Slashdot Mirror


Google Employees Are Lining Up To Trash Google's AI Ethics Council (technologyreview.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: Almost a thousand Google staff, academic researchers, and other tech industry figures have signed a letter protesting the makeup of an independent council that Google created to guide the ethics of its AI projects. The search giant announced the creation of the council last week at EmTech Digital, MIT Technology Review's event in San Francisco. Known as the Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC), it has eight members including economists, philosophers, policymakers, and technologists with expertise in issues like algorithmic bias. It is meant to hold four meetings a year, starting this month, and write reports designed to provide feedback on projects at the company that use artificial intelligence.

But two of those members proved controversial. One, Dyan Gibbens, is CEO of Trumbull, a company that develops autonomous systems for the defense industry -- a contentious choice given that thousands of Google employees protested the company's decision to supply the US Air Force with AI for drone imaging. The greatest outrage, though, has come over the inclusion of Kay Coles James, president of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that opposes regulating carbon emissions, takes a hard line on immigration, and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights. The creation of ATEAC -- and the inclusion of Gibbens and James -- may in fact have been designed to appease Google's right-wing critics. At roughly the same time the council was announced, Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO, was meeting with President Donald Trump. Trump later tweeted: "He stated strongly that he is totally committed to the U.S. Military, not the Chinese Military. [We] also discussed political fairness and various things that Google can do for our Country. Meeting ended very well!"
"Not only are James' views counter to Google's stated values," the letter states, "but they are directly counter to the project of ensuring that the development and application of AI prioritizes justice over profit. Such a project should instead place representatives from vulnerable communities at the center of decision-making."

66 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. So misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights"

    No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people. They shouldn't get special treatment or special laws. That's not how it works, we're all to be treated equally under the law.

    1. Re:So misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does this person also oppose special treatment for heterosexual people? (e.g. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman.)

    2. Re:So misleading by geekmux · · Score: 1

      "and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights"

      No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people. They shouldn't get special treatment or special laws. That's not how it works, we're all to be treated equally under the law.

      Thank you for that clarification/correction.

      Regardless of anyone's views on the topic at hand, eradicating bullshit and devaluing clickbait in mass media should remain a priority of any educated society who wishes to remain respected and informed.

    3. Re:So misleading by EndlessNameless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Care to explain why its ridiculous while two chicks marrying each other is not?

      I'm not the original AC, but this is easy enough to answer that I'll step in.

      Marriage is a legal agreement, and it requires legal consent. Legal consent generally requires an adult of sound mind.

      Thus, an equitable society will allow marriage between a man and a woman, two women, or two men. Marriage of children, animals, and objects is not sensible because none of them can provide legal consent.

      So, if you're looking for a clear line---here it is. On the other hand, if you're just trying to justify your bigotry... don't bother. No justification will make it less repulsive.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    4. Re:So misleading by Shaitan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hopefully so, that would be a moderate position. Ideally there would be no left or right extremes represented but only moderates. TFS seems to advocate for all one extreme, Google seems to have gone for a blend of left and left center.

    5. Re:So misleading by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Still better that ethicsvertising. Where bullshit corporations pretend to have ethics by creating ethics councils, that in the spirit of George Orwell and 1984 style are entirely stacked with people with no ethics.

      I mean though Google so fucking cheap on the ethicsvertising, I mean only four meetings a year, and only eight people. Oh how the greater than though moralists have fallen, all that bullshit feels good research into public benefit projects, that never seems to achieve anything beyond advertising.

      If you do not drop Gmail and block Gmail addresses, you are part of the problem, you are keeping corrupt companies like Google going. All sweetness and kisses on the outside but a bandoleer of daggers strapped to their back, all ready to go all stabby as soon as you back is turned.

      Does Trump like Google, absolute not, Trump ain't that stupid and he knows full well Google baked their search engine to be HUGELY biased against him. Hence the public announcement, dropped Google right in it on purpose, paid them back, Trump might as well have said, "Google see, a slimey behind the scenes scummy war monger but it public the lie all about SJWs and the extra rights of freaks because it is good advertising".

      Was it fair for Donald to drop Google in it like that, absolutely, I don't think much of him but I respect him at least for doing that, well done, Don.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:So misleading by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      Yup, the SSM debate has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with titles and perception. (Nearly) everybody was fine with giving SS couples equal legal standing, the real battle was over the name. One side wanted a certain image of marriage in the mind of society to be certified as the 'true' definition by government hammer, the other tried to stop them unsuccessfully. This was all about perception and the subsequent direction society would be pushed because of it.

