Why are you taking your anger over random internet comments out on everyone? Wouldnt you do better to address the handful of people being jerks?
I mean I dont particularly think tilting at windmills is usually a good option, but it would be better than calling the entire male population of the world "the problem".
I never defended attacks from random strangers, but Im not clear why anyone (including Zoe) should care what random people on the internet have to say. Given her familiarity with the internet (and yours) I would have thought that would be clear. I've gotten some pretty hateful things said about me on the internet from online games to message boards, attacking my political beliefs, the fact that im a guy, the fact that im a Christian, and several other things. Its not right but complaining about it on slashdot would be like complaining about winter on slashdot. Its simply a reality, and you will NEVER stop one or two people being hateful on the internet.
The accusation that this is widespread I simply havent seen backed up, and honestly there are way more important things in the world for me to be upset about than that someone said something nasty on the internet. How about the burning of churches in India, the beheading of reporters in Syria, the ebola outbreak in Africa? We're supposed to care about some random comments made towards someone on the internet, just because shes a woman? Im sorry, that doesnt fly. If it were real life and it happened in front of me I could perhaps say something, but what do you want me to do about it? Start a "stop being jerks on the internet" petition?
You are MAKING this about sex and sexism. Zoes boyfriend was (understandably) upset, and had an actual important grievance to air: that Zoe had a non-neutral relationship with the people supposed to be reviewing her games.
It should have ended there: many such stories do, with the person violating the professional code (ie, "dont sleep with your reviewers and then pretend its unbiased") being discredited and everyone ceasing to care.
But in this case I've seen two stories defending Zoe, and not on factual grounds, but on some bizarre allegation of rampant sexism by untold misogynist males. And then there are posts from people like you, alleging that I, too, am part of the problem because I find her behavior unacceptable (along with the implication that I somehow support men who do the same sorts of things). The entire thing was created out of air; there is no reason to be defending Zoe, and frankly noone outside of some tiny niches cared until ArsTechnica and Slashdot ran these stupid stories accusing everyone with a Y chromosome of being an immoral bastard.
Im really not sure on what grounds youre leveling the accusations that you have been leveling, particularly at me; I've seen you on slashdot, but Im quite certain I dont generally get involved on these cesspool comment threads because theyre utterly ridiculous and usually I have the good sense to let the trolls troll. Maybe the lesson here is to just log out of slashdot and let you and everyone else who cares yell at each other until the end of time. But for your sake I'd recommend you not run around in life accusing random strangers of hating women just because they think there should be standards of journalistic integrity.
Believe it or not thats not true, and its none of your business, nor is it appropriate to project like that.
This also isnt a "he said she said". The guy posted chatlogs, screenshots, and corroborating accounts. The relationships he alleges have been confirmed by Zoe and the "co-conspirators". NOONE is disputing the facts.
Nonsense. My exposure to this issue has been entirely through articles like this one attempting to demonize the ex-boyfriend, who by all accounts was treated in a way that would have been absolutely blasted if it had been towards a woman. She was cheating on him with the people who were supposed to be reviewing her work, all the while manipulating him into thinking he was crazy for suspecting that she was cheating. She claimed that it would be "rape" to have an intimate relationship with someone while cheating behind their back, and then did exactly that. And shes apparently a chronic liar.
The "huge conspiracy" I simply havent seen; I literally had not heard of this issue until I saw an article on ArsTechnica on what a scumbag guys are for demonizing Zoe Quinn (What? Who?). Apparently shes so notorious that the most white knighting article on Ars and Slashdot cannot have her looking good at the end; theres just too much dirt out there for even the most heavily spun article to hide.
Or, you know, there's a lot of men who are childish assholes and misogynists. Because, really, death threats? Threats to rape her?
Please tell me you arent making the leap from "a few guys did X" to "men do X". If you are, is there any reason I couldnt do the same thing with women online?
I generally dont keep up on this stuff, but the post by Zoe's ex was filled with actual proof that she is apparently unbelievably manipulative. I didnt see any rebuttals, either-- just complaints that he crossed a line by posting private conversations. That can be argued, but noone seems to deny the accusations.
I didnt get to the parts about accusing her of trading sex for reviews or anything, but shes not the shining champion of feminist rights that you want.
Repeat after me: We didnt go into Iraq because of 911. The vote was to go into Afghanistan ~10 days after 9/11. The vote to go into Iraq didnt happen until 2003.
