want to play.

    Same with griefers on CoD et al. When they're ganked and picked on, suddenly they don't want to play any more and everyone else can get on with playing like normal social humans.

    Sure, you may be confused and in fear about hell so therefore you cannot help yourself being a bible literalist therefore a 6 day creationist, and so you MAY get hit by fire when YOU, PERSONALLY, do not treat others with this disdain, but if you refrain from whining about mean people, therefore their atheism or whatever is wrong, you won't get hit again. And if you are, they are a trollidiot. And if you treat them as such, remember YOU CAN MISFIRE TOO. So ignore the person insulting and reply to the insult and realise that what you hated receiving you are giving out too, so if you can be well meaning, so can others.

    What made the internet so bad was people being shitheads and not being called out like they call others because anyone else is shouted down by concern trolls and even well meaning idiots.

    What is clearing it up is people not listening to the "Concerned of Mayfair" posts and giving back to the shitlords what they love to deal out but cannot handle receiving and not seeing that they are being protected by their opposition's opponents.

    1. Re:Treat others the way they treat them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What made the internet so bad was people being shitheads and not being called out

      You are a Shit Head.

    2. Re: Treat others the way they treat them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love your subject line and how your first line starts with "When a trolidiot or flattard or creotard or libertarian fool..."

      Keep up the great work, show those bastards we're not going down a path to civility without a fight!!

    3. Re:Treat others the way they treat them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a trolidiot or flattard or creotard

      Hans! English doesn't work that way, Hans.

      Enjoy the diversity, Hans! We won't be saving you this time around.

  9. I am wondering on the factors. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    I think it is partially due to the Anti-Cyber Bulling information going out. Also how most tech companies are tracking down on Trolling.

    I think we need to indirectly thank Trump for this. By emboldening the "Deplorables" we are really seeing what the Racists and how they were using coded messages before. A lot of people may have begin to realize (as I have), how many things I use to say, actually hurt people.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by sycodon · · Score: 0

      dog whistle
      noun

      1. a high-pitched whistle used to train dogs, typically having a sound inaudible to humans.
      2. a rhetorical device meant to imply racism where no evidence of racism can be found.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >A lot of people may have begin to realize (as I have), how many things I use to say, actually hurt people.
      You urgently need to disavow your racist nazi past self and adopt your newly assigned identity. Your name is now Lowly Brad Twinklebelle.

    3. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by sinij · · Score: 0

      I don't know you or your past conduct, but unless you were casually dropping N-word or viciously going after someone in other ways, you were not "actually hurting people" with things you used to say.

      Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.

    4. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BULLSHIT!

    5. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. Also by using the term "Deplorables" you have triggered several people in Texas. Please report to the nearest reeducation center. /sarcasm

      No, we shouldn't think the biggest asshole for being an asshole. Nor should we be engaging in "Words fucking hurt me!" BS. If you can't deal with what others say about you, then some self-scrutiny is in order. The people whining about hurt feelings mostly just want to avoid any thought that blemishes their self-image or makes them reconsider their opinions and they have become chronic victims because of their desire. I.e. They literally reject any idea that they disagree with and demand protection from society against said idea. This is wrong. People should be more confident in their opinions and self-image. If what someone else says is enough to change any of that to the point of "hurting" you, then you never truly believed in those opinions or had a good self-image in the first place. Society is doing them a favor by trying to get them to re-evaluate things. They should be smart and actually appreciate it. As there's plenty of others who'd love to take advantage of their over-inflated ego, and weak opinions.

    6. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.

      And violence. If words are a form of aggression then it is acceptable to respond with aggression and force to stop aggressive people.

      It really is a damning line of reasoning that is used to abuse innocent people for wrong think. It's kind of scary how quickly and popular it became.

    7. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by sycodon · · Score: 0

      That's how we get cops being murdered in cold blood.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I want the "words will never hurt men" back in schools.

    9. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I'm curious... why do you single out a particular word as "actually hurting people" and dismiss everything else?

    10. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't know you or your past conduct, but unless you were casually dropping N-word or viciously going after someone in other ways, you were not "actually hurting people" with things you used to say.

      Actions have consequences, and one of the consequences of some speech is that it emboldens people who do bad things by creating an environment where their ideas are normalized. It's not just N-bombs, or "vicious" verbal attacks, but also the maintenance of a culture of abuse.

      Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.

      Speech is not itself violence, but some speech does legitimize violence in the minds of the willfully or otherwise spectacularly ignorant. It might not be direct harm, but it's still contributory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by sinij · · Score: 1

      ...some speech is that it emboldens people who do bad things ...

      Citations? Or at least try to explain to me how this is different from discredited "video games cause violence" trope, only with "ideas dinkypoo finds objectionable" substituted.

      Speech is not itself violence, but some speech does legitimize violence in the minds of the willfully or otherwise spectacularly ignorant. It might not be direct harm, but it's still contributory.

      "Legitimize violence" is a nonsensical standard, as it uses judgment and actions of external actors that you have no control over to judge your actions. That is, how other people might react isn't a good standard for evaluating one's actions. For example, if someone goes on a killing spree after reading this post, am I contributory to the resulting violence? More so, should I be prevented from posting just because someone could react with violence? What if in order to silence me, someone decided to react with violence to anything I say?

    12. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by sinij · · Score: 1

      My apologies, I will issue you a full refund of the fee you paid to read my post as it doesn't appear to meet your needs.

    13. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ...some speech is that it emboldens people who do bad things ...

      Citations?

      You are being disingenuous, this stuff is not hard to find if you want to. You clearly don't. Now ssssssshhhh, the adults are talking.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Kunta Kinte.

    15. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      See, when I said "I'm curious" I meant that I was curious why you did that. I assume the smartass reply means you don't want to share the reason?

