So I've already denied it was sexism; in fact, that's how I entered this thread. Just what kind of "scientist" were you anyway? Gender studies? Social sciences?
Bro, do you even read? You made a claim, I made a counter argument, and you made no further comment. That's called losing the argument.
Nope. GGP made a claim. I denied his claim. My first post to this thread was a denial, stating my position - you want I must continue restating the same position? Why?
Will you make a new/. ID to post again in 4 years when all the doom-and-gloom you're predicting fails to materialise?
again? this is is about 13 years old. And what predictions have I made, eh? I could use some insight into your weird fantasy. I look forwards to you claiming I've made all sorts of claims that other people made because libruhls all think the same amirite?
Well, *you* are quite predictable, so no surprises there. However, you've made plenty of claims about how Trump is the next Hitler, and about all the bad things that will happen if Trump is president. I look forward to seeing your posts when those doom-and-gloom predictions of yours do not materialise.
I predict that you will either go silent on your claims of doom-and-gloom, or you will say that your predictions failed because he was actively prevented from doing what you said he will do, and from becoming what you said he will become. Remember, I predicted both that he'll win and that he'll adopt more moderate positions.
A hallmark of good science is testing your predictions. If the test fails it's not reality that is wrong, it's your hypothesis.
Awesome that you think so! Now, program some realtime flight surface control software for a fly-by-wire jet and sleep well knowing that your program will never, ever, kill anyone... (Or, substitute any other safety critical software you can think of - and theres a lot!)
"Programming" (by which I really mean software engineering) is one of the most complex activities in existence...
Just because it can be doesn't mean that it always is. The avionics-software programmer is working very differently to the muh-first-website programmer. It can be complex like avionics, but it can also be simple like javascript text-adventures.
"Programming" can be, at times, one of the most complex activities in existence. It can also be, at other times, one of the simplest activities you can find paying high salaries. Lets not pretend that programming is always more complex than brain surgery. It can (on rare occasions) be, but it's usually not much more complex than arithmetic.
I see you're not denying it was sexism. Now you know you've lost the argument, you're trying to have a different argument.
I knew your memory was short, but this is a new record... even by your usual standards! Let me quote, in full, *my* assertion and *your* response to my original "not sexist" assertion:
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist.
Depends on the nature of the attack. In this case [...]
So I've already denied it was sexism; in fact, that's how I entered this thread. Just what kind of "scientist" were you anyway? Gender studies? Social sciences?
Thanks for playing.
How does it feel, now that your bubble about societal norms is thoroughly burst? Will you make a new/. ID to post again in 4 years when all the doom-and-gloom you're predicting fails to materialise? Does your virtue-signalling address whatever need you have within you that makes you accuse everyone of thought-crime?
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist.
Depends on the nature of the attack. In this case (suggesting it was PMS) was pretty much the textbook definition of sexism because it is attacking here merely for being female. I now look forward to you rationalizing it away.
So, when you get called dickhead you accuse the caller of misandry? Rationalize that.
He blamed a more cautious outlook from VCs focused on tech as the primary reason for letting 40 of Pebble's staff go.
In what universe is this quote acceptable?
This man appears to believe that businesses get money from VCs and pays money to employees+suppliers. Last I checked, businesses got money from customers. They'd get/loans/ from banks (but that has to be paid back).
The problem with a lot of SV/Tech startups is that the people involved appear to believe that their income comes from VCs. Their business plan is effectively "Get VC Money, Then Sell Company!"
A depressed market would soon separate the wheat from the chaff.
To imply that a female professional at the top of her game couldn't aggressively question him because she was some how out of her wits because of a natural bodily function she's been dealing with since she was 13 is absolutely sexist.
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist. Attacking all, disparaging all, certainly. But your use of the word "sexist" to describe the way a person treats a couple of specific individuals is objectively incorrect.
While I think that mppp is a fuckwit, but minus the wit, the statement (alone):
Mass surveillance is a necessary consequence of mass immigration from the Muslim world.
does not tell you anything about his support for or against mass surveillance.
Someone stating that $X is a necessary consequence of $Y in no way implies support for or against $X, regardless of whether $X is or is not a necessary consequence of $Y.
I think you mean 75% of the country. The thought HRC was well-supported, but it turns out only 25% of the country (or less) actually supported her. This means that these pundits were (and still are) out of touch with the 75% of the country who did not vote for her.