The damage done by Bush is far from over.
The AUMFs for Iraq and Afghanistan came from Congress, not Bush. The one for Afghanistan-- you know, the 9/11 one-- was very nearly unanimous-- ~520 votes / 530 members of congress.
Trite comments, but not terribly accurate. Judges and courts in general do not take kindly to being screwed with.
I recall an instance where Microsoft stated an intention to ignore a court order because "what are you gonna do", and the court responded with a ~$2 million per day fine. I dont care who you are, that starts to hurt very quickly.
I agree with the tone of your post, but isnt what yelp does more along the lines of "oh gee, there are negative reviews that we've encouraged; we can make them go away for money"? That seems a lot closer to extortion than "there happened to be some negative reviews out there, and we'll see if we can improve people's opinion of you for money".
Rights are created by the government / the governed.
You could say (as I do) that morality transcends human institution, but the concept of a right as something transcendental makes no sense; rights are revoked by society in the case of a crime, so theyre clearly not absolute, and they dont really exist outside of a society (what meaning is a "right" to be free in the absence of a threat to that right?).
The way you put it seems to reinforce the decision on first amendment grounds; you dont have a "right" that prevents me from saying bad things about your business.
But, I do feel like that changes once I start requesting money to stop doing so.
I guess you're right. But somehow, Invading / providing substantial material support for an insurrection in another country, and then annexing it-- followed by reminding everyone "if you screw with us, things will get real" doesnt exactly sound as reasonable as the way you put it-- it somehow seems more aggressive.
Slashdot Mirror
UDP is worse?
ITT people dont understand the OSI model.
Layer 4 vs layer 6: who can tell me where DRM, and NDN, would fall?
Why are you connecting it to your LAN if you dont want it on the internet?
Sounds to me like you just want to complain.
Where do you think the casing stones of the Great Pyramid ended up?
IIRC, they were taken by looters and builders because they were marble and gold.
Why are you taking your anger over random internet comments out on everyone? Wouldnt you do better to address the handful of people being jerks?
I mean I dont particularly think tilting at windmills is usually a good option, but it would be better than calling the entire male population of the world "the problem".
I never defended attacks from random strangers, but Im not clear why anyone (including Zoe) should care what random people on the internet have to say. Given her familiarity with the internet (and yours) I would have thought that would be clear. I've gotten some pretty hateful things said about me on the internet from online games to message boards, attacking my political beliefs, the fact that im a guy, the fact that im a Christian, and several other things. Its not right but complaining about it on slashdot would be like complaining about winter on slashdot. Its simply a reality, and you will NEVER stop one or two people being hateful on the internet.
The accusation that this is widespread I simply havent seen backed up, and honestly there are way more important things in the world for me to be upset about than that someone said something nasty on the internet. How about the burning of churches in India, the beheading of reporters in Syria, the ebola outbreak in Africa? We're supposed to care about some random comments made towards someone on the internet, just because shes a woman? Im sorry, that doesnt fly. If it were real life and it happened in front of me I could perhaps say something, but what do you want me to do about it? Start a "stop being jerks on the internet" petition?
You are MAKING this about sex and sexism. Zoes boyfriend was (understandably) upset, and had an actual important grievance to air: that Zoe had a non-neutral relationship with the people supposed to be reviewing her games.
It should have ended there: many such stories do, with the person violating the professional code (ie, "dont sleep with your reviewers and then pretend its unbiased") being discredited and everyone ceasing to care.
But in this case I've seen two stories defending Zoe, and not on factual grounds, but on some bizarre allegation of rampant sexism by untold misogynist males. And then there are posts from people like you, alleging that I, too, am part of the problem because I find her behavior unacceptable (along with the implication that I somehow support men who do the same sorts of things). The entire thing was created out of air; there is no reason to be defending Zoe, and frankly noone outside of some tiny niches cared until ArsTechnica and Slashdot ran these stupid stories accusing everyone with a Y chromosome of being an immoral bastard.
Im really not sure on what grounds youre leveling the accusations that you have been leveling, particularly at me; I've seen you on slashdot, but Im quite certain I dont generally get involved on these cesspool comment threads because theyre utterly ridiculous and usually I have the good sense to let the trolls troll. Maybe the lesson here is to just log out of slashdot and let you and everyone else who cares yell at each other until the end of time. But for your sake I'd recommend you not run around in life accusing random strangers of hating women just because they think there should be standards of journalistic integrity.