    7. Re:So misleading by epine · · Score: 1

      [Historically, in deep history, or in rural America in more recent history] when the people in the US have been asked at the ballot if they wish to be a party to homosexual marriages, they [have] almost always [said] no, they do not.

      Even after I fixed your abuse of tense, no ballet question in all of recorded history has ever been quite this straightforward.

      And this one less so than most, because the opposition side deliberately frames marriage as a question about God's will, and not as an administrative question about contractual terms. Many of the people ostensibly opposing homosexual "marriage" would vote in favour of civil homosexual union, because this small semantic distinction is salient to many voters.

      Women's suffrage in the United States of America, the legal right of women to vote, was established over the course of more than half a century, first in various states and localities, sometimes on a limited basis, and then nationally in 1920.

      For a long time, the men said "no" and maybe to this day there were more total "no" outcomes than "yes" outcomes, if that's the way we're now conducting our backward-facing straw poll.

    8. Re:So misleading by epine · · Score: 1

      Who says animals can't consent?

      No-one who regards the human species as a form of animal life says that animals can't consent. On the other hand, barely anyone discusses consent at all in a functional sense outside the enabling context of a literate culture with a long, written history.

      Contractual obligations as we now understand them are joined at the hip with the written record (this being the preferred embodiment for anyone organized enough to do it the right way).

      The technology of modern consent is mastery of symbolic culture. In this matter, the bees might be further ahead than the dolphins. Not even my border collie ever quite managed to drop a written IOU on my lap to redeem today the walk he didn't get yesterday (though he certainly kept score of our verbal contract, on a minute by minute basis).

      Unpacking Suitcase Words — October 2009

      In The Emotion Machine, Marvin Minsky discusses suitcase wordsâ"words that contain a variety of meanings packed into them, such as conscience, emotions, consciousness, experience, thinking, morality, right, and wrong.

      The word 'consciousness' is used to describe a wide range of activities, such as "how we reason and make decisions, how we represent our intentions, and how we know what we've recently done."

      Correct me if I'm wrong, and you regard consent and consciousness to have no conceptual overlap at whatsoever.

    9. Re:So misleading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people.

      Here's what I don't understand about your stance: you want to deny rights to gay people (you're advocating FOR the heritage foundation here), by prventing them from marrying and getting the same legal protections and rights as straight people.

      But yet you swear blind that that isn't anything against gay people.

      You clearly think gay people deerve fewer rights because you are indirecly (but not very indirectly) advocating to use the force of law to deny those rights. But your you know that's wrong because you wish to hide those actions by claiming the opposite.

      Why?

      If you think it's OK, the come out and say it and stop pretending otherwise. if you think it's not OK, the nstop advocating for it.

      Either way your position makes no sense.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:So misleading by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people.

      He opposes laws that stop people making other laws which discriminate against LGBTQ people, e.g. banning same sex marriage. That's not "special laws for LGBTQ people", that's banning special laws for non-LGBTQ people.

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

      The other extreme, obviously.

    12. Re:So misleading by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      There are civil union contracts available out there for such folks....why not use them, same benefit, right?

      To me, "marriage" is a religious thing...and the govt. really doesn't need to be in that business. They should leave the marriage part to churches....and for legal contracts, everyone should use civil contracts....

      Seems like that should clear it up....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:So misleading by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      The government recognizes and enforces the agreement, but it is not a party to it.

      As far as this, however:

      When the people in the US have been asked at the ballot if they wish to be a party to homosexual marriages, they almost always say no, they do not.

      That is not true, and it has been untrue for years. I believe the majority support for gay marriage first occurred around 2013. It's been steadily growing for decades. If you truly believe the majority opinion should determine the public policy, then you should accept this particular policy.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    14. Re:So misleading by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Dogs can't enter into contracts.

    15. Re:So misleading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To me, "marriage" is a religious thing...and the govt. really doesn't need to be in that business.

      Yes, let's ignore how reality is right now and aim for lofty goals while conveniently continuing to deny rights to eople in the mean time.

      If the government recognises marriages (it does) then it should recognise them for gay coules as well.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:So misleading by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Well, in the posts I was replying to....the complaint was that gays didn't get the legal rights heteros do in marriage....and a civil union contract fulfills that, doesn't it?

