I proposed no change. I just pointed out that you are mindlessly following society's inconsistent and illogical stance.
And I'm proposing that there is nothing illogical and inconsistent in asserting that speech itself is without harm. Luckily for you, everyone agrees with me and you are allowed to say what you like, the way you are currently saying what you like, without legal remedies being applied to yourself.
If, as you propose, speech itself is found to be harmful then, due to you not following society's norms, society would prevent you from expressing your thoughts due to someone, somewhere, who considers your speech to be harmful.
I'm constantly amazed by people who espouse that speech should be limited, but ironically do not realise that such a rule would prevent them from stating their opinion in the first place.
What harm does a water balloon that blows up on your roof (without a drop hitting a window or landing under your tires) do?
None, yet you find it illegal. Same as words. Only you find those legal. And you can't explain the difference. Got it.
Not me, society does. I'm just agreeing with society. You're the one proposing the change, you provide society with reasons.
So your response is "nuh uh". You win with your logic.
Like I keep pointing out, the world doesn't care about your feelings. Trying to equate words to a physical quantity such as half a kg of water doesn't mean the world is going to decide differently.
Offense is nothing like physical force, which is what a water balloon imparts.
So if I blow on your hand, I've used "physical force" and thus committed an assault? Does it matter of the "blowing" of air was from speaking? I can measure the "physical force" speech causes. Microphones are designed to measure and record that physical force.
But you have an inarticulable line between speech and "force" where the force has no force.
For the water balloon, what if it misses the car, and the driver still panicked and crashed?
Regardless of your personal belief, a water balloon has a physical quantity while words do not. You are unlikely to find many people agreeing with you if you maintain that words flying through the air and a water-filled balloon flying through the air are similar.
Ah so apparently there's some slashdot "rule" where I'm only supposed to reply to you if you reply to me first. Righty ho.
The reason you've been seeing a lot of me is because it appears that we both like the same threads. Only one of us consistently lies about things other people say, and it isn't me who does that.
I like how you never retracted your comment, nor tried to back up your claim.
I didn't make any claim to retract, other than (let me try again because you seem to be a slow learner):
You'd be right if "socially" referred to the people who hang out on GitHub, which isn't exactly going to be a very precise reflection of society in general. Something can be wildly popular on GitHub and still be moronic to the rest of society.
His point stands, yours doesn't.
His point was regarding dick jokes, which Monty Python proved to be wildly popular with in Life of Brian. My point still stands, in that society saw nothing wrong with an extended "dick jokes" scene before and they are thus unlikely to do so now.
You are quite welcome to believe that society is siding with you and the rest of the peanut gallery, but the evidence indicates otherwise. Dick jokes in all sorts of contexts remain to be seen as funny by the world.
Out of interest, do you realise that you're a pathological liar or is this subconscious trait?
I challenge you to find any time I've made any objection to the DICSS project (you won't because I haven't and it's long list of entertaining dick jokes).
Well, you *have* been following me around and replying to my every comment even when you have nothing to say that's on-topic, so I tend to agree that there is something pathological going on. I mean, after all, I don't reply to your every comment with an off-topic post, do I?
Nah nah nah, only the part where they are using their phones to look up "top 10 ways to kill yourself discretely while at a restaurant with your parents".
Why? Is it better to kill yourself in steps or does the slow bleed-out from slit wrists put too many of them off?
You are advocating limiting someone's non-harmful free speech while using the platform of free speech to do so.
[citation needed]
Or in other words, you seriously need to learn to read, unless you're so stupid that you believe tho opposite but don't realise it.
Free speech means that everyone including assholes get to say what they want, and that includes telling assholes that they're assholes.
So, you can blither on mindlessly based on your inability to read and I can call you an idiot for doing so.
Yes, you can, inaccurate though it may be. You can also note, like I've already said, that the world doesn't think your "feels" are important enough to be protected and that's the way it should remain (and probably will for the foreseeable future). Interestingly enough, no one objected to Monty Python making dick jokes, but if a techie does it, then your oh so precious feels are hurt...
In case your lack of comprehension skills hurt your feels again, let me reiterate - the world does not care about your feels, because then it has to care about my feels too.
How is the enjoyment of dick jokes related to someone's ability to do anything? I know a few chemists and a viral biologist who have the filthiest sense of humour imaginable. (the plural of anecdote is data)
Oh, filthy humor can be very funny and clever. But just saying "dick" a bunch of times is neither.
