They are different to some degree, but there is a lot of overlap.
More to the point tho, I think "victim mentality" isnt terribly helpful. Making an issue heard is fine; taking it overboard is not. People are jerks in this world, and at some point you have to get over it.
I mean as a christian republican on slashdot, I will tell you I have seen some really nasty stuff aimed at christians and republicans. I tend not to go on rants on a blog about it though, because that doesnt help and the world is sometimes mean. You cannot let one or two people acting immature control your sense of worth or well-being, or you will be perpetually upset-- and lets be clear, most people would agree these jokes were in poor taste.
His quote was basically saying "stop using the racism lens to view the world; it just creates more racism".
A really good example is hate crimes. Percieved issue: People being racist and attacking minorities. Solution: Create a class of laws that differentiates between the race of the victim. OOPS, I think we just created entrenched legal racism.
Another really good example: Affirmative action. Issue: Minorities tend to be underrepresented in college entrance. Solution: Force colleges to take race into account when admitting students. Whoops, I think we did it again.
If everyone stopped looking at "race" as the answer to all of lifes injustices and moved on, maybe people in general could stop "seeing" race. That, on its own, may not be enough to end racism-- but forcing everyone, always, to view the world through a racial lens is most certainly counterproductive.
So when Morgan was asked about black history month, black this, black that, thats what he was talking about: Why not White history month? Why not Jewish? Why does it matter, why cant it just be American history month and do away with the question of race?
How do we stop racism? Stop talking about it. --Morgan freeman
Same for sexism. Stop getting outraged and making a huge fuss over it, and get over it. People say things that are offensive around me all the time, but my getting outraged wouldnt really change much.
Opensource is a lot less likely to be tainted as errors are much easier to spot.
This is speculation. Not having the source to closed-source, we can only assume that theyre tainted, but we know for a FACT this has happened with open-source via public commits; and in a number of instances the bogus code remained undetected for years.
Google has been one of the best in this regard, both in the consistency and the tenacity of their resistence. For instance, unlike Yahoo and MS, Google famously has repeatedly refused to work with the Chinese government when they request details on dissidents.
I dont want to sit here advocating for Google as if they have no faults, but I find it hillariously counterproductive that people would go after Google of all things for not being "for the consumer" enough. Who besides google works closely with the EFF, particularly with the ChillingEffects site? Who besides google has shown the guts to say "get a warrant" to unofficial government requests?
People seriously are going to read "Government compels businesses to disclose information via FISA court order", and take away "gee these businesses sure have a cozy relationship with the govt"?
IIRC the Linux kernel had a pretty big issue a few years back when they discovered a bug that was believed to have been maliciously inserted into the kernel several years prior.
Scalia's job is to determine what the law says and whether it was violated, not to make medical decisions. Whether something is "mandatory" is absolutely political, and there are a number of things that you may think are medically good ideas that would be incredibly out of bounds for Congress to legislate.
Again, you do not understand US law, so you need to stop pretending you do.
seeing as the state is obliged to provide people with health care,
No, it is not. I am unaware of any such obligation; the mere requirement in Obamacare that you have healthcare was fought heavily in court, and was ONLY ruled constitutional by excusing it as a tax (pay a penalty if you do not). That the state actually be required to insure you is about 10 steps beyond that and would surely have been ruled unconstitutional.
Are you even from the US? If not, perhaps best not to comment on our system of government, as you clearly dont understand it.
Right, but if a guy comes at you with a gun you might legitimately feel your life is at stake and started beating them in self defence.
Thats true. It would be incredibly poor decision making, it would be illegal, and it would immediately generate grounds for self-defense, but you COULD choose to do that.
Ask yourself this, if Martin were a white woman who and Zimmerman a black man, then do you think Martin would be justified in putting up a defense.
No. Following someone does not justify assault. If that woman turned, confronted, and peppersprayed the black man, I would sincerely hope that she recieved an assault conviction.
Apparently the founders were compensating for something when they decided that people have a right to defend themselves; or perhaps William Blackstone was just a little man when so clearly stated the castle doctrine.
endangering everyone else around them
The only person endangered by Zimmerman's concealed carry was the guy who attempted to assault him.
most sane adults
... will not assume that they are the best street fighter out there, but will understand that they nevertheless have a fundamental right to defend their life.
The doctoring made it sound like he called the black guy a nigger, which he clearly did not when you hear the full recording. Its probably one of the most blatant attempts to spin a story as a racial issue Ive ever seen in the media.
What? A jury was asked to rule on a crime committed by Trayvon Martin, and found him guilty?
A crucial point of the trial was whether Martin performed an assault that would be undeniably illegal. In ruling the shooting legal self-defense, they also ruled that Martin committed an act that is undeniably illegal.
And the stats on interracial violence are skewed by basis on convictions.