      The post I was answering alluded to THAT being the important thing in all this....eh?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    17. Re:So misleading by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Animals cannot consent legally, nor can children. The ability to understand a contract or an agreement and its consequences is required for consent. If you want an opinion with greater detail, go bother a lawyer.

      If any of the above changes, feel free to reopen the marriage debate.

      who 'consent' in the generic sense of the word

      Which is why I said legal consent. So what happens when your entire post wants to confuse the definition of consent? It becomes an irrelevant, rambling nothingburger.

      a 17 year old boy... his 25 year old teacher

      May or may not be statutory rape depending on the state. It's not really relevant to the question of gay marriage though, so it doesn't matter here.

      Here is how you test for fairness and equality: Draw the line for legal consent. Whoever is on the "able to consent" side of that line can marry any currently-unmarried person who is also on the "able to consent" side.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    18. Re:So misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of "separate but equal"? You should read up on that.
      And as far as marriage being a religious thing, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Marriage historically has always been about politics (especially for the upper classes) and economics (for basically everyone). The reason religion got involved is just because they wielded considerable political power in the past. Marriage is basically a legal contract. It's about regulating possession and inheritance. In many countries in Europe the main part of the marriage is done by a government official, often nowhere near a church. The whole church ceremony thing is just a cherry on top, and most people just do it out of tradition, nostalgia and 'cause grandma wants it.

  2. Why even have a council at all.. by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looking at the furor over simply having someone with a slightly different point of view be able to speak and take part in decision making, it appears that humans are absolutely garbage at ethics determinations and probably we should just let the AI do whatever, it'll probably end up better than us at reasonable behavior.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why even have a council at all.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not a "slightly different point of view", it's someone who is opposed to treating certain groups as human beings and who supports denying their basic rights.

      If someone defining the ethics of your organization considered you and your relationship with your partner to be immoral and believes it should be illegal, it would be somewhat unreasonable to expect you to be fine with that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Why even have a council at all.. by Cederic · · Score: 2

      It's not a "slightly different point of view", it's someone who is opposed to treating certain groups as human beings and who supports denying their basic rights.

      Yes, but we're talking about someone espousing equal treatment for all, not the man hating Google employees.

    3. Re:Why even have a council at all.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Always about man hating with you.

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

      I don't meant you hate men, I mean you bring up man-hating all the time.

      I mean what is the man-hating angle here? Some Google employees are upset because an org that campaigns against LGBTQ rights is part of the ethics board. Why did you even bring it up again?

      --
      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:Why even have a council at all.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It wasn't funny. Sorry. The good news though is that this means it'll be part of Dennis Miller's new routine, so at least you'll get royalties.

  3. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You'll be branded as a racist and be fired and nothing will change.

  4. So, only lefties then? by nwaack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "How DARE they include people who aren't politically aligned to the far left! They'll run amok with their wrong think, mansplaining and **insert -phobic word of the week here.** Dissenting views will not be tolerated in our AI discussions!!!"

    My god, the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

    1. Re:So, only lefties then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you dispute cultural marxism at this point, your head is in your sand. You have picked up on exactly what identity politics is all about: only giving basic human rights to leftists and no one else. Social credit score is the same idea, but less underhanded.

    2. Re: So, only lefties then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think honesty, compassion and empathy in our leaders should be valued more than profits. Convincing through cooperation, not intimidation, is far too rare.

    3. Re:So, only lefties then? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      You forgot to shoehorn the word 'toxic' in there somewhere.

  5. Tolerance for me, but not for thee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ethics of only hearing approved viewpoints and opinions.

    How very fascistic of Goolag.

    1. Re:Tolerance for me, but not for thee by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Tolerance for me, but not for thee

      Looks like another 12 year old has discovered the "paradox of tolerance".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Tolerance for me, but not for thee by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is an attack on free speech. If you can't criticise what other people are saying or doing, you don't have free speech.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Tolerance for me, but not for thee by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The loudest defenders of free speech are its worst defenders by far. It seems like they want it for only inconsequential edge-lording. Anything that might matter they complain about.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. Violence by QuadEddie · · Score: 1

    Why do the smart people at Google not get that violence (or the threat of it) keeps the world working as-is? They should want to keep us up with the latest AI deterrents.

