My previous post, for which I poured my heart and bared my soul, out of all the other posts in this fascinating thread, has been selected for moderation as "offtopic."
This in spite of the fact that I specifically addressed the issue of madness in geeks and its ultimate origins. In fact, my post was more on topic than the article itself.
I must therefore inform the readership of Slash-dot at large that I shall, effective immediately, boycott the sponsors of this site. I shall no longer make purchases from such fine companies as Integrated Computer Solutions Inc., Digital Networks-UK, Agillion.com, CMP, and I shall most studiously avoid Geek Cruise, Inc.
I am sad that it had to come to this, the ultimate punishment afforded in any true capitalistic system. I have always counted on Slash-dot articles and their comments for the funny, the irrelevant, and the absurd. But it seems that moderation seeks to put an end to this, as it attempts to introduce into this site serious topics.
Thus, the boycott. Yea, in time, Slash-dot will come to feel my wrath, as has Amazon.com before it. If my post is reinstated to the (+5, Insightful) it so richly deserves, then all will be forgiven. Else, it will be naught but War between us.
I'm a moral relativist of a sort, but this is relativism of the stupidest sort. Imagine this conversation was being conducted in a repressive state like Indonesia.
Your thoughts betray you, my young Jedi. You can't be much of a moral relativist if you really believe you can objectively criticize the Indonesian government's ways of knowing and doing.
Now, strike me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.
Well, this is rather obviously a troll, by both nature and ancestry, but I'll bite...
If people would simply go by the words of their favorite religious books instead of by what they think would benefit them most, the world would be a much better place. After all, didn't Christ say that the most important commandment was "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Why do Christians constantly insist on placing other parts of scripture above that?
Are you sure you aren't just saying this because (as my neighbor) it is "what you think [will] benefit [you] most?" (Just teasing.) Also, there is the idea of 'tough love' and so on to consider.
Anyway, for your information, I believe that what you are referring to goes something like this: (ahem)
"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
--Christian Bible, KJV, Mt 22:35-40
So as you can see, although loving your neighbour is important, loving God figures somewhere into this as well. Of course, loving God probably should not involve beating people up (unless they are into that sort of thing) but it is unfair to remove this rather important feature from your analysis of Christianity.
The 20th century has been the home of some of the worst violence and atrocities in history, and it is only people like you who are secure in your luxury that have the gall to say that.
And do not forget the atrocities of the past...what about the crusades? Or the Spanish Inquisition
Sorry, but the previous poster was right on the money here. Bad as the crusades were, I have no trouble at all picking out three wars of the 20th century that were more horrible, meaningless, and deadly, by any measure.
And the way the 20th century has dealt with AIDS is even worse. When AIDS was spreading in the American gay community, Hollywood celebrities wouldn't shut up about it. As it spread more to straights, the media still covered it plenty. But now AIDS is killing a third of Africa, as effective a killer as the Black Death ever was, and in America there is nary a red ribbon to be seen.
I for one would far rather live in the 13th century. (As for the 14th, I'd have to think about it.)
And just so I can pretend this is on topic, I admire the sentiment of the Cluetrain Manifesto. But I think their admiration of the internet is misplaced. Email and web sites seem to be the most effective communication yet devised for fostering miscommunication and rudeness. Just set your threshold to -1 to see an effective illustration of this. (Also I am irritated since this manifesto's practical application seems to be as yet another source of buzzwords.)
But I am utterly amazed at how easily the venom gushes from so many people. Is it any wonder that slashdot tends to be more a forum for vilification rather than discussion?
I dont blame Taco etc. for this. The problem is that so few understand the importance of basic etiquette.
To further explain why my topic changed the way it did... The point of my initial posting was more to make people with small imaginations realize that, to some, flag-burning can be just as thoughtless and hateful as the 'n' word or any other insult.
My replies to you are motivated mostly because I am suspicious of claims of an ideal system of government. So maybe all forms of hate speech ought to be allowed, but that really is not immediately obvious to me.
I really think that opinions are consistent with the Consititution.
I think that both opinions are consistent with the Consititution.
Re:You should have taken the offer.
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
I think clues are highly overrated anyway. (That may be why I am rather uninformed, and my ideas are poorly constructed.)
But what I was really trying to impress upon you was that the application of the first amendment is too arbitrary due to its current form.