The stats on interracial violence indicate that, regardless of the offender and victim races, it hovers around 10-15%. Intra-racial violence, in all cases, tends to hover in the high 80s. You can try to spin that however you like, but no matter HOW you pull the stats, black-on-white violence is a higher prevelence-- both weighted by population and unweighted -- than white-on-black. The idea that there is this massive conspiracy to kill black people by whites is just ignorant; clean up the gang violence and you would immediately stop more than 50% of black deaths.
Zimmerman wouldn't have had the shit kicked out of him.
Acknowledging that makes everything else youve said irrelevant. Following someone, carrying a gun, etc is not sufficient justification for their attacking you. Their attacking you as Martin did IS sufficient justification for self-defense-- lethal if need be.
It means keeping an eye out for anything suspicious
He did.
phoning the professionals (the police) to deal with it
He did.
I suspect he's referring to laws that allow someone to stalk someone with a gun resulting in a fight in which the victim of stalking dies that has no repercussions for the stalker.
There is no such law. The premise of our consitution is that we have complete freedom unless restricted by a law. It is not illegal to carry a gun. It is not illegal to follow someone. It IS illegal to attack someone, even if it is because they are following you.
Its as simple as that.
, provoke someone until they attack you,
Being provoked is not a justification for attacking someone. I have the right to call you names. If you knock me down because if it, you will likely go to jail.
I think we disagree on what constitutes obviously reasonable. I have a strong aversion to ANY government mandated medical procedure; vaccinations have a teensy bit of justification because that directly affects the welfare of those around you, but theres no such grounds for justifying mandatory genome sequencing.
"liberalism" or "non-liberalism"
Liberalism tends to support the idea that we must work together to solve the world's problems, usually manifesting as requiring cooperation through laws in order to approach an ideal. Non-liberals tend to reject that sort of thinking, supposing instead that individual freedoms are the only possible way to constrain the natural human tendency to abuse power and commit evils.
Whether you are liberal or not is ABSOLUTELY relevant to how one would feel on this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right, because they're working for US gov, not for Chinese gov.
Ah, that explains chillingeffects.org, their switch to RC4, SSL by default, and their strong support of the EFF, right?
Google has always stated that they would support a totalitarian government.
Oh, I see. Thats why their relationship with China's government has been so good historically, is it?
They are different to some degree, but there is a lot of overlap.
More to the point tho, I think "victim mentality" isnt terribly helpful. Making an issue heard is fine; taking it overboard is not. People are jerks in this world, and at some point you have to get over it.
I mean as a christian republican on slashdot, I will tell you I have seen some really nasty stuff aimed at christians and republicans. I tend not to go on rants on a blog about it though, because that doesnt help and the world is sometimes mean. You cannot let one or two people acting immature control your sense of worth or well-being, or you will be perpetually upset-- and lets be clear, most people would agree these jokes were in poor taste.
His quote was basically saying "stop using the racism lens to view the world; it just creates more racism".
A really good example is hate crimes. Percieved issue: People being racist and attacking minorities. Solution: Create a class of laws that differentiates between the race of the victim. OOPS, I think we just created entrenched legal racism.
Another really good example: Affirmative action. Issue: Minorities tend to be underrepresented in college entrance. Solution: Force colleges to take race into account when admitting students. Whoops, I think we did it again.
If everyone stopped looking at "race" as the answer to all of lifes injustices and moved on, maybe people in general could stop "seeing" race. That, on its own, may not be enough to end racism-- but forcing everyone, always, to view the world through a racial lens is most certainly counterproductive.
So when Morgan was asked about black history month, black this, black that, thats what he was talking about: Why not White history month? Why not Jewish? Why does it matter, why cant it just be American history month and do away with the question of race?
Women arent dying or losing any rights just because some devs have a sophmoric sense of humor.
Seriously, get over it.
How do we stop racism? Stop talking about it.
--Morgan freeman
Same for sexism. Stop getting outraged and making a huge fuss over it, and get over it. People say things that are offensive around me all the time, but my getting outraged wouldnt really change much.
Opensource is a lot less likely to be tainted as errors are much easier to spot.
This is speculation. Not having the source to closed-source, we can only assume that theyre tainted, but we know for a FACT this has happened with open-source via public commits; and in a number of instances the bogus code remained undetected for years.
If its end-to-end encryption, then it would be impenetrable to anyone who was not one of the endpoints; thats sort of the point.
Google has been one of the best in this regard, both in the consistency and the tenacity of their resistence. For instance, unlike Yahoo and MS, Google famously has repeatedly refused to work with the Chinese government when they request details on dissidents.
I dont want to sit here advocating for Google as if they have no faults, but I find it hillariously counterproductive that people would go after Google of all things for not being "for the consumer" enough. Who besides google works closely with the EFF, particularly with the ChillingEffects site? Who besides google has shown the guts to say "get a warrant" to unofficial government requests?
People seriously are going to read "Government compels businesses to disclose information via FISA court order", and take away "gee these businesses sure have a cozy relationship with the govt"?