Trump's 62mil votes is not "75% of the country", unless you're using geographic area.
No one claimed that. My claim is that HRC's ~64m votes is 25% (or less) of the country. She has, whether you like it or not, the support of roughly 25% (or less) of the country. There was, whether you even want to acknowledge it or not, only a 0.66% difference in support between Clinton and Trump.
The margin of popularity between Clinton and Trump is barely a rounding error. Plotted on a 0%-100% chart printed on A4 paper, you won't even see the difference!
That partially goes to show you how out of touch pundits and comedians are with half of the country.
I think you mean 20% of the country.
I think you mean 75% of the country. The thought HRC was well-supported, but it turns out only 25% of the country (or less) actually supported her. This means that these pundits were (and still are) out of touch with the 75% of the country who did not vote for her.
1) From what I now, Erlang doesn't work on Windows as well as on Linux. I'd wager it's related to lower level details, and not something that an implementation of the GNU userspace can fix.
The last time I looked at kernel call translation, it was not possible to make a fork() replacement for the NT kernel. Maybe this is changed now? In any case, without an efficient implementation of CoW fork() a lot of things that are lightweight in unixes are orders of magnitude heavier in NT. I expect that Erlang uses CoW process creation to keep overhead small enough to compete with shared-memory threads.
Therefore, I distrust their claim regarding Erlang.
2) Why did they feel the need to mention Erlang explicitly, is it really that popular in Linux world?
Not really popular, as far as I can tell. I've done a few Erlang projects (in Telecoms, where it really *is* popular) but I was not impressed.
If you remember that picture of Mark Zuckerberg sitting at his laptop, not only was the camera taped over but also the headphone jack. He knew that there was a security problem with the headphone jack that also functioned as an audio input.
The headphone jack on its own can do nothing. It's when you plug in headphones (or speakers) into it that the sound can be recorded.
You have to realize just how much the recent election shocked the shit out of the media. Wow, there is a whole world out there and they have NO IDEA what is going on. They have been living in a bubble and that bubble was burst, badly, on election night. They are deep hurting and this isn't any kind of fake crocodile tears hurt. It's for real and they are going to engage in the kind of defense mechanisms that humans engage in when they are hurt this badly.
So, what should their reaction be to the fact that the world doesn't conform to how they think? Take a long, hard look at themselves and change? Or double down, adopt a fortress mentality, and deny that there's anything wrong? Label these dissenting voices "fake news" and strive mightily the MSM's chief weapon, credibility, to discredit them.
Well, that was what they did with "gamergate" - they doubled down on the shaming language until the gamers metaphorically spanked them. It wasn't until the advertisers pulled the advertising dollars that they backed down.
I stated that not all Trump supporters are bigots. I'm happy to reiterate that.
In fact, let's compare out attitudes:
The Trump supporters chose the higher-ground on this one
You seem to be treating "Trump supporters" as a homogeneous group.
Really? Like this:
It's not a witch-hunt you pillock, it's just that people are rightly embarrassed to vote for him
I've always been careful not to do that.
Whoops!
Personally I find the idea that the Trump campaign took the higher ground laughable.
You also found the idea that he will win ludicrous, while I thought it a higher possibility than HRC winning. Once again I must point out that you getting it wrong and me calling the correct result means that one of us is disconnected from reality and one of us is not.
Trump consistently pandered to the lowest, most base emotions of the electorate. Of course not all of them voted for him for those reasons, but Trump himself is definitely deserving of criticism and I won't apologise for that.
But it's not Trump you were attacking, it was supporters of Trump. Specifically, you demonise any group who thinks the wrong thoughts.
You should attempt a little introspection. I fear that you are unable to do so because you have tied your self-identity and self-worth to your ideology. You lack self-awareness, which is why you are unable to see that your views are abhorrent, repugnant even, to any sane society.
Had you any self-awareness, or awareness in general, you would have realised (without me repeatedly telling you) that your views are largely unacceptable to most societies. I would advise you to at least attempt introspective thought. Sit down and think through your ideology, starting with "Wait, what if this ideology is evil?". If you are unable to even comprehend that your ideology is wrong, then perhaps no one can help you.