Surely you must admit that draft card burners were prosecuted and punished because of their protest, not because of the lost property. Just picking up an extra W2 would cost the government about as much. Perhaps the laws were based formally on destruction of property, but they were clearly directed at political expression.
There is also the question to what extent speech can interfere with anothers' rights. This determination is also arbitrary. One example: the the organizers of St. Patrick's Day parades can keep out groups that identify themselves as gay. I think that reasonable people can agree with either the majority or minority opinion of the Supreme Court on this case. (I personally am somewhat more inclined toward the majority. I wish the organizers were more tolerant, but forcing them won't help matters.) I really think that opinions are consistent with the Consititution. The decision is really based on value, and not on explicit law.
These sorts of cases make me think that the written law is only a tiny part of de facto oppression. It is true that Canada misuses hate speech laws to attack what they think is pornography. But you cannot judge the law based on its misuse. It is more appropriate to structure the law precisely, to minimize misinterpretation.
It is necessary to avoid the fascistic extreme of overspecification in law. But it can be just as wrong for the law to become too powerful through its very looseness. A law which is too open to interpretation, as the First Amendment and the Right to Privacy currently are, will eventually be misused.
Sorry that I am not more clear on this - ignorant of my own advice, I try to avoid taking a firm position. I am often glad that the Supreme Court has "discovered" that the Constitution gives us a fundamental right to privacy. But in constitutional interpretation the true strength of judicial precedent is often overestimated. What one Court has invented from unclear sources, another can easily take away.
Therefore I do favor additional Amendments, even if they limit speech and privacy to a reasonable extent. Because more than I distrust Congress and the Presidency, I distrust the potential misuse of the Supreme Court. If under our current system we try to limit the power of government by seeking a minimal set of laws, we give the court system tremendous power for tyranny.
Also, I don't think burning an American flag is *really* necessary to convey a message. If it remains legal, fine, but if it becomes illegal, it won't be the end of the world!
In reality, the First Amendment can be and is curtailed for modes of expression held to be inappropriate. In particular, the Supreme Court has ruled that burning selective service registration cards is not protected speech. The proposed amendment, by more closely specifying which modes of speech (not opinions!) are allowed, would merely begin to bring the US in line with Canada and other civilised nations.
You wanna talk about the Iron Cross?
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
The First Amendment does not apply to hate speech. You have a right to freely express your facts and opinions. But no one has a right to pervert expression, with the sole purpose to degrade, insult, and abuse. That is what flag burning is about.
It was not long ago that Blacks were lynched by the light of a burning cross. That Jews were gassed and starved under the swastika. And it was only sixty years ago that the best of America's young men left to fight and die in faraway lands: not for their own freedom, but for others'.
Even without free will, there are still fundamental command-and-control issues that cannot easily be resolved. For example, your intelligent stove may want you to add more garlic to your spaghetti sauce, but your perceptive toilet may remember from last week that it really wasn't such a good idea.
Testify, brother! After (only) 6 or so hours of mud, I often have to pause for a few seconds trying to remember whether the bathroom is to the north or east of my bedroom.
Amphigory: I find your posts are generally reasonable and well thought out, so I was interested in seeing what kind of discussion I'd find on "Geeks for Christ." Frankly, I was a little disappointed.
By that I don't mean to criticize what you are going for, but I do want to let you know it's just not my thing. The religious topics seem (to me) extremely evangelical-oriented. I would be much more interested in discussing daily life and neighborly human interactions, rather than plans to convert Spanish speakers to Christianity. I was especially turned off by the article speculating about whether current events in Israel signal the Apocalypse. I really don't want to spend my time second-guessing God's plan. If other people are into this, I'm cool with that, but I just don't feel comfortable in such an environment.
Thanks for the reminder. It's sometimes hard to keep a proper perspective on the history of knowledge. We developed theories for evolution in the 1850s, ice ages about 125 years ago, continental drift in the 1920s-30s, and we only really found out about the big bang in the 50's. So keeping in mind the time needed for evidence to accumulate, most religions seem to have kept up to date fairly well.
I am as great an appreciator of trolls as anyone. But it has become quite clear to me that the general level of trolling on slashdot, even as practiced by some of the trolling 'greats' such as jsm and 80md, has truly suffered.