The world seems to have disagreed with you already; just ask my friend Biggus Dickus. Let's face it - a great deal of british humour (especially from the "carry on" series and Monty Python) revolved around genitalia.
If you don't like it you're free to fork DICSS or even ignore it completely if you have no use for DICSS.
Sure, just don't piss and moan when a private platform like GitHub decides not to host it for you.
Well, if you're going to use your free-speech ability to condemn it, you hurl insults at those who use the very same fee-speech ability to condone it without looking a little bit hypocritical, right?
Oh, right, it's you - the one who hurls insults at people and then wonder why so few women want to join his "community"...
Yes, we should make women welcome in FOSS. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy a good laugh at the same time.
I'm curious, poet. Is there anything about this DICSS project that gave you "a good laugh"? How old are you that references to a penis is the height of comedy?
I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were drafted into the comedy police who gets to decide what is funny and what is not...
Of course you have a legal right to be a dick by making people uncomfortable. And yes, I know people who are afraid of dogs, it's an illness as real as any physical one, and their dog owning friends keep their dogs away from them because, you know, that's what friendship is. Similarly, I do okay so I don't go around flashing my money in the face of poor people, because it's tasteless and liable to attract a negative response.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Freedom of speech and action is not freedom from consequences. No one has to tolerate your behaviour, they are free to no associate with you or otherwise shun you for your actions. If people don't like this project they are free to say so, and have every right to do so. You are free to disagree.
The world has shown repeatedly and conclusively that it doesn't care about your unmeasurable "feels", no matter how many high-profile PR battles are started. The majority of the human race/do not want/ to care that your feelings were hurt by something someone said, somewhere... maybe. You see if we have to care about your feels when it is about genitalia-speech, then we have to care about your feels when the speech is about your belief in the FSM, or Jesus, or vaccine-causes-autism, or Mohammed, or Microsoft-vs-Linux-vs-Apple-vs-Google, or any one of a number of things *you* believe in.
The world has already decided that peoples feelings about speech are not important enough to care about. You are advocating limiting someone's non-harmful free speech while using the platform of free speech to do so. I suggest that you first follow your own advice and keep quiet; if that is not appealing to you then consider why no one else (i.e. the rest of the world) finds it appealing.
It isn't helped by people like you minimizing the problem and making it seem frivolous. This particular example just seems silly - the article doesn't reference where the jokes went "too far" so I can't speak to that. But spouting bullshit like "reverse privilege" and shouting down women who complain is problematic. Women who complain about *anything* - but especially tech - online are subjected to threats and harassment that men are far far far FAR less likely to encounter. As always the story isn't about some women (and only some - look at the tweets there are plenty of women who find it funny) who object to dick jokes. It is about the way those women are treated as a result of sharing their opinion.
PopeRatzo posted his results some time back about the level of harrassment for men and women on 8-chan (or similar, I don't remember). He displayed conclusively that (perceived) men received a multiple of the number of harassment than (perceived) women.
Is being offended a harm? If so, should it be illegal?
Whether it [causing offence without any other harm] should be illegal or not is a different question - right now it is perfectly legal as you imply, hence many, if not most, sane people fall on the side of "free speech, but no incitement" rather than "free speech, but spare my feels".
That would move the discussion from "offense" to "harm" so that a rational discussion could be had.
That's a hypothetical future - right now the harm cannot be measured, and so is (correctly, IMHO) ignored by most legal systems.
Offense is like a water balloon thrown from a bridge at a passing car. If the person hit by it panics and crashes, is that the fault of the person who panicked from a non-harm of a water balloon? Or the fault of the person throwing it, knowing it was likely to cause harm?
Offense is nothing like physical force, which is what a water balloon imparts.
Does it matter if the "offensive language" is an adult trying to talk a mentally ill minor into suicide?
What if you take offense to me saying "god doesn't exist"? Should I then be automatically in the wrong because you found my speech offensive?