    16. Re: I am wondering on the factors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize the masses of the American working class, whom you denigrate as "deplorables", consider you a despicable tool of the financial oligarchy - right?

    17. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by sinij · · Score: 1

      Please, you can do better than "Orange man bad" shitposting. Plus, Trump in context of free speech is clearly a red herring argument.

    18. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Please, you can do better than "Orange man bad" shitposting.

      If only you could do better than "It says orange man is bad so it must be wrong" head-up-ass posting.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by sinij · · Score: 1

      It is telling that you would rather herp a derp about Trump than speak about original point - speech is not violence. Trump is as bad as it gets, but going full SJW to get rid of him is not a worthwhile trade-off. For now checks and balances are mostly containing him, and one of those checks is freedom of speech that you working hard on undermining.

      Also, I find your post deeply offensive, hence it must be you enacting violence on me.

    20. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It is telling that you would rather herp a derp about Trump than speak about original point - speech is not violence.

      You don't get to talk shit about herp a derp while willfully misconstruing the argument, you disingenuous douchebag. It's not that speech is violence, it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by sinij · · Score: 1

      It's not that speech is violence

      I am glad we agree that speech is not violence, and treating it as such is wrong.

      it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.

      "Can promote" is not a an argument, it is a hypothetical without any kind of attribution of responsibility. The fallacy you are trying to sneak into this argument is that if speech can be shown to promote an action, no matter how reasonable such action in response to speech is, then speaker should be held responsible for such action. An example of this principle would be, you ask me to get a coffee, I go rob a coffee shop and now you are an accomplice to robbery.

      People enacting violence should be held responsible for said violence. Stop using safety from hypothetical violence by unreasonable people to try to censor ideas you find objectionable, you jack booted regressive e-thug.

    22. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.

      "Can promote" is not a an argument, it is a hypothetical without any kind of attribution of responsibility.

      No, it's a conditional which denotes the fact that not all speech promotes violence. This is a lot simpler than you want it to be. Reality doesn't work the way I want it to either, but I don't pretend otherwise.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:I am wondering on the factors. by sinij · · Score: 1

      it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.

      "Can promote" is not a an argument, it is a hypothetical without any kind of attribution of responsibility.

      No, it's a conditional which denotes the fact that not all speech promotes violence. This is a lot simpler than you want it to be. Reality doesn't work the way I want it to either, but I don't pretend otherwise.

      No, it isn't a conditional, as it can't be evaluated objectively. How could you possibly create objective standard around "can promote others to act in violence"? This is how you end up with blasphemy laws.

  10. Feelings by Bengie · · Score: 1

    I can't argue about the validity of what they're measuring, but it seems they're measuring the perception of civility. It's entirely possible that people have become more "rude", but others are more willing to put up with it. I quoted "rude" because what is considered rude is a social perception.

    1. Re:Feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything that I think is rude is hate speech and should be banned.

      Also, anyone who disagrees with me on this is Hitler.

      Thank you and have a lovely day.

    2. Re:Feelings by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Informative

      I can't argue about the validity of what they're measuring, but it seems they're measuring the perception of civility. It's entirely possible that people have become more "rude", but others are more willing to put up with it.

      TFA makes it clear that people are not becoming more civil, at least if it can be believed. History tells us it's better to believe Fortune than Microsoft, and I'm going to listen.

      But there was a dark side to the results. Microsoftâ(TM)s research found people were experiencing more consequences of online harassment, bullying, and unwanted contact. People reported losing sleep, feeling more stressed, and becoming less trustful of people both online and off. Each negative consequence increased three to four points in 2018.

      Though it seems thereâ(TM)s a reason why people are feeling like the Internet is slightly more civil than it was in 2017: theyâ(TM)re starting to unplug more. The survey found that 27% of peopleâ"a 4% increaseâ"said all of the negativity has prompted them to spend less time participating on social media and blogs

      So just to be clear, harassment, bullying, and unwanted contact are up, and people have stopped using services because of it, but civility is somehow also up? That doesn't even make a small amount of sense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Feelings by Bengie · · Score: 1

      +1 funny/civil

    4. Re:Feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it does, it makes perfect sense.

      What they are saying is that those people who have untreated psychological disorders -- probably undiagnosed as well -- are withdrawing their participation from "social media" and "blogs" as a results of their disorders rather than what they previously did, which was to be "all upset" and potty-brained.

      With the removal of the defective's the remaining conversations occur more often amongst the non-defective. Since the "population" of defective thinkers is reduced, they do not skew the results so much. This means that the "same conversations", now that they do not suffer defective interpretation, are seen in a different light.

  11. It's not getting more civilized by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's just that people are now aware that it's massively under surveillance, that anonymity has been thrown out the window, and that anything they say, even under a pseudonym, can come back to haunt them. So the worst offenders are becoming more PC because they don't feel totally free to say any old shit anymore.

    Exactly the same effect as when people realize they're being watched on CCTV cameras in supermarkets : many don't dare scratch their butts discreetly behind an aisle like they used to.

    It's quite chilling actually, if you ask me... I preferred the wild internet to the self-censored one: at least you could see humanity raw, as it really is.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people only act decent out of fear of punishment or reprisal, and are complete monsters otherwise.

    2. Re:It's not getting more civilized by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      So the worst offenders are becoming more PC because they don't feel totally free to say any old shit anymore.

      Nah they're just saying the same old shit, and automation has made it boring

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:It's not getting more civilized by sinij · · Score: 2

      Nah they're just saying the same old shit, and automation has made it boring

      Someone should suggest this project adopt Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct.

    4. Re:It's not getting more civilized by TigerPlish · · Score: 0

      Most people only act decent out of fear of punishment or reprisal, and are complete monsters otherwise.