  7. How best to appoint these types of committees? by chewtoy-11 · · Score: 1

    I always wonder how on earth these committees are formed. Seems like every time a committee is appointed for a task like this, there is always a few conflicts-of-interest in the pool. So, how can we appoint people and screen out serious conflicts in a timely manner? When we have a committee like this, we need people that are highly educated in their respective fields, and preferably with a background or at least passing familiarity with the technical concepts involved. The pool is probably a lot smaller than we'd like to think -- and really, conflict or not, the people I'd like to see on this type of committees are people who have a track record of changing their stance when plausible and convincing evidence is presented.

    --
    C. Griffin
    "Can I keep his head for a souvenir?" --Max from Sam 'N Max Freelance Police
    1. Re:How best to appoint these types of committees? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >So, how can we appoint people and screen out serious conflicts in a timely manner?

      More importantly, why would we want to? Those serious conflicts of interest are what's necessary to avoid having your symbolic gesture become an embarrassment. Without them your ethics board might start suggesting courses of action that would interfere with profits, and then you'd be in the position of having to either lose money or obviously ignore your own ethics board.

      Much better for everyone (making the decisions) if the board is compromised from its conception to reflect the most important of modern ethical principles: making money and accumulating power.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  8. Google diapers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    *** BREAKING NEWS ***

    Sources confirmed earlier this century Google is full of intolerant tyrannical cry babies. Stay tuned for our special report at 11.

  9. So Google has 1000s of alt-leftists by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Color me surprised. It's illegal to discriminate against people based on their political views in California so these signatories, if holding a managerial position could be putting the company at great risk of a lawsuit.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:So Google has 1000s of alt-leftists by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's illegal to discriminate against people based on their political views in California

      Ideological discrimination only applies to hiring and employment. Appointment to an advisory panel is neither.

      Furthermore, political views are only protected if they are about public policy. So views on discretionary corporate behavior are unlikely to be protected by California law.

    2. Re:So Google has 1000s of alt-leftists by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      I never thought I would see people on Slashdot argue in favor of discrimination, but here it is.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:So Google has 1000s of alt-leftists by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I never thought I would see people on Slashdot argue in favor of discrimination, but here it is.

      I did not argue for (or against) anything.

    4. Re:So Google has 1000s of alt-leftists by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No, you have a table with a Nazi and ten people talking to him.

      We all breath the same air, so you're a nazi, a KKK member, a bigot and an idiot.

      I can even prove the last one.

    5. Re:So Google has 1000s of alt-leftists by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      So if I pick up a debate with a Nazi to stop him from being the only one talking to the audience and provide a counterpoint to his, well, let's call them arguments for a lack of a better word, I am a Nazi?

      Are you high?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:Nwaack is already crying like a hysterical bitc by nwaack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This really affects the precious nazi snowflake crybaby-victim that is Nwaack, you can tell by the hysterical (political...) crybaby routine with all the exclamations, lol. Sad. Her life must suck (!!!!!)

    You must be one of those constantly-offended, angry "Progressives" who thinks anyone who disagrees with them should be censored and/or beaten. Are you a member of Antifa, by chance?

  11. Kay Coles James is way to far right by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    Google is left, but not as left as this person is right.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  12. Re:Google will be put in the gas chambers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now, now, don't forget to gas the LGBTQ folks, too. They're so convinced that they're all victims that they'd feel sad if they were left out.

  13. "Justice" by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By 2019, the Humans of Earth had almost entirely deformed the meaning of the word 'justice', wielding it like a weapon against anyone that disagreed with them, generally intending some measure of revenge (and often to insist on financial compensation). Often, this wasn't even personal revenge but revenge-by-proxy, insisting that others' suffering needed amelioration.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:"Justice" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hate Illinois revenge-by-proxy nazis.

  14. The ethics by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    of working for an ad company that really wants to support Communist China?
    Preventing ad blocking in a browser.
    Ensuing a search engine for Communist China won't find words and terms.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:The ethics by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      of working for an ad company that really wants to support Communist China? .

      That got a bit of a ripple among the Googlerati. Not much more than that.

      But providing any services at all to <gasp, horrors, fetch the smelling salts!!!> the United States Military ... The *MILITARY*! of the *gasp* *UNITED STATES*...

      That is a hideous outrage too awful to be borne.

      Where do they find these peop... Oh. Yeah. The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of California.