I would also recommend reading 1984. You frequently accuse others of thinking wrong thoughts. You see nothing wrong with shutting down the conversation with shaming language. You argued *for*segregation multiple times, contending that the ends do in fact justifies the means.
Once you start down the path of "well, the ends justifies the means", you may as well just give up - the majority of sane folk will regard you as a lunatic.
What you have stated is a belief in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
You have misunderstood me. My contention is that there isn't equality of opportunity. Even if on paper there is no rule against a certain person doing or becoming X, it does not mean that they have an equal opportunity to do X.
Can you give an example of where I labelled you as a misogynist? It's difficult to answer these accusations without something specific to consider. I'll happily apologise if I was wrong or unfair.
The last time you said you'll happily apologise for something, I spent a great deal of time posting links to posts of yours that argued for segregation, complete with context. You then replied that it was all out of context... even though I took great care to include the context as well as the links.
Yes. You really are that disconnected that when your own thoughts come back to you you do not even recognise them. I hope that, in some small way, I got through to you. Shaming language is an attack on a persons character, not on a persons argument. The Clinton campaign stuck with shaming language (like you do!) - "deplorables" only to find out that they were alienating the centrists.
If I got through to you, I'll know - your predictions will be more connected to reality. My predictions are still on the ball (Trump will win, Trump will adopt a more moderate centrist position, the wall will never be built, there will be no concentration camps, etc). I look forward to seeing if your doom-and-gloom predictions ever materialise.
My point was clearly that people felt embarrassed, for what I consider good reasons.
And I pointed out that that was not the case - they withheld the true nature of their support because they did not want to be attacked. You, personally, in previous posts, called Trump supporters racists, xenophobes and misogynists. Right now you used shaming language and did not even realise it.
That's not accusing them of racism or misogyny, that's just the nature of post-truth politics. Your contention that it is out of fear of attack is understood, but I don't think it holds water since it would surely have created the same issue for people voting for Clinton in Trumpland,
Nope. The Trump supporters chose the higher-ground on this one - while the media attacked and villified them for their support, they quietly voted their choice. No one called Hillary supporters crooks, even if they called Hillary a crook. Yet you do it again, and again, and again... all the while not realising that when you insult people you lose their support.
Trump's campaign, FWIW, actually took the higher ground here, which is why I was able to correctly call the result while the media bubble, disconnected from reality, got it wrong and then repeated that result. The reason you got it wrong was because you aren't willing to face any fact that conflicts with your ideology. Rather than face the fact that a very vocal ideological minority was contributing to people keeping their choices quiet, you prefer to think they they are *so* bad that they were embarrassed.
but the polls did not show that.
Why do you think I'm not an egalitarian? I have quite consistently stated that I believe in equality, particularly equality of opportunity and of rights.
Sorry, no. What you have stated is a belief in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. You cannot measure opportunity offered by measuring outcomes. You've attacked me many times, labelled me as a misogynist, purely because I am *for* egalitarianism.
"Rightly embarrassed"... you are literally telling them that they *should* be ashamed for their vote.
And I am a egalitarian, for what it's worth.
Sorry, no. You've displayed multiple times anti-egalitarian streaks. You've (also multiple times) accused anyone displaying egalitarian tendencies of being misogynist, and/or racist.
You seem to have gone off on a bit of rant there... What's all this about misogyny and racism? All I said was that people who voted for Trump were embarrassed about it, which is why the polls got it so wrong. When asked by pollsters they wouldn't admit it, out of embarrassment.
Nice spin - *you* are making the "they're embarrassed and should be" argument. What I originally pointed out which you've chosen to ignore is that they probably kept their vote secret, not out of embarrassment, but because a very vocal minority wants to attack them for their support.
"I do not want to be attacked" is not the same as "I am embarrassed".
Michael Moore knew Trump would win. My guess is it's because he actually walks among regular people.
Lots of people did. I called it correctly in slashdot postings too. The whole "reality has a liberal bias" thing proved incorrect. The hard-left are in an echo chamber of their own making. What's really distressing is that when they find reality differs from their assertions, they don't change their assertions, they say reality is wrong.
It's the various academicians that still can't believe Trump won because, "nobody I know voted for Trump".
Most of my friends are die-hard Republicans, but I don't know a single person who (admitted) voting for Trump.
If people don't want to admit their preference to you, maybe the problem is you? Most people have no problem admitting a preference, unless the preference is used to attack their character.