An all-too-typical example is this article: by any and all measures, the trolling threads are pathetic. This racism troll felt forced and uninspired from the beginning, but as it went on, it felt more and more like the artist was pulling teeth. But even worse is the horrendously cliched "liberal propaganda" thread (which quickly devolves into yet another bland and ignored religious zealotry troll, but that may be another's hand).
A good troll must flow naturally. A good troll is marked by vivid and consistent characterization. The delivery should be marked by a hidden grace and artistry. There is nothing wrong with the tried and true personas, but lately trolling has been stuck in a rut of unoriginality and unbelievable pointless tirades that a moron could see through.
And finally, a growing number of trolls seem to feel the need to justify their work as encouraging some kind of moralistic introspection. Spiritual growth is certainly laudable, but as a driving motive it misses the whole point of trolling: to have fun. It's all very well to work an ethical bonus into a troll, but don't put the cart before the horse!
Sorry to trouble you all. I'm just saddened to see the ultimate decadence and trivialisation of trolling, the best part of slashdot.
This is a point which has bothered me for some time. Is Planet a true Marxist critique of colonial extremism, or a hyperreal rationalization of Malthusian diametrics? In this case, rather than examining Planet qua planet, it is more helpful to consider it a later parable with the confluence of pure Boltzmannian counting on the human spectrum. In this perception, the apes themselves other the ultimately deracinated Taylor (Charleton Heston), even as he others the "Planet" itself. Taylor becomes nothing more than a Maxwell's demon, taken together with the implied conflict(s) of so-called pure information. This false conflict is not resolved, but exists for itself with the proper metrics of entropy and free energy. This is shown most clearly in the movie when the doll accuses with the voices of the dead, and the Statue with none at all, belying the paradox inherent in his notion of free will. In the final scene, Taylor has at last subsumed accusation beyond the "real" world, showing allegorically that he intrinsically and unavoidably personalizes the reality of and for himself, as must all free beings. And indeed, this is both the first, and last, stern message of "Liberty" herself.
Slashdot Mirror
Right on! Keep the faith!
clearly they should market this to chess players.
Okay, that does it.
My previous post, for which I poured my heart and bared my soul, out of all the other posts in this fascinating thread, has been selected for moderation as "offtopic."
This in spite of the fact that I specifically addressed the issue of madness in geeks and its ultimate origins. In fact, my post was more on topic than the article itself.
I must therefore inform the readership of Slash-dot at large that I shall, effective immediately, boycott the sponsors of this site. I shall no longer make purchases from such fine companies as Integrated Computer Solutions Inc., Digital Networks-UK, Agillion.com, CMP, and I shall most studiously avoid Geek Cruise, Inc.
I am sad that it had to come to this, the ultimate punishment afforded in any true capitalistic system. I have always counted on Slash-dot articles and their comments for the funny, the irrelevant, and the absurd. But it seems that moderation seeks to put an end to this, as it attempts to introduce into this site serious topics.
Thus, the boycott. Yea, in time, Slash-dot will come to feel my wrath, as has Amazon.com before it. If my post is reinstated to the (+5, Insightful) it so richly deserves, then all will be forgiven. Else, it will be naught but War between us.
I have spoken.
I'm a moral relativist of a sort, but this is relativism of the stupidest sort. Imagine this conversation was being conducted in a repressive state like Indonesia.
Your thoughts betray you, my young Jedi. You can't be much of a moral relativist if you really believe you can objectively criticize the Indonesian government's ways of knowing and doing.
Now, strike me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.
Well, this is rather obviously a troll, by both nature and ancestry, but I'll bite...
If people would simply go by the words of their favorite religious books instead of by what they think would benefit them most, the world would be a much better place. After all, didn't Christ say that the most important commandment was "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Why do Christians constantly insist on placing other parts of scripture above that?
Are you sure you aren't just saying this because (as my neighbor) it is "what you think [will] benefit [you] most?" (Just teasing.) Also, there is the idea of 'tough love' and so on to consider.
Anyway, for your information, I believe that what you are referring to goes something like this: (ahem)
So as you can see, although loving your neighbour is important, loving God figures somewhere into this as well. Of course, loving God probably should not involve beating people up (unless they are into that sort of thing) but it is unfair to remove this rather important feature from your analysis of Christianity.And do not forget the atrocities of the past...what about the crusades? Or the Spanish Inquisition
Sorry, but the previous poster was right on the money here. Bad as the crusades were, I have no trouble at all picking out three wars of the 20th century that were more horrible, meaningless, and deadly, by any measure.