    2. Re:The ethics by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You forgot the whole tracking entire populations in order to maliciously target them with propaganda aimed at changing their behaviours.

  15. Just leave by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 1

    If you don't like what the company you work for do, just leave. This is what I did with my last employer (dubious ethics). I'm not the only one who did it. Many seniors and intermediate++ left the company. Now they only have a bunch of juniors and unmotivated employees and they have many problems with projects delivery (late, buggy, ...). Since then, I'm a freelancer and I'll never go back.

    --
    Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
  16. Re:not really misleading by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    citation needed that LGBTQ are victims of a coverup or that the crimes they are disproportionately a victim of are largely due to rightwing homophobes, like activists claim, and not the circumstances they themselves or other nonrightwingers put them under

  17. More Fake News from the Looney Left by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Actual quotes from Kay Coles James Twitter feed (did you know she was a female? I did not):

    "We are committed to solutions that give Americans access to higher-quality health care. Letâ(TM)s lower premiums, increase choice, and protect people with pre-existing conditions."

    "Women deserve opportunities and recognition for their valuable contributions, not rigid pay scales, inflexible jobs, & barriers to getting their foot in the door"

    "Congress should pursue real reforms that put people in charge of their health care dollars & decisionsâ"while still protecting the vulnerable."

    If caring about people and looking out for the well being of women is "so far right" then what the hell are you?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:More Fake News from the Looney Left by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Well the problem is the right makes statements like that then advocates policies that directly contravene them. Health Care is a prime example, you're living in a fantasy world if you think "protect the vulnerable" in any way shape or form will involve providing any decent level of care, just look at every proposal thus far. Their choice and lower premiums rhetoric always means policies that cover virtually nothing, so the poor remain without access to preventative care. They don't give one flying fuck about anyone unable to pay. Rhetoric != reality.

    2. Re:More Fake News from the Looney Left by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Actual quotes from Kay Coles James Twitter feed (did you know she was a female? I did not):

      So? My twitter feed could contain all sorts of claims that SuperKendall fucks goats. Doesn't make it true though. She's president of the anti-gay, anti-science heritage foundation.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:More Fake News from the Looney Left by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      What's anti-gay and anti-science about the Heritage Foundation?

      seriously?

      Well here:s a bunch of mealy-mouthed JAQing off about global warming:

      https://www.heritage.org/envir...

      they're too cowardly to actually state their position insted they merely approach it from every angle but casting doubt, raising issues, obscuring the point and so on. Climate change might be up for debate but not by a bunch of jaqoffs who have an axe to grind.

      but it at no point demonises or targets people based on their sexuality or gender

      Ye they're too cowardly to actually commit in writing. Nonetheless they're advocating that places should be allowed to force this dude to use women's bathrooms:

      https://i.upworthy.com/nugget/...

      If those laws are allowed then any dude can walk into a womens bathroom and then claim he was born female and he's legally required to. I can't think for the life of me why they'd do that unless they hate transgender eople so much that it's blinded them to reality.

      Oh and some anti gay:

      https://www.heritage.org/marri...

      yep start off by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But it's more mealy mouthed insinuation and implication to grind their axe about zomg teh geys!111one

      They do disagree with the legislation but do so by raising a large number of concerns about its implications.

      Precisely. They have a regressive anti-seience, anti-gay agenda. They never state it but exist in a continual state of jaqing off, raising "concerns" and so on which all point one way.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:More Fake News from the Looney Left by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So you assume it.

      No, it's obvious from wht they say and how they say it.

      Project much?

      Wanker much?

      You mean the definition that's been around for centuries?

      And yet "arms" meant something different in 1776 from what ie means now, yet you don't see the heritage foundation promoting that little fact. Words change meaning.

      That flat out contradicts the publication on their website that I linked.

      Only if you have no brain. Actually think through to the LOGICAL conclusion of what they're proposing.

      Perhaps you'd like to show some fucking evidence

      And no eyes. The picture of that burly bearded dude in women's bathrooms? He was born female. Some people want to pass laws so he isn't forced to use women's bathrooms. The heritage foundation wants to prevent those laws bging passed.

      Redefining marriage marginalizes those with traditional views

      No it fucking doesn't.

      and leads to the erosion of religious liberty.

      Yeah some people want the "religious freedom" to harm others who don't believe in tehir god. I'm all in favour of utterly destroying that kind of religous freedom.