It's not a witch-hunt you pillock, it's just that people are rightly embarrassed to vote for him.
You double-down on the shaming language while admitting it loses you supporters?
I remember telling you (and others like you) on/. that your extremist non-egalitarian views look just as insane as the views from the far right. You ignored me and continued toting the old "my views are the centrist views" line. Twice now you've been told by the electorate that your views are not as acceptable as you think it is.
Just how slow of a learner are you? Continue using insults in lieu of argument and see how that works out. Go on - call people misogynist because they verbally castigated or otherwise insulted some woman, somewhere, at some point in their life. Call people racist because they are against immigration.
You folk attacked peoples character and hurled non-stop insults while smugly maintaining that you held the moral high-ground. Well, guess what - the WBC also tells everyone they hold the moral high-ground, and look how well it turned out for them.
You can either adopt a more inclusive and egalitarian attitude or you can get another bloodied nose in a future election.
I would plan for a lot of this sort of thing from him. False shows of decisiveness. A lot of people seem to think that "doing something" is what a leader does, even if that "something" isn't well thought out or planned.
Leader? it's what everyone does!
We need to do something. This is something. We need to do this.
Do you not know how to spell Iraq? Twice in a row you've written Ireq. Also, it's pronounced by the locals and the rest of the world as "EE-RARK", not "EYE-RACK".
You do realize that attitude is what allowed Trump to win, right?
If you're not with us, your agin' us!
Everyone not voting for my candidate is a bigot!
No, it was people like yourself who try to make it impossible to draw a distinction between a merely unpopular candidate and a dangerous fascist.
[...]
If you can't call Trump a bigot then the word loses all meaning.
The reason the word lost all meaning was because it was overused in places where it was not true. Brace yourself for losing the meaning of the word "fascist" due to the same reason - you think insulting people with inaccurate terms "wins" you the argument. Maybe it does, but you lost the election due to non-stop insults. You're a real slow learner.
Slashdot Mirror
So I've already denied it was sexism; in fact, that's how I entered this thread. Just what kind of "scientist" were you anyway? Gender studies? Social sciences?
Bro, do you even read? You made a claim, I made a counter argument, and you made no further comment. That's called losing the argument.
Nope. GGP made a claim. I denied his claim. My first post to this thread was a denial, stating my position - you want I must continue restating the same position? Why?
Will you make a new /. ID to post again in 4 years when all the doom-and-gloom you're predicting fails to materialise?
again? this is is about 13 years old. And what predictions have I made, eh? I could use some insight into your weird fantasy. I look forwards to you claiming I've made all sorts of claims that other people made because libruhls all think the same amirite?
Well, *you* are quite predictable, so no surprises there. However, you've made plenty of claims about how Trump is the next Hitler, and about all the bad things that will happen if Trump is president. I look forward to seeing your posts when those doom-and-gloom predictions of yours do not materialise.
I predict that you will either go silent on your claims of doom-and-gloom, or you will say that your predictions failed because he was actively prevented from doing what you said he will do, and from becoming what you said he will become. Remember, I predicted both that he'll win and that he'll adopt more moderate positions.
A hallmark of good science is testing your predictions. If the test fails it's not reality that is wrong, it's your hypothesis.
Programming isn't terribly complex.
Awesome that you think so! Now, program some realtime flight surface control software for a fly-by-wire jet and sleep well knowing that your program will never, ever, kill anyone... (Or, substitute any other safety critical software you can think of - and theres a lot!)
"Programming" (by which I really mean software engineering) is one of the most complex activities in existence...
Just because it can be doesn't mean that it always is. The avionics-software programmer is working very differently to the muh-first-website programmer. It can be complex like avionics, but it can also be simple like javascript text-adventures.
"Programming" can be, at times, one of the most complex activities in existence. It can also be, at other times, one of the simplest activities you can find paying high salaries. Lets not pretend that programming is always more complex than brain surgery. It can (on rare occasions) be, but it's usually not much more complex than arithmetic.
I see you're not denying it was sexism. Now you know you've lost the argument, you're trying to have a different argument.
I knew your memory was short, but this is a new record ... even by your usual standards! Let me quote, in full, *my* assertion and *your* response to my original "not sexist" assertion:
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist.
Depends on the nature of the attack. In this case [...]