And the way the 20th century has dealt with AIDS is even worse. When AIDS was spreading in the American gay community, Hollywood celebrities wouldn't shut up about it. As it spread more to straights, the media still covered it plenty. But now AIDS is killing a third of Africa, as effective a killer as the Black Death ever was, and in America there is nary a red ribbon to be seen.
I for one would far rather live in the 13th century. (As for the 14th, I'd have to think about it.)
And just so I can pretend this is on topic, I admire the sentiment of the Cluetrain Manifesto. But I think their admiration of the internet is misplaced. Email and web sites seem to be the most effective communication yet devised for fostering miscommunication and rudeness. Just set your threshold to -1 to see an effective illustration of this. (Also I am irritated since this manifesto's practical application seems to be as yet another source of buzzwords.)
Offtopic!
So, maybe it was a bad joke.
But I am utterly amazed at how easily the venom gushes from so many people. Is it any wonder that slashdot tends to be more a forum for vilification rather than discussion?
I dont blame Taco etc. for this. The problem is that so few understand the importance of basic etiquette.
i heard a (college) freshman say it the other day. i was shocked out of my gourd. but i don't expect it will catch on beyond high school. (thankfully)
To further explain why my topic changed the way it did... The point of my initial posting was more to make people with small imaginations realize that, to some, flag-burning can be just as thoughtless and hateful as the 'n' word or any other insult.
My replies to you are motivated mostly because I am suspicious of claims of an ideal system of government. So maybe all forms of hate speech ought to be allowed, but that really is not immediately obvious to me.
Just in case you care...
Fourth paragraph:
I really think that opinions are consistent with the Consititution.
I think that both opinions are consistent with the Consititution.
I think clues are highly overrated anyway. (That may be why I am rather uninformed, and my ideas are poorly constructed.)
But what I was really trying to impress upon you was that the application of the first amendment is too arbitrary due to its current form.
Surely you must admit that draft card burners were prosecuted and punished because of their protest, not because of the lost property. Just picking up an extra W2 would cost the government about as much. Perhaps the laws were based formally on destruction of property, but they were clearly directed at political expression.
There is also the question to what extent speech can interfere with anothers' rights. This determination is also arbitrary. One example: the the organizers of St. Patrick's Day parades can keep out groups that identify themselves as gay. I think that reasonable people can agree with either the majority or minority opinion of the Supreme Court on this case. (I personally am somewhat more inclined toward the majority. I wish the organizers were more tolerant, but forcing them won't help matters.) I really think that opinions are consistent with the Consititution. The decision is really based on value, and not on explicit law.
These sorts of cases make me think that the written law is only a tiny part of de facto oppression. It is true that Canada misuses hate speech laws to attack what they think is pornography. But you cannot judge the law based on its misuse.
It is more appropriate to structure the law precisely, to minimize misinterpretation.
It is necessary to avoid the fascistic extreme of overspecification in law. But it can be just as wrong for the law to become too powerful through its very looseness. A law which is too open to interpretation, as the First Amendment and the Right to Privacy currently are, will eventually be misused.
Sorry that I am not more clear on this - ignorant of my own advice, I try to avoid taking a firm position. I am often glad that the Supreme Court has "discovered" that the Constitution gives us a fundamental right to privacy. But in constitutional interpretation the true strength of
judicial precedent is often overestimated. What one Court has invented from unclear sources, another can easily take away.
Therefore I do favor additional Amendments, even if they limit speech and privacy to a reasonable extent. Because more than I distrust Congress and the Presidency, I distrust the potential misuse of the Supreme Court. If under our current system we try to limit the power of government by seeking a minimal set of laws, we give the court system tremendous power for tyranny.
Also, I don't think burning an American flag is *really* necessary to convey a message. If it remains legal, fine, but if it becomes illegal, it won't be the end of the world!
In reality, the First Amendment can be and is curtailed for modes of expression held to be inappropriate. In particular, the Supreme Court has ruled that burning selective service registration cards is not protected speech. The proposed amendment, by more closely specifying which modes of speech (not opinions!) are allowed, would merely begin to bring the US in line with Canada and other civilised nations.
The First Amendment does not apply to hate speech. You have a right to freely express your facts and opinions. But no one has a right to pervert expression, with the sole purpose to degrade, insult, and abuse. That is what flag burning is about.