      This. A million times this. Most "christians" are good because they believe in some supernatural sky god that will punish them for eternity, and not because they are innately "good".

      We're animals. We love to hunt and kill. Millions of years have not bred that out of us. Professors, preachers and pundits will not drive it from us. We're animals.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    5. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. A million times this. Most "christians" are good because they believe in some supernatural sky god that will punish them for eternity, and not because they are innately "good".

      Define good. Christians often state that those who do not believe in their God are destined for eternal damnation. They also believe that they are saved, and forgiven for all of their transgressions.

      Sounds like radicalization to me.

    6. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians believe in god because they choose too. Christianity is a credo based religion and not a religion based on fear of the almighty or set forth in laws. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the Holy Spirit. These are choices not made out of fear but of faith.

    7. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counter: Most people don't act maliciously out of idleness and are completely self-serving otherwise.

      Yes, that still means profitable behaviors will be embraced by "monsters". Even when it compromises others, offloads risk, or outright harms others. These behaviors scale up, and we'll victimize millions for a buck.

      If you're praising surveillance you now know what "needs" to be watched, not commoners.

    8. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But....according to the doctrine, if you didn't believe then you would be tortured in fire forever....right?

      That is what happens to all non-believers, right? Whether you choose to ponder it much or not, it is the absolute truth as taught by your religion, right?

    9. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The absolute truth is to love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind. Then love your neighbor as yourself. As to non believers suffering an eternity in Hell if they don't believe. I would state that only God determines judgement against you and we don't know the mind of God. I'll someone it up as best as I understand. If you have children and they are misbehaving do you not punish them or scold them?

    10. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on what you just posted, you don't understand Christian doctrines very well at all. It sounds like you need to go back to Sunday school, for real.

      The purpose of punishing children is so they will behave better in the future. And the punishments are designed to be non-injurious, because you don't actually want to hurt them, you just want to correct them.

      Endless torture qualifies as "injurious." It is an act of hatred, not of love, and certainly not of mercy. And also, it does not improve future behavior because once you start enduring this punishment, you are stuck with it forever, it never ends.

      So the moral justification for punishing children does not apply to the doctrine of hell. The attempt at using it as justification is a poor argument technique, used by people who are incapable of thinking things through, or who are intentionally trying to use fallacies to trip up the listener.

    11. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Based on what you just posted, you don't understand Christian doctrines very well at all. It sounds like you need to go back to Sunday school, for real."

      It doesn't get any more basic then Love god with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love god. This is the most basic tenant of the Christian faith.
      Walk up to any Christian on the street or any church and this is the answer you will get 9/10 times.

      "So the moral justification for punishing children does not apply to the doctrine of hell. The attempt at using it as justification is a poor argument technique, used by people who are incapable of thinking things through, or who are intentionally trying to use fallacies to trip up the listener."

      Let me explain using a less simpleton analogy. God is so good more than we can possibly imagine he sends us to Hell out of that goodness and not despite it.

    12. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moreover, the concept of infinite punishment for finite crimes is inherently malicious and evil. Suppose that god's justice holds Hitler in contempt for not merely his sins, not just the sins he ordered, but the sins he inspires today and in the future until the end of humanity. That's key, the END of humanity. Christian theology (The reference frame in which we operate here) confirms that the time of humanity as mortals is limited. No matter how many Nazi reichs pop up from now till the end, there will be an end, and Hitler will stop accruing crimes. But that's not the end of time. From there, Hitler's punishment if infinite will continue to a point at which he has paid the toll. Billions of years, Trillions of years or more, that end will come. And from there, the punishment cannot continue in the face of a moral God.

      Yet we are told we must not look at naked pictures, least of all those featuring our own gender, lest we face this eternal torture.

    13. Re:It's not getting more civilized by terrycarlino · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Christian and Christian belief is hard to talk about in absolutes because there are thousands of individual Christian religions many of whom have divergent beliefs. So if you say some Christian group believes that anyone who doesn't follow their understanding of Christian faith will go to eternal damnation I'm absolutely sure you'll find one that does.

      My understanding is that anyone who rejects God will not go to heaven, because to be in heaven is to be in the presence of God. If you reject him why would you want to be with him?

      As revealed in scripture before the creation of the physical world Lucifer rejected God and he was banished. If you die and don't go to heaven you're fair game for Lucifer, also known as the devil to do with as he pleases. Does that mean eternal torture? I don't know, but Satan doesn't seem like avery nice guy.

      At best God created everyone to be with Him. If you reject Him then eventually you'll feel the loss of being separated from Him. Think of it as they way you feel if someone you love has broken up with you or died. Is that feeling torture? Maybe, but you're the one who rejected God, so if you're torture over it then why blame God for it?

    14. Re:It's not getting more civilized by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      This isn't really true. The religious like to believe that the non-religious are immoral monsters because they don't believe in the threat of eternal punishment, but it's a lie. People, religious or otherwise, get most of their morality from the people around them, particularly as children. Morality the world over is fairly uniform, and isn't really that different in any social species.

      Yes, we're animals. Yes, religion is irrelevant. No, we're not naturally monsters.

    15. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moreover, the concept of infinite punishment for finite crimes is inherently malicious and evil.

      No, because all crimes are crimes against a perfect, infinite Creator, the punishment for such crimes is likewise infinite. This is also why Christ's death on the cross is sufficient to cover this punishment--because as a perfect being he took on himself infinite punishment. But you have rejected this substitution because the only God you would accept is yourself.

    16. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God is so good more than we can possibly imagine he sends us to Hell out of that goodness and not despite it.

      That is truly amazing.

      Torture is considered a crime against humanity because it is not good. It is intrinsically evil to torture someone. And the more agonizing the torture, the more evil it is. And the longer the torture lasts, the more evil it is. And the more people you do it to, the more evil you are.