So I've already denied it was sexism; in fact, that's how I entered this thread. Just what kind of "scientist" were you anyway? Gender studies? Social sciences?
Thanks for playing.
How does it feel, now that your bubble about societal norms is thoroughly burst? Will you make a new /. ID to post again in 4 years when all the doom-and-gloom you're predicting fails to materialise? Does your virtue-signalling address whatever need you have within you that makes you accuse everyone of thought-crime?
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist.
Depends on the nature of the attack. In this case (suggesting it was PMS) was pretty much the textbook definition of sexism because it is attacking here merely for being female. I now look forward to you rationalizing it away.
So, when you get called dickhead you accuse the caller of misandry? Rationalize that.
He blamed a more cautious outlook from VCs focused on tech as the primary reason for letting 40 of Pebble's staff go.
In what universe is this quote acceptable?
This man appears to believe that businesses get money from VCs and pays money to employees+suppliers. Last I checked, businesses got money from customers. They'd get /loans/ from banks (but that has to be paid back).
The problem with a lot of SV/Tech startups is that the people involved appear to believe that their income comes from VCs. Their business plan is effectively "Get VC Money, Then Sell Company!"
A depressed market would soon separate the wheat from the chaff.
Sure, just like a proprietary bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, right?
In that case gay is the new Black. "We don't serve your kind here" is not something to cheer for.
Tell that to twitter - that's what they're planning on doing, after all.
To imply that a female professional at the top of her game couldn't aggressively question him because she was some how out of her wits because of a natural bodily function she's been dealing with since she was 13 is absolutely sexist.
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist. Attacking all, disparaging all, certainly. But your use of the word "sexist" to describe the way a person treats a couple of specific individuals is objectively incorrect.
While I think that mppp is a fuckwit, but minus the wit, the statement (alone):
Mass surveillance is a necessary consequence of mass immigration from the Muslim world.
does not tell you anything about his support for or against mass surveillance.
Someone stating that $X is a necessary consequence of $Y in no way implies support for or against $X, regardless of whether $X is or is not a necessary consequence of $Y.
Trump's 62mil votes is not "75% of the country", unless you're using geographic area.
No one claimed that. My claim is that HRC's ~64m votes is 25% (or less) of the country. She has, whether you like it or not, the support of roughly 25% (or less) of the country. There was, whether you even want to acknowledge it or not, only a 0.66% difference in support between Clinton and Trump.
The margin of popularity between Clinton and Trump is barely a rounding error. Plotted on a 0%-100% chart printed on A4 paper, you won't even see the difference!
you numpty.
Nice. Classy.
I think you mean 20% of the country.
I think you mean 75% of the country. The thought HRC was well-supported, but it turns out only 25% of the country (or less) actually supported her. This means that these pundits were (and still are) out of touch with the 75% of the country who did not vote for her.
1) From what I now, Erlang doesn't work on Windows as well as on Linux. I'd wager it's related to lower level details, and not something that an implementation of the GNU userspace can fix.
The last time I looked at kernel call translation, it was not possible to make a fork() replacement for the NT kernel. Maybe this is changed now? In any case, without an efficient implementation of CoW fork() a lot of things that are lightweight in unixes are orders of magnitude heavier in NT. I expect that Erlang uses CoW process creation to keep overhead small enough to compete with shared-memory threads.
Therefore, I distrust their claim regarding Erlang.
2) Why did they feel the need to mention Erlang explicitly, is it really that popular in Linux world?
Not really popular, as far as I can tell. I've done a few Erlang projects (in Telecoms, where it really *is* popular) but I was not impressed.
If you remember that picture of Mark Zuckerberg sitting at his laptop, not only was the camera taped over but also the headphone jack. He knew that there was a security problem with the headphone jack that also functioned as an audio input.
The headphone jack on its own can do nothing. It's when you plug in headphones (or speakers) into it that the sound can be recorded.
You have to realize just how much the recent election shocked the shit out of the media. Wow, there is a whole world out there and they have NO IDEA what is going on. They have been living in a bubble and that bubble was burst, badly, on election night. They are deep hurting and this isn't any kind of fake crocodile tears hurt. It's for real and they are going to engage in the kind of defense mechanisms that humans engage in when they are hurt this badly.