IIRC the Linux kernel had a pretty big issue a few years back when they discovered a bug that was believed to have been maliciously inserted into the kernel several years prior.
APK and mess with HOSTS
You fool! Youll awaken him!
Scalia's job is to determine what the law says and whether it was violated, not to make medical decisions. Whether something is "mandatory" is absolutely political, and there are a number of things that you may think are medically good ideas that would be incredibly out of bounds for Congress to legislate.
Again, you do not understand US law, so you need to stop pretending you do.
Fundamentally the provocation argument in court ...depends on whether your friends went looking for trouble.
No, it doesnt, and you really need to stop commenting on US law when you are so clearly ignorant of what it says and how it works.
excluding America by the sounds of it)
Let me get this clear. Youre not from the US, and all of your statements on what US law is is based not on knowledge but on assumption?
Right then, I think we're done here.
seeing as the state is obliged to provide people with health care,
No, it is not. I am unaware of any such obligation; the mere requirement in Obamacare that you have healthcare was fought heavily in court, and was ONLY ruled constitutional by excusing it as a tax (pay a penalty if you do not). That the state actually be required to insure you is about 10 steps beyond that and would surely have been ruled unconstitutional.
Are you even from the US? If not, perhaps best not to comment on our system of government, as you clearly dont understand it.
Right, but if a guy comes at you with a gun you might legitimately feel your life is at stake and started beating them in self defence.
Thats true. It would be incredibly poor decision making, it would be illegal, and it would immediately generate grounds for self-defense, but you COULD choose to do that.
Ask yourself this, if Martin were a white woman who and Zimmerman a black man, then do you think Martin would be justified in putting up a defense.
No. Following someone does not justify assault. If that woman turned, confronted, and peppersprayed the black man, I would sincerely hope that she recieved an assault conviction.
Apparently the founders were compensating for something when they decided that people have a right to defend themselves; or perhaps William Blackstone was just a little man when so clearly stated the castle doctrine.
endangering everyone else around them
The only person endangered by Zimmerman's concealed carry was the guy who attempted to assault him.
most sane adults
... will not assume that they are the best street fighter out there, but will understand that they nevertheless have a fundamental right to defend their life.
The doctoring made it sound like he called the black guy a nigger, which he clearly did not when you hear the full recording. Its probably one of the most blatant attempts to spin a story as a racial issue Ive ever seen in the media.
What? A jury was asked to rule on a crime committed by Trayvon Martin, and found him guilty?
A crucial point of the trial was whether Martin performed an assault that would be undeniably illegal. In ruling the shooting legal self-defense, they also ruled that Martin committed an act that is undeniably illegal.
And the stats on interracial violence are skewed by basis on convictions.
The stats on interracial violence indicate that, regardless of the offender and victim races, it hovers around 10-15%. Intra-racial violence, in all cases, tends to hover in the high 80s. You can try to spin that however you like, but no matter HOW you pull the stats, black-on-white violence is a higher prevelence-- both weighted by population and unweighted -- than white-on-black. The idea that there is this massive conspiracy to kill black people by whites is just ignorant; clean up the gang violence and you would immediately stop more than 50% of black deaths.
Zimmerman wouldn't have had the shit kicked out of him.
Acknowledging that makes everything else youve said irrelevant. Following someone, carrying a gun, etc is not sufficient justification for their attacking you. Their attacking you as Martin did IS sufficient justification for self-defense-- lethal if need be.
for the millionth time, what the responder said is of no relevance. She has no authority beyond any other citizen.
Whole discussion is irrelevant, as whether or not ZImmerman "provoked" Martin would not excuse the attack by Martin.
It means keeping an eye out for anything suspicious
He did.
phoning the professionals (the police) to deal with it
He did.
I suspect he's referring to laws that allow someone to stalk someone with a gun resulting in a fight in which the victim of stalking dies that has no repercussions for the stalker.
There is no such law. The premise of our consitution is that we have complete freedom unless restricted by a law.
It is not illegal to carry a gun. It is not illegal to follow someone. It IS illegal to attack someone, even if it is because they are following you.
Its as simple as that.
, provoke someone until they attack you,
Being provoked is not a justification for attacking someone. I have the right to call you names. If you knock me down because if it, you will likely go to jail.
How obviously reasonable medical regulations
I think we disagree on what constitutes obviously reasonable. I have a strong aversion to ANY government mandated medical procedure; vaccinations have a teensy bit of justification because that directly affects the welfare of those around you, but theres no such grounds for justifying mandatory genome sequencing.
"liberalism" or "non-liberalism"
Liberalism tends to support the idea that we must work together to solve the world's problems, usually manifesting as requiring cooperation through laws in order to approach an ideal. Non-liberals tend to reject that sort of thinking, supposing instead that individual freedoms are the only possible way to constrain the natural human tendency to abuse power and commit evils.
Whether you are liberal or not is ABSOLUTELY relevant to how one would feel on this issue.