Including you.
Believe it or not thats not true, and its none of your business, nor is it appropriate to project like that.
This also isnt a "he said she said". The guy posted chatlogs, screenshots, and corroborating accounts. The relationships he alleges have been confirmed by Zoe and the "co-conspirators". NOONE is disputing the facts.
Nonsense. My exposure to this issue has been entirely through articles like this one attempting to demonize the ex-boyfriend, who by all accounts was treated in a way that would have been absolutely blasted if it had been towards a woman. She was cheating on him with the people who were supposed to be reviewing her work, all the while manipulating him into thinking he was crazy for suspecting that she was cheating. She claimed that it would be "rape" to have an intimate relationship with someone while cheating behind their back, and then did exactly that. And shes apparently a chronic liar.
The "huge conspiracy" I simply havent seen; I literally had not heard of this issue until I saw an article on ArsTechnica on what a scumbag guys are for demonizing Zoe Quinn (What? Who?). Apparently shes so notorious that the most white knighting article on Ars and Slashdot cannot have her looking good at the end; theres just too much dirt out there for even the most heavily spun article to hide.
Or, you know, there's a lot of men who are childish assholes and misogynists.
Because, really, death threats? Threats to rape her?
Please tell me you arent making the leap from "a few guys did X" to "men do X". If you are, is there any reason I couldnt do the same thing with women online?
I generally dont keep up on this stuff, but the post by Zoe's ex was filled with actual proof that she is apparently unbelievably manipulative. I didnt see any rebuttals, either-- just complaints that he crossed a line by posting private conversations. That can be argued, but noone seems to deny the accusations.
I didnt get to the parts about accusing her of trading sex for reviews or anything, but shes not the shining champion of feminist rights that you want.
"Does practical experience outweigh a properly trained structural engineer?"
I'll let you decide-- let me know whether you choose to buy a house that was designed with the help of one of those untrained engineers.
You can root concept of morality in religion as many people do.
I do, but rights are not the same thing as morality, and are a concept that requires the existence of a government.
What sense would a "right to free speech" make in an anarchic society, for example?
Im not getting how the removal of a bluff is the cheapest possible option, or how your brilliant suggestion addresses the earthquake concern.
That doesnt mean your users are idiots, and if thats your starting point, you're probably creating more of your own problems than anyone else.
Repeat after me: We didnt go into Iraq because of 911. The vote was to go into Afghanistan ~10 days after 9/11. The vote to go into Iraq didnt happen until 2003.
The damage done by Bush is far from over.
The AUMFs for Iraq and Afghanistan came from Congress, not Bush. The one for Afghanistan-- you know, the 9/11 one-- was very nearly unanimous-- ~520 votes / 530 members of congress.
Now you're talking about a felony with jail time.
Trite comments, but not terribly accurate. Judges and courts in general do not take kindly to being screwed with.
I recall an instance where Microsoft stated an intention to ignore a court order because "what are you gonna do", and the court responded with a ~$2 million per day fine. I dont care who you are, that starts to hurt very quickly.
In cases like these regular old judges can dish out the hurt just fine.
If theres anyone you really really do not want to get on the bad side of, its a judge (or the courts).
Im not clear what your point is. Our military bases generally have the consent of the host country.
I agree with the tone of your post, but isnt what yelp does more along the lines of "oh gee, there are negative reviews that we've encouraged; we can make them go away for money"? That seems a lot closer to extortion than "there happened to be some negative reviews out there, and we'll see if we can improve people's opinion of you for money".
Rights are created by the government / the governed.
You could say (as I do) that morality transcends human institution, but the concept of a right as something transcendental makes no sense; rights are revoked by society in the case of a crime, so theyre clearly not absolute, and they dont really exist outside of a society (what meaning is a "right" to be free in the absence of a threat to that right?).
The way you put it seems to reinforce the decision on first amendment grounds; you dont have a "right" that prevents me from saying bad things about your business.
But, I do feel like that changes once I start requesting money to stop doing so.
NATO would love that. Way to go, you've just broken a bunch of treaties!
I guess you're right. But somehow, Invading / providing substantial material support for an insurrection in another country, and then annexing it-- followed by reminding everyone "if you screw with us, things will get real" doesnt exactly sound as reasonable as the way you put it-- it somehow seems more aggressive.