      God tortures nearly everybody, billions of people, for all of eternity, in the most agonizing way possible.

      This isn't just evil, this is an example you would use if you were trying to think up the most evil thing possible. It also serves as a good example of the most extreme antonym of mercy one could think of. The most extreme antonym of love too.

      You see? Hell is the opposite of love, mercy, and justice. The opposite. Saying "god does this because is is so much more good than we are" makes zero sense. Being even more good does not somehow mean it becomes good to do the most evil thing imaginable.

      This is the substance of horror stories! The fact that god lets a tiny few of us out of this pit doesn't suddenly make god all merciful and benevolent. It makes him a total sociopath! "Love me, or I will torture you forever." That is God's ultimatum to us.

      Any naturally loving person who loves justice would REFUSE to love such a monster. No sane person can authentically love someone who is guilty of such horrible abuses!

      So, you love this monster. You approve of his torture of billions of people. That tells me a lot about you.

    17. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God is so good more than we can possibly imagine he sends us to Hell out of that goodness and not despite it.

      Yep. Including my favorite, the "Universalists." They believe that when Jesus said things about Gehenna, the big valley outside of Jerusalem, that he was NOT, in fact, metaphorically establishing a doctrine about a place of eternal torture. And that God is not, in fact, the sort of monster that would cause, or even allow, his creations to wind up in a place of eternal suffering with no escape. They believe that God has the means, motive, and opportunity to save everyone (no exceptions), and therefore he will.

      They are my favorite because of how bad a reputation they have among the other sects of Christianity. Even though the Bible never says that you have to believe in hell in order to be saved from it, those who do not believe in hell are the most despised of all heretics.

      Hey, fun fact, the word "Lucifer" is a Latin word. The prophet Isaiah didn't speak Latin, and didn't use it. It was never anybody's name. The only reason it appeared in Christian lore is because the Bible was formalized in Latin before being translated to English. The translators kept that word around because it sounded like a proper name, where as "morning star" was too obviously not a proper name.

      If you read the whole passage that Isaiah wrote, starting with the beginning of the chapter, it is obvious that he was talking about a very human king at the time (it would have been Nebuchadnezzar). The whole story about an angel named Lucifer that fell from grace....that is all the result of taking extreme license to inject unwritten meaning into a deliberately mistranslated verse.

      But hey, don't let the facts shake your faith.

    18. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I preferred the wild internet to the self-censored one: at least you could see humanity raw, as it really is.

      And yet there are always posts on /. crapping on ACs.

      Funny, considering the roots.

    19. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the Bible once.

      From that I gleaned that Jesus died for my sins and I am forgiven and will go to heaven. The logical conclusion therefore is that I am duty bound to sin as much as possible so that Jesus may experience the maximum "worth" of that sacrifice.

      Thumpers claim that "it does not work that way", however they are unable to cite any reference for that belief.

    20. Re: It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epic fail

    21. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually think the internet was more civil when it was TRULY wild.

      Back then if someone was being a cunt, you'd just take them offline via some kind of exploit or DoS.

      Then they made things like that illegal, and so good people stopped doing it, and only people who were cunts and happy to break the law would do it.

      Being a cunt on the internet is something that used to be self regulating, and when it became illegal to take cunts offline that self-regulation was loss and the number of cunts grew significantly.

    22. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap, well I am today's idiot. I responded to two posts in this thread and put the same blockquote in the top of each response.

      Meh. Everything I wrote was still true.

    23. Re:It's not getting more civilized by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Been reported and watched by EU and the UK gov/police will do that to computer users.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    24. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense.

      If the crimes are against God, then they have done no harm. Since it is logically impossible to harm an all-powerful being. Since the crimes have done zero harm, there is zero moral justification for doing retaliatory harm.

      And even apart from that, stating that all crimes are against God is a trick of stipulation. A logical shell game designed to confuse the situation and make something irrational seem to make sense. You steal from somebody, obviously your crime is directly against the person you stole from. THAT is the person harmed. Saying "oh but it was ACTUALLY against God" is an obvious lie. Nothing was stolen from God. Nothing can be stolen from God, as this is a logical impossibility.

      Bottom line, you are telling me that I deserve to be tortured in fire forever because I made the same mistakes that all humans make, and that all humans must make because we are all created from the beginning as imperfect, mistake-making beings.

      Do damn way. No human deserves to be tortured forever, especially not for simply being human. You are a horrible person for saying I deserve this, and you are in love with a horrible monster that tortures billions of people. And, I might add, who doesn't actually exist.

    25. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What point are you trying to make? That some obscure translation for the name of the Devil disproves Judea/Christian beliefs?

    26. Re:It's not getting more civilized by swell · · Score: 1

      Surveillance is a factor, no doubt. In this century my emails to friends and family are as vulgar as ever, but we are all very careful about the speling of certain words. Speaking of our prezident, Mr. t. Rump, for instance, or any US erected ofishul. We obfuscate words like tererist and Central I.A. Even events/people/organizations in other countries require such treatment.

      This is slightly more convenient than encraption and it offers a bit of creative exercise.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    27. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe there is evil then you must also believe there is good. If you believe in good then you must assume there is a moral law that good is based upon. So there must be a moral objective standard to judge the difference between good and evil. Then you must assume there is a moral law creator. If there is no creator of the moral law then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law then then there is nothing to judge good vs evil. So you have invoked a moral law in asking this question of why does God send people to hell. So in asking you are stating that this would be immoral of God to do so. So you have two subjects at play in this question. You have the reality of an moral God and you have the autonomous human being. The central viewpoint in Christianity which exists in no other religion is that God created us from love and love proceeded life. This is the central point of all ethics that God created us in his own image of love. If god has created us in the image of love for the purpose of love. Then one of the aspects of this love is self determination. So that would be immoral of god to violate that self determination and take away your free will by compelling you to acknowledge him. Nobody ends up in an eternity away from God except by their own choice. Heaven would be like Hell for someone who wanted to be autonomous human being. The autonomous human being has chosen to be apart from God in this world and in doing so have also chosen to be apart from him in the next. Which this goes back to your question which assumes a moral law which you can not assume unless there is a moral law creator.