      Bob & Joe getting married does not stop you worshiping whatever god or gods you so please. Claiming it does is you acting like a whiny little wanker so you can oppress them to get your jollies.

      Jesus would be horrified.

      Sorry but if they're so anti-gay and anti-seience and anti-science then it should have been easy for you to reference /em.

      I did. You ignored it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:More Fake News from the Looney Left by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The picture of that burly bearded dude in women's bathrooms? He was born female.

      Well fucking forgive me for assuming the bloke that looked like a bloke that you called a dude was actually a fucking bloke.

      How fucking bigoted of me to dare to assume the gender of someone, even if I was actually fucking correct.

      Bob & Joe getting married does not stop you worshiping whatever god or gods you so please. Claiming it does is you acting like a whiny little wanker so you can oppress them to get your jollies.

      Given I'm an atheist I'm not into worshiping any gods. I get my jollies through other means.

      You failing miserably to understand the implications for people that do have inane superstitious beliefs makes you a fuckwit, and lacking any empathy for them makes you a cunt.

      I did. You ignored it.

      I ignored what exactly? You've shown no fucking evidence at all. You've basically libelled them.

      I have no idea who these people are and I would happily counter many of the points they raise. But I would do so logically and with evidence, not by pointing fingers and declaring that they should be allowed no voice because they dare to challenge my fucking religion.

      You're pointing fingers and declaring they should be allowed no voice because they dare to challenge your religion. Which makes this very fucking ironic:

      Yeah some people want the "religious freedom" to harm others who don't believe in tehir god. I'm all in favour of utterly destroying that kind of religous freedom.

    6. Re:More Fake News from the Looney Left by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Well fucking forgive me for assuming the bloke that looked like a bloke that you called a dude was actually a fucking bloke.

      That, my man is the entire point. And yet you STILL don't seem to be able to grasp it.

      1. That bloke was born female.
      2. Laws about birth gender and bathrooms will force that man into the women's bathrooms
      3. some people want to prevent those laws from being passed
      4. The heritage fonudation wants to block that prevention.

      the conclusion is that the Heritage foundation wants that man in women's bathrooms.

      It doesn't matter what they claim to want, what they say they actually want is for that man to go in women't bathrooms.

      You failing miserably to understand the implications for people that do have inane superstitious beliefs makes you a fuckwit, and lacking any empathy for them makes you a cunt.

      oooh won't someone PLEASE think of the poor oppressors.

      Nah fuck 'em. Your freedom ends where I start. I deeply understand the point of view where people feel they have the right to oppress others but I also feel those people deserve to be in the hell that most of them believe in for it.

      You've shown no fucking evidence at all.

      I pointed out several place. You jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalalala" is not the same as me not showing anything, no matter how loudly you sing.

      You're pointing fingers and declaring they should be allowed no voice because they dare to challenge your religion

      Oh I see now you're entering the realm of "just making shit up".

      They have the right to whine about how gay people are opressing them by their very existence. They don't have the right to do anything about it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:More Fake News from the Looney Left by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      No, you did not.

      You: [fingers in ears] lalalalalala

      No.

      Yes.

      That's you reading between the lines

      No that's me taking what someone has said and working out what would actually happen when those "suggestions" reach the real world, something you're apparently not prepared to do.

      Fuck it, I'm stopping reading. Why do I always end up having to stop reading your responses?

      Because you're a bigoted fuckwit who can't deal with the truth.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  18. Re:I thought google employees were smarter. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Smart people can be raging bigots. There's no conflict there.

  19. Definitions.... by Wizardess · · Score: 2

    Perhaps we can see a sticking point on the definitions of the words involved, such as "justice". If there was true justice in the world Hillary would be behind bars, GWB would be behind bars, Obama would be behind bars, and in point of fact most politicians in the US would suddenly find themselves incarcerated, too. (And there might not be a living lawyer to be found anywhere despite some of them being fine people. "Justice" warriors would end 'em all and let whatever sort them out.)
    {^_^}

  20. Re:Nwaack is already crying like a hysterical bitc by nwaack · · Score: 1

    This is called satire you simpleton. I don't expect someone like you to understand it, it was meant for those with critical thinking abilities.

  21. Erh... Google employees? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You DO know that Google is a for-profit corporation and not a student's YouTube channel, right?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.