It was not long ago that Blacks were lynched by the light of a burning cross. That Jews were gassed and starved under the swastika. And it was only sixty years ago that the best of America's young men left to fight and die in faraway lands: not for their own freedom, but for others'.
...and I don't know of a reproducible experiment which would cause someone to fall in love with me.
You simply cannot test and control all aspects of human life, no matter how sceptical you think are.
I read it differently. MSFT is overvalued, thus a fortiori investing in AOL is insane.
Even without free will, there are still fundamental command-and-control issues that cannot easily be resolved. For example, your intelligent stove may want you to add more garlic to your spaghetti sauce, but your perceptive toilet may remember from last week that it really wasn't such a good idea.
How could you forget Viagra?
Testify, brother! After (only) 6 or so hours of mud, I often have to pause for a few seconds trying to remember whether the bathroom is to the north or east of my bedroom.
Amphigory: I find your posts are generally reasonable and well thought out, so I was interested in seeing what kind of discussion I'd find on "Geeks for Christ." Frankly, I was a little disappointed.
By that I don't mean to criticize what you are going for, but I do want to let you know it's just not my thing. The religious topics seem (to me) extremely evangelical-oriented. I would be much more interested in discussing daily life and neighborly human interactions, rather than plans to convert Spanish speakers to Christianity. I was especially turned off by the article speculating about whether current events in Israel signal the Apocalypse. I really don't want to spend my time second-guessing God's plan. If other people are into this, I'm cool with that, but I just don't feel comfortable in such an environment.
--me (serious for once)
There be more of us Heinlein-thumping wackos than you think. Please note the sibling post with the "every man be armed" sig.
Thanks for the reminder. It's sometimes hard to keep a proper perspective on the history of knowledge. We developed theories for evolution in the 1850s, ice ages about 125 years ago, continental drift in the 1920s-30s, and we only really found out about the big bang in the 50's. So keeping in mind the time needed for evidence to accumulate, most religions seem to have kept up to date fairly well.
I am as great an appreciator of trolls as anyone. But it has become quite clear to me that the general level of trolling on slashdot, even as practiced by some of the trolling 'greats' such as jsm and 80md, has truly suffered.
An all-too-typical example is this article: by any and all measures, the trolling threads are pathetic. This racism troll felt forced and uninspired from the beginning, but as it went on, it felt more and more like the artist was pulling teeth. But even worse is the horrendously cliched "liberal propaganda" thread (which quickly devolves into yet another bland and ignored religious zealotry troll, but that may be another's hand).
A good troll must flow naturally. A good troll is marked by vivid and consistent characterization. The delivery should be marked by a hidden grace and artistry. There is nothing wrong with the tried and true personas, but lately trolling has been stuck in a rut of unoriginality and unbelievable pointless tirades that a moron could see through.
And finally, a growing number of trolls seem to feel the need to justify their work as encouraging some kind of moralistic introspection. Spiritual growth is certainly laudable, but as a driving motive it misses the whole point of trolling: to have fun. It's all very well to work an ethical bonus into a troll, but don't put the cart before the horse!
Sorry to trouble you all. I'm just saddened to see the ultimate decadence and trivialisation of trolling, the best part of slashdot.
Cheers.
This is a point which has bothered me for some time. Is Planet a true Marxist critique of colonial extremism, or a hyperreal rationalization of Malthusian diametrics? In this case, rather than examining Planet qua planet, it is more helpful to consider it a later parable with the confluence of pure Boltzmannian counting on the human spectrum. In this perception, the apes themselves other the ultimately deracinated Taylor (Charleton Heston), even as he others the "Planet" itself. Taylor becomes nothing more than a Maxwell's demon, taken together with the implied conflict(s) of so-called pure information. This false conflict is not resolved, but exists for itself with the proper metrics of entropy and free energy. This is shown most clearly in the movie when the doll accuses with the voices of the dead, and the Statue with none at all, belying the paradox inherent in his notion of free will. In the final scene, Taylor has at last subsumed accusation beyond the "real" world, showing allegorically that he intrinsically and unavoidably personalizes the reality of and for himself, as must all free beings. And indeed, this is both the first, and last, stern message of "Liberty" herself.
hey man, this is simply not a joking matter. i refuse to live in a house without stairs for fear of the daleks.