    28. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      You might not like it, but how is that not more civilized? People behaving because of social mechanisms is the very definition of civilized. Being polite and well-mannered, regardless of why, is another. Both fit quite well.

    29. Re: It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You kind of proved the posters point, what with you lack of citation and argument.

      I will point out that your beliefs about God come entirely from humans. Humans who wrote the Bible, humans who decided which books belong in the Bible, humans who translated it for you, and humans who tell you how to interpret it. There is an army of humans behind your beliefs, every single one of them fallible, mistaken, deceitful.

      And you trust them all. Completely. Without having even met a single one of them. And without a shred of evidence for their claims.

      Do you consider yourself a critical thinker?

    30. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Let me react as I read the sentences. Ones I don't quote, I don't exactly object to, although sometimes I think I'm being a bit generous.

      So there must be a moral objective standard to judge the difference between good and evil.

      This doesn't actually follow from your premeses. You can believe that there is good and evil based on a moral subjective standard.

      Then you must assume there is a moral law creator.

      This is a complete non-sequitur. Why must there be a moral law creator for there to be a moral law? Unless you stretch the definition of moral law creator to mean that you yourself could be the moral law creator, but that seems to stand in contrast to your meaning of moral objective standard.

      If there is no creator of the moral law then there is no moral law.

      Restatement of the above, but again, makes no sense unless you stretch the definition of moral law. It's like if you have an untuned radio and instead of playing music it plays noise. Then you say, if there is no musician creating the noise then there is no noise. You could argue that whatever electromagnetic interference is caused by a "musician" of sorts by stretching the definition of musician to remove the implication that it is an external entity directing the noise, or you can say that no, there is no musician.

      The central viewpoint in Christianity which exists in no other religion is that God created us from love and love proceeded life.

      Did you mean preceded? I can't parse "love proceeded life". But I am extremely skeptical that it exists in no other religion, if for no other reason that there are spinoff religions to Christianity that maintain some principles but drop the centrality of the Christ figure and therefore are definitionally non-Christian. But since I don't understand the sentence I can't give you a sure example.

      This is the central point of all ethics that God created us in his own image of love.

      No, this is factually wrong. For instance, the central point of utilitarian ethics does not make reference to God creating us in his own image of love. Or egoism. Etc..

      So I think you're using a non-standard definition of ethics. Can you clarify what you mean by "central point of all ethics" in this context?

      If god has created us in the image of love for the purpose of love. Then one of the aspects of this love is self determination.

      First, you stated that was a Christian belief, but now you're using it as a premise. The belief was unproven. It's entirely possible that followers of a religion believe in a thing that's self-contradictory.

      Also, you're missing a premise here, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the stated premise. I think the premise you're missing must be something like "God doesn't make mistakes and God created people with self determination, and therefore that must be an aspect of love", but that's just question-begging (circular) because you're trying to prove that God has these good properties.

      So that would be immoral of god to violate that self determination and take away your free will by compelling you to acknowledge him.

      Doesn't follow. You just said that God gave you self-determination for love. If we conflate good with love for a moment, you're saying you know self-determination is good because God gave it to you, and now you're saying God can't take it away because you know it's good. That's circular/redundant. *Why* is it good?

      Of course, that's with me adding your missing premise in the last sentence. If I did it wrong, well okay, but you still didn't provide premeses that reach this conclusion.

      Nobody ends up in an eternity away from God except by their own choice.

      This assertion is a bit out of nowhere. Do people with extreme mental disorders make this ch

    31. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      I agree with all your points, but I also want to add:

      No, because all crimes are crimes against a perfect, infinite Creator, the punishment for such crimes is likewise infinite.

      So if you commit crimes from a guy with $1 billion dollars guy does that mean your punishment should also be $1 billion dollars, but if you steal from a pauper you pay nothing?

      This doesn't make any sense on the face of it, before even pointing out that a crime against God is essentially bankrupt terminology.

    32. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really that obscure. Not everybody knows it off the top of their head, but it's the straightforward etymology and lots of people know that even from pop culture. And he's questioning whether it's a name for the devil in the first place...

      But regardless, it wouldn't disprove any "Judea" belief because Lucifer is not part of the Jewish religion. The linkage to a Hebrew word is a bit more obscure and anyway kind of irrelevant.

      It would just be about a very particular belief common among Christians.

    33. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you have rejected this substitution because the only God you would accept is yourself.

      Holier-than-thou is EXACTLY the wrong tack to take when you mean to accuse someone of the Deadly Sin of Pride. To criticize God as a mortal is no more arrogant than for a peasant to criticize a king. To believe you would be a better God, or that you speak for god, is Pride's domain.

      Seriously. Lust, Sloth, Gluttony, you have material to work with. Pride, for a yutz like me that doesn't even bother to post under a name?

    34. Re:It's not getting more civilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rejecting God doesn't mean that I am open to Lucifer as I think that all of it is made up. If your supposed God wasn't a total petty dick he wouldn't allow for Lucifer to do what he supposedly does let alone the vast amounts of suffering that has been status quo for humans throughout history, and wouldn't base what happens to you on how much you prostrate yourself for him.

    35. Re:It's not getting more civilized by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      And they use that ridiculous "god fearing" phrase as a positive characteristic to describe people.

  12. Re:show butthoal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that's something a lot of slashdotters can get behind!

  13. Re: show butthoal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whisper those words sexily into mine ears in portugues, you irresistable HUNK!