So, what should their reaction be to the fact that the world doesn't conform to how they think? Take a long, hard look at themselves and change? Or double down, adopt a fortress mentality, and deny that there's anything wrong? Label these dissenting voices "fake news" and strive mightily the MSM's chief weapon, credibility, to discredit them.
Well, that was what they did with "gamergate" - they doubled down on the shaming language until the gamers metaphorically spanked them. It wasn't until the advertisers pulled the advertising dollars that they backed down.
I stated that not all Trump supporters are bigots. I'm happy to reiterate that.
In fact, let's compare out attitudes:
The Trump supporters chose the higher-ground on this one
You seem to be treating "Trump supporters" as a homogeneous group.
Really? Like this:
It's not a witch-hunt you pillock, it's just that people are rightly embarrassed to vote for him
I've always been careful not to do that.
Whoops!
Personally I find the idea that the Trump campaign took the higher ground laughable.
You also found the idea that he will win ludicrous, while I thought it a higher possibility than HRC winning. Once again I must point out that you getting it wrong and me calling the correct result means that one of us is disconnected from reality and one of us is not.
Trump consistently pandered to the lowest, most base emotions of the electorate. Of course not all of them voted for him for those reasons, but Trump himself is definitely deserving of criticism and I won't apologise for that.
But it's not Trump you were attacking, it was supporters of Trump. Specifically, you demonise any group who thinks the wrong thoughts.
You should attempt a little introspection. I fear that you are unable to do so because you have tied your self-identity and self-worth to your ideology. You lack self-awareness, which is why you are unable to see that your views are abhorrent, repugnant even, to any sane society.
Had you any self-awareness, or awareness in general, you would have realised (without me repeatedly telling you) that your views are largely unacceptable to most societies. I would advise you to at least attempt introspective thought. Sit down and think through your ideology, starting with "Wait, what if this ideology is evil?". If you are unable to even comprehend that your ideology is wrong, then perhaps no one can help you.
I would also recommend reading 1984. You frequently accuse others of thinking wrong thoughts. You see nothing wrong with shutting down the conversation with shaming language. You argued *for*segregation multiple times, contending that the ends do in fact justifies the means.
Once you start down the path of "well, the ends justifies the means", you may as well just give up - the majority of sane folk will regard you as a lunatic.
What you have stated is a belief in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
You have misunderstood me. My contention is that there isn't equality of opportunity. Even if on paper there is no rule against a certain person doing or becoming X, it does not mean that they have an equal opportunity to do X.
Can you give an example of where I labelled you as a misogynist? It's difficult to answer these accusations without something specific to consider. I'll happily apologise if I was wrong or unfair.
The last time you said you'll happily apologise for something, I spent a great deal of time posting links to posts of yours that argued for segregation, complete with context. You then replied that it was all out of context ... even though I took great care to include the context as well as the links.
Yes. You really are that disconnected that when your own thoughts come back to you you do not even recognise them. I hope that, in some small way, I got through to you. Shaming language is an attack on a persons character, not on a persons argument. The Clinton campaign stuck with shaming language (like you do!) - "deplorables" only to find out that they were alienating the centrists.
If I got through to you, I'll know - your predictions will be more connected to reality. My predictions are still on the ball (Trump will win, Trump will adopt a more moderate centrist position, the wall will never be built, there will be no concentration camps, etc). I look forward to seeing if your doom-and-gloom predictions ever materialise.
My point was clearly that people felt embarrassed, for what I consider good reasons.
And I pointed out that that was not the case - they withheld the true nature of their support because they did not want to be attacked. You, personally, in previous posts, called Trump supporters racists, xenophobes and misogynists. Right now you used shaming language and did not even realise it.
That's not accusing them of racism or misogyny, that's just the nature of post-truth politics. Your contention that it is out of fear of attack is understood, but I don't think it holds water since it would surely have created the same issue for people voting for Clinton in Trumpland,
Nope. The Trump supporters chose the higher-ground on this one - while the media attacked and villified them for their support, they quietly voted their choice. No one called Hillary supporters crooks, even if they called Hillary a crook. Yet you do it again, and again, and again... all the while not realising that when you insult people you lose their support.
Trump's campaign, FWIW, actually took the higher ground here, which is why I was able to correctly call the result while the media bubble, disconnected from reality, got it wrong and then repeated that result. The reason you got it wrong was because you aren't willing to face any fact that conflicts with your ideology. Rather than face the fact that a very vocal ideological minority was contributing to people keeping their choices quiet, you prefer to think they they are *so* bad that they were embarrassed.
but the polls did not show that.