  14. I think the narrative has been lost by bobstreo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Civility, when enforced is not civility. It's other people/bots censoring you. (Like if Dice eliminated the AC option in Slashdot because usually AC posts are uncivil)

    Freedom is the right to say anything you want. Consequences of that free speech are another issue.

    Civility would be considering what you are saying before you hit the submit button so you can be the first poster. It's possible to be more considerate if you want to, you shouldn't be forced to be civil.

    1. Re:I think the narrative has been lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      usually AC posts are uncivil

      No they aren't, shithead.

    2. Re:I think the narrative has been lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like if Dice eliminated the AC option in Slashdot because usually AC posts are uncivil

      I resent that!

    3. Re:I think the narrative has been lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have any criticism to what you said, just wanted to remind you that Dice hasn't owned Slashdot for a while now.

    4. Re:I think the narrative has been lost by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      People need to recognize that no-one owes them a platform though. If that channel decides they don't want certain content, that's their prerogative.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:I think the narrative has been lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... shouldn't be forced to be civil.

      Yes, civility is censorship and yes, it should be forced. No, civility should not be 'say what I say, do what I do'. Civility is the compromise between truth and the need to be co-operative, trusting society. Look at winner-take-all capitalism: Refusing to satisfy social needs causes a "fuck you, I've got mine" mentality. That is a culture of deliberate aggression which is the opposite of children's television: Naked bodies, the cruelty of a zero-sum world, physical violence and dead people must not be shown to children, ever. Adults have similar behaviour labelled Political Correctness. Society needs some civility (and thus, censorship) but avoiding everything intimate or unpleasant doesn't mean society is more civil. Nor does it protect society.

    6. Re:I think the narrative has been lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Civility, when enforced is not civility."

      Is there another kind of civility? No transparency and no bad consequences causes 'fuck you all' behaviour. Observable everywhere - from governments to corporations to people.

  15. But microsoft continues to grow more evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop spying on us, not telling us what in our updates/software, don't comment on good things unless you do good yourself.

  16. Penny Arcade said it best by necro81 · · Score: 1

    Brings to mind this Penny Arcade classic: gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

  17. Silly Microsoft by cordovaCon83 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is a software company. They could have used technology to, say, web crawl pages published in the past year and look for ranked words that may be considered offensive or lewd. Instead, they did a survey, which had a minor variance from the results they had last time they did a survey. Big story there. In other news, Microsoft asserts that people on the internet are feeling pretty good about the end of the world.

  18. No by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    No it's fucking not.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:No by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No it's fucking not.

      Microsoft: Internet is becoming more civil
      Internet: Hold my beer!
      Slashdot: Microsoft can stick that fucking beer up its ass

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Re: show butthoal by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Ommlette du fromage

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  20. Yes, but... by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I suppose you could say that the internet is more 'civil' than in the past, but the reasons why aren't what you think. If my small circle of friends is any guide, it's because everyone is scared to death to say ANYTHING that can be considered 'non-PC' or taken the wrong way by the internet lynch mobs. So they just keep their comments private among a chosen few or don't bother saying anything at all. Why risk saying something, even the most benign comment, that can be used to get you fired or destroy your life by a bunch of nameless people on the internet looking for trouble? It's just not worth it anymore, so the sane people just drop out. Even my 'woke' friends (hate that term, but they seriously do use it) walk on eggshells these days.

    So yes I guess the internet is more civil than in the past, but only because a small but vocal group of people have effectively silenced the rest (this isn't a left/right conservative/liberal thing, this is something much more sinister). I really had hoped that people would eventually start getting tired of the latest outrage de jour, but people just seem to feed on it so it continues to grow to ever larger and more bizarre forms of outrage. After all, outrage and victimhood is power these days. Who would willing give that up?

    1. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, the lynch mobs will destroy the life of "Tempest_2084."

      Mobs might occasionally swarm on a viral video or a celebrity (although the chances of that happening are equivalent to lightning striking, but nobody gives a fuck about internet comments. Nobody gives a fuck about you. And it's just as easy to be anonymous on the internet as not.

      Sure, some people might disagree with you, but you can handle that, right?

    2. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, the lynch mobs will destroy the life of "Tempest_2084."

      Mobs might occasionally swarm on a viral video or a celebrity (although the chances of that happening are equivalent to lightning striking, but nobody gives a fuck about internet comments. Nobody gives a fuck about you.

      Until they do care because you're in the spotlight for some reason.

    3. Re:Yes, but... by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      Actually you'd be surprised at the number of people who try to harass or destroy someone's life for the most petty of reasons. Doesn't have to be someone famous or someone in the spotlight. Irrational people (IE. those who would be willing to do something like this) aren't rational by definition. All bets are off when it comes to what they might do.

    4. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? What is the number? I'd assume it's very close (but not quite) zero.

      Even if you for some reason got a weird stalker randomly bent on ruining the life of Tempest_2084 because your comments weren't PC enough...so fucking what? Nobody knows who you really are. The internet is easily anonymous. Don't post your name and home city and you're totally OK.

    5. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... outrage and victimhood is power, these days.

      Since the 1950s, feminism had the mantra "I'm a victim, the world owes me". When it gained political power in the 1980s, it became the controlling social policy, silenced dissent and refused to co-operate with other ideologies. Now, we see other ideologies insisting "I'm a victim, the world owes me", then pretending (and demanding) they have the same political control as feminism.

      As long as they avoid the wealthy, a small group of people can harass the majority of the population. That includes people spouting political correctness, political propaganda and fake news, con artists and spam.

    6. Re:Yes, but... by sad_ · · Score: 1

      ... they just keep their comments private among a chosen few or don't bother saying anything at all...

      this is it, all the horrible stuff is still there, but now it's done in private groups, mostly shared among like-minded people. every now and then somebody gets access to it, leaks the stuff, and the group (or site) is shut down and moves to somewhere else.

      because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't really there.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  21. God gave them over to dishonorable passions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

    Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
    It has blood on it!
    ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander

    1. Re:God gave them over to dishonorable passions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does this God deserve adoration again? See also the Pharaoh-God specifically hardened his heart against Moses' pleas that God could inflict the seven plagues upon Egypt, when the Pharaoh left to his own devices per the bible itself would have been convinced of the rightness of Moses' plea for freedom. How can it possibly be right for God to deceive us and punish us for falling for it? That's like beating a child for believing in Santa Claus.

  22. Shitcock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nigga dick bin laden bbq

  23. Re:The inevitable creimer connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creimer is on YouTube. If you miss him so much, why don't you check out his Windows 10 certification video?

  24. It's a survey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...so it's reporting how people felt at the time they were asked. This tells us nothing reliable or valid about the rates & severity of abusive or incivil discourse on the internet. Perhaps the respondents have just got used to all the abuse & antisocial behaviour?

  25. Wandering stars, in blackest darkness forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who reject the Word of God, and take in His place the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, will face eternity without His grace.

    1. Re:Wandering stars, in blackest darkness forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who reject the Word of God, and take in His place the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, will face eternity without His grace.

      The actions of the faithful and the doctrine of the Tyrant they espouse make that sound very good indeed.

  26. The Good ol' Tarkin Strategy by eepok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line."

    From mass permanent public shaming for singular statements or 30-year-old acts of indiscretion, people will simply drop out from internet communication if they think earnest honesty, openness, or youthful rebellion will come back to ruin their lives.

  27. Oh yeah? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Fuck you and your study.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fuck you and your study, please" is the civil way to say it. Get with the libtard program and stop being so smart!

  28. Man in the Mirror by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Personally, I have become a lot more civil. I'm trying to set an example for the younger Slashdotters out there.

    But the haters and losers can't seem to handle my civility. That's OK, because like Ghandi, I can withstand their trollish nonsense and allow them to fuck right off. Plus, I've fucked most of their mothers, so it's all a wash in the end.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Man in the Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait until people discover what a misogynist and racist Gandhi really was and kick him to the curb.

    2. Re:Man in the Mirror by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Wait until people discover what a misogynist and racist Gandhi really was and kick him to the curb.

      In India, they have a #MooToo movement for calling out guys who sexually assault cows.

      OK, not really. I made that up as a joke in an effort be more civil. But seriously, fucking a cow is the worst. Except for that British prime minister who fucked a pig. Now THAT was the worst. I mean, it was only the head of the pig, so you can't even say you put a bag over the pig's head and got some of that sweet, sweet, pig poon.

      https://youtu.be/LvYkBmXeyeQ

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Man in the Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I heard that the actor that played Gandhi in the film used dark make-up. Get the pitchforks, Clem!

  29. Even privacy networks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tor, I2P, etc have begun seeing the same behavior on their IRC. Only a few people left willing to break societal norms in relative publicity. All the devs for both are now doxxed, meaning the networks are susceptible to personal compromise using publicly available data. Furthermore the platforms they run atop have questionable security to always on surveillance (Win10/Intel ME/AMD SP/Arm Trustzone+Android) so mass scale node compromise is not only possible, but for the paranoid, assured.

    The wild west of the internet isn't gone yet, but a lot more of the praries is giving way to pasture, townfolk, industrialization and finally cityfolk. Makes it hard to find anywhere left to be yourself.

  30. By their fruits you will recognize them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent man; yet because I had acted in ignorance and unbelief, I was shown mercy. And the grace of our Lord overflowed to me, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

    This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst. But for this very reason I was shown mercy, so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His perfect patience as an example to those who would believe in Him for eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

    1. Re:By their fruits you will recognize them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, what slashdot has become

    2. Re:By their fruits you will recognize them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you prefer we talk about evil instead?

    3. Re:By their fruits you will recognize them by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Cthulhu will eat you last.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  31. Orwell wins again, sadly. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    I used to think 1984 was a crazy exaggeration and that it could never get that bad. Every year I am proved more and more wrong. Here, let's look at his principle of crimestop:

    Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Orwell wins again, sadly. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Don't smirk, it's facecrime.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  32. Kill urself by synaxin · · Score: 1

    Be responsible about it.

  33. Which one? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Civil and censorship?

  34. WHAT?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is fucking BULLSHIT! I won't stand for a civil Internet, I just won't, it's TOO MUCH!!

    (THROWS chair, TRASHES room, STOMPS out angrily)

  35. The Lord said: Number the stars, if you are able by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

    “Who is this who obscures My counsel by words without knowledge? Now brace yourselfa like a man; I will question you, and you shall inform Me! Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its foundations laid, or who set its core in place— while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

    captcha:quantify

  36. Who's civility? by LordAba · · Score: 2

    When you have celebrities going after white males students for simply being white and male, it certainly makes me want to walk on eggshells. The fact that it gets clicks / likes / retweets to keep those addicted to the attention is sad.

    Covington was a test, and showed the worse of the so-called progressives. Most are out of touch... but it makes sense the the more extreme left are just a bunch of signalling middle class white folk

    There are good people on both sides, and there are bad on both sides. It seems like the left is more willing to defend their bad actors... or at least the media is.

  37. BULL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they really mean is the loony left are silencing other voices so the left are the only ones remaining.

  38. Those are far left to you???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FFS, there's a big problem of yours right there.

    PS care to recount an alex jones' fan or fox news viewer, neither of which are going outside their echo chamber except to bleat "Trump is winning!" and "You're triggered snowflakes, I got my gun!" et al.