Why do you think I'm not an egalitarian? I have quite consistently stated that I believe in equality, particularly equality of opportunity and of rights.
Sorry, no. What you have stated is a belief in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. You cannot measure opportunity offered by measuring outcomes. You've attacked me many times, labelled me as a misogynist, purely because I am *for* egalitarianism.
What exactly is the shaming language used there?
"Rightly embarrassed"... you are literally telling them that they *should* be ashamed for their vote.
And I am a egalitarian, for what it's worth.
Sorry, no. You've displayed multiple times anti-egalitarian streaks. You've (also multiple times) accused anyone displaying egalitarian tendencies of being misogynist, and/or racist.
You seem to have gone off on a bit of rant there... What's all this about misogyny and racism? All I said was that people who voted for Trump were embarrassed about it, which is why the polls got it so wrong. When asked by pollsters they wouldn't admit it, out of embarrassment.
Nice spin - *you* are making the "they're embarrassed and should be" argument. What I originally pointed out which you've chosen to ignore is that they probably kept their vote secret, not out of embarrassment, but because a very vocal minority wants to attack them for their support.
"I do not want to be attacked" is not the same as "I am embarrassed".
Michael Moore knew Trump would win. My guess is it's because he actually walks among regular people.
Lots of people did. I called it correctly in slashdot postings too. The whole "reality has a liberal bias" thing proved incorrect. The hard-left are in an echo chamber of their own making. What's really distressing is that when they find reality differs from their assertions, they don't change their assertions, they say reality is wrong.
It's the various academicians that still can't believe Trump won because, "nobody I know voted for Trump".
Most of my friends are die-hard Republicans, but I don't know a single person who (admitted) voting for Trump.
If people don't want to admit their preference to you, maybe the problem is you? Most people have no problem admitting a preference, unless the preference is used to attack their character.
It's not a witch-hunt you pillock, it's just that people are rightly embarrassed to vote for him.
You double-down on the shaming language while admitting it loses you supporters?
I remember telling you (and others like you) on /. that your extremist non-egalitarian views look just as insane as the views from the far right. You ignored me and continued toting the old "my views are the centrist views" line. Twice now you've been told by the electorate that your views are not as acceptable as you think it is.
Just how slow of a learner are you? Continue using insults in lieu of argument and see how that works out. Go on - call people misogynist because they verbally castigated or otherwise insulted some woman, somewhere, at some point in their life. Call people racist because they are against immigration.
You folk attacked peoples character and hurled non-stop insults while smugly maintaining that you held the moral high-ground. Well, guess what - the WBC also tells everyone they hold the moral high-ground, and look how well it turned out for them.
You can either adopt a more inclusive and egalitarian attitude or you can get another bloodied nose in a future election.
Fence wall: 60 minutes http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
Prosecuting Hillary: He's not going to do anything. At all. After saying he was going to get her locked up for her criminal behavior.
If I understand you correctly, you're unhappy that he appears to be adopting a moderate position?
I would plan for a lot of this sort of thing from him. False shows of decisiveness. A lot of people seem to think that "doing something" is what a leader does, even if that "something" isn't well thought out or planned.
Leader? it's what everyone does!
We need to do something. This is something. We need to do this.
Do you not know how to spell Iraq? Twice in a row you've written Ireq. Also, it's pronounced by the locals and the rest of the world as "EE-RARK", not "EYE-RACK".
You do realize that attitude is what allowed Trump to win, right?
If you're not with us, your agin' us! Everyone not voting for my candidate is a bigot!
No, it was people like yourself who try to make it impossible to draw a distinction between a merely unpopular candidate and a dangerous fascist.
[...]
If you can't call Trump a bigot then the word loses all meaning.
The reason the word lost all meaning was because it was overused in places where it was not true. Brace yourself for losing the meaning of the word "fascist" due to the same reason - you think insulting people with inaccurate terms "wins" you the argument. Maybe it does, but you lost the election due to non-stop insults. You're a real slow learner.
Conversely, everything seems funny when you have your head up your ass.
That's only if you eaten a clown recently. END CANNABILISM NOW!!!
"Looking at subjects timezone, he probably should be at work!"
:-)