  39. KathyGilford. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She was silenced by the rightwingnutjobs because of her speech. Acorn was silenced too through lies because they spoke for politicians on the democrat side. Silenced by the rightwing again. And if you protest, they will run you down and kill or injure you.

    The left will make mean words at you...

    And you call the left snowflakes!

  40. of course! by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    "The civility index in the U.S. fell ten points in the past year to 51, showing the biggest improvement, according to a blog post from Microsoft."

    We're all finally coming to agreement about certain politicians...

    1. Re:of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight. This is a "Civility Index". And it dropped 10 points. And that means that "Civility" increased?

      Am I the only one that noticed that this is complete crap? It should be called the "Incivility Index".

      Anyone who could make up such an index that is so incorrectly named and illogical should not be trusted to have any clue about that which they are speaking as they have demonstrated that they are completely untrustworthy and incapable of logical thought.

    2. Re:of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winston was pleased that the chocolate rations were increased from thirty grams to twenty.

  41. Donâ(TM)t forget censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything that doesnt conform to the current group think or undermines the âoedesirablesâ is deplatformed. This isnt an increase in civility, this is an increase in authoritarianism and should be of grave concern to everyone.

  42. Re:The inevitable creimer connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of hidden comments. What you have to say is incredibly boring, and if we can't make fun of you, what's the point? If you allowed open comments you would get a lot more Slashdot views.

  43. Except here which is civil war by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

    First!

  44. Re:The inevitable creimer connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You post random comments about having butt sex with creimer on Slashdot. What makes you think that YouTube wants to share your sex fantasy comments with family-friendly advertisers.

  45. Re:The inevitable creimer connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I understand there's a trade-off. I personally wouldn't post random comments about having butt-sex with you, but I understand it could happen. However, ultimately it would get your view-count up a little bit.

  46. Keep reading retard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And all the words, not the ones that you find comfort in. And know this: I don't give a shit if you think this "validates" your antics, since you fuckwits started it and made any old shit up before to validate it just the same way.

  47. Re: The two sides have stopped talking to eachothe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your objective reality? More like your own personal bubble.

  48. This measure is not about civility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This measure is not about civility on-line, it's about people's *perception* about civility on-line. The same happens with transparency.org Corruption Perception Index, which is presented as a measure of how corrupt a government is, when it's actually a measure of how corrupt people think *their* government is in each country. Facts are not measured or taken into account, only people's opinions about a certain issue. There are a lot o reasons why these two figures can be substantially different.

  49. let's see if we can get it over 9000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck you, miscrosoft

  50. Cpt. Obvious says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Antifa is actually fascist itself.

  51. Re: show butthoal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all you can say!

  52. Who got called out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WE are not the ones engaged in actual domestic terrorism. WE are not shooting up churches. WE aren't running people over with cars. WE aren't shooting up concerts. WE aren't shooting up schools.

    That's YOU fuckers.

  53. The once free West by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Has placed a version of its own Social Credit System over the social media internet.
    Police and gov reporting comments and the use of language.
    NGO's, political groups, think tanks and governments working to change the way people are expected to publish in real time.
    Telling people what content they can read and can link to.
    Users looking to report users for what and the way they publish their comments, links.
    People have to risk their profession, their reputation, their friends to comment on history, politics, science, art, culture.

    The internet will just move beyond the boring social media approved content.
    All the smart, fun, creative people will want to avoid a CoC, been reported on social media, tracked by their consumer OS.
    Advanced new parts of the internet will be created to reflect the fun of early usenet, IRC, P2P, forums networks.
    No more censorship, no self censorship.

    People want their freedom of speech back. Their freedom not to be tracked by a political CoC.
    The freedom to talk about a movie, DRM, a faith, a cult, political policy, history. To publish and to read what is published.
    To LOL at a funny political meme.
    To watch and read any media they want and to publish a link to that political content.
    What MS is detecting as "civil" is just the fear of a CoC, police, mil and the results of publishing about politics.

    People still want to talk, link, comment, read, watch and create.
    The only part that is missing is a move to a new part of the www that will give back the freedom of the internet before social media and its political censorship.
    Search engines that work hard to find content, not to hide and remove results.
    The ability and freedom to publish does not need a select few to curate content for any gov, company, NGO, think tank, brand.

    The ability and freedom to publish not a sin.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  54. Re: The two sides have stopped talking to eachothe by TheMeuge · · Score: 2

    That was not a productive reply. I used to be a Democrat and became a Republican when Democrats decided to turn into Bolsheviks. Politicians on the right tend to be rather abrasive, but the Republican grassroots is far more civil today despite everything the left says. I will have a much easier time talking about gay rights at my shooting range than about gun rights at a university.

  55. Of course it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internet overall is less anonymous than ever, the more you have to watch your step, the more civil you become. Otherwise some random Freedom Fighter might doxx you. My advise, just stay out of it for now. Let the kids bash each other to death while the grown ups go to work

  56. Re: The two sides have stopped talking to eachothe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... people wanting healthcare is enough to make you embrace a world view of wackjob conspiracy theories?

  57. Oh Tay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, they finally took Tay offline?

  58. Re: The two sides have stopped talking to eachoth by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Alas, there is nothing Bolshevik whatsoever about the Democrat Party.

  59. Re: The two sides have stopped talking to eachothe by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Today's "BUT MUH SCIENCE(tm)!!1!!" fundamentalists are yesterday's religious fundamentalists dressed up in new clothes.

  60. Pussies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bunch of fags!

  61. For uncivility a discussion must be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a bit hard to be "uncivil" (i.e. involved in discussions) when a lot of newsites have stopped having comments enabled.

  62. Re: The two sides have stopped talking to eachothe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Today's "BUT MUH SCIENCE(tm)!!1!!" fundamentalists are yesterday's religious fundamentalists dressed up in new clothes."

    The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.