They know what they are doing - for the first time in many years. Windows devices are currently 14% of global computing devices sales. Their 1.5 billion unit installed base is already less than Android's 2 billion plus and its advantage is eroding at a billion units a year. It is incredibly fragmented, with only 15% of their own users on version 8+ able to access the latest version of their browser. They must consolidate their base if they hope to leverage it into a credible entry into the mobile space. And they are out of time. If this fails, by the time a "next version" is ready they will be in Blackberry share land because between them Android and iOS will be moving 2 billion units a year, their installed base will be greater than 4 billion, and there are only 7 billion humans - many of whom are too young, one, poor to count at all.
They can still save themselves without giving it away for free. I'd buy Windows 10 if the price was around 20USD for the full non-crippled run-as-many-processes-and-users-as-you-want version, rather than 100USD for the crippled home-user-who-only-runs-one-program-at-a-time. As it stands, I've got Win7, won't move off it due to their stupid pricing but will gladly upgrade to Win10 for free if it is anything like Win7. If it wasn't free, I am willing to pay up to 20USD for Win10, but won't "upgrade" to Win10 if the upgrade is to a crippled home version of Win10.
The original SimCity had weird aspects to transportation, too. At some point your city would get so large that the only way to ease traffic was to remove all the roads and replace them with public transit. Which made me wonder how anyone who needed a new stove or couch got them home on the bus or train.
I do not recall public transit as an option in the original SimCity. Nor in SC2k, come to think of it.
Old Scam. - This offering is for "Sophisticated Investors" only. You should read this phrase as "Run Away Quickly", but a lot of people like to think they are smarter and more capable than they really are, and are sucked in. "Hell Yes I'm sufistikated, lets see what you got."
You may be on to something there - it worked the same way for bitcoins - "Only smart people who can understand the math can see why BTC are a good idea. Can you see?"...
I'm well aware of the discrimination against women in IT, against older IT workers, and against people whose skin colour is not "Snowy White" in IT. And yes, it's not just limited to IT. The real work is in changing peoples attitudes so that none of this matters. And that applies to ex-cons, single parents, people with mental illnesses, people with physical handicaps, and pretty much everything else.
Everyone here has baggage. Everyone.
Now I'm not saying that someone who was convicted of defrauding a bunch of people of their life's savings should get a job after that involves, say, setting up their own fund-raising scheme... or that a serial pedophile should should be applying for a job working at a day-care. But even in those cases, there must be jobs that they can do to, at the very least, make some restitution to their victims.
We have a saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Once they've done their time, it's time to move on, fix what got them thrown in jail in the first place, and make sure to the best of our abilities that it doesn't happen again while allowing them to have a stake in being a law-abiding citizen.
I do not disagree with any of the above; what you said was:
expect any suspected discrimination to be challenged in the courts
and what I said in reply to that was:
Good luck proving discrimination.
I do not expect to see widespread (hell, even in limited numbers above a single percentage point) challenges of discrimination in court. Firstly, in most jurisdictions it is legal for employers to discriminate based on criminal record. Secondly, if you found a jurisdiction which makes it illegal to discriminate against ex-cons, how the hell would you prove a particular ex-con was discriminated against?
I mean, even with the whole organised PR campaign against discrimination of women, we have yet to see a successful case of an employer discriminating against females.
Slashdot Mirror
I proposed no change. I just pointed out that you are mindlessly following society's inconsistent and illogical stance.
And I'm proposing that there is nothing illogical and inconsistent in asserting that speech itself is without harm. Luckily for you, everyone agrees with me and you are allowed to say what you like, the way you are currently saying what you like, without legal remedies being applied to yourself.
If, as you propose, speech itself is found to be harmful then, due to you not following society's norms, society would prevent you from expressing your thoughts due to someone, somewhere, who considers your speech to be harmful.
I'm constantly amazed by people who espouse that speech should be limited, but ironically do not realise that such a rule would prevent them from stating their opinion in the first place.
I think the problem a lot of programmers have with PHP is that it originally was written by very inexperienced programmer(s) and it still (?) shows.
(1) So was Python.
(2) So does Python.
Python is only slightly more consistent than PHP, but gets much more bad press than PHP. I always wonder why that is.
What harm does a water balloon that blows up on your roof (without a drop hitting a window or landing under your tires) do? None, yet you find it illegal. Same as words. Only you find those legal. And you can't explain the difference. Got it.
Not me, society does. I'm just agreeing with society. You're the one proposing the change, you provide society with reasons.
So your response is "nuh uh". You win with your logic.
Like I keep pointing out, the world doesn't care about your feelings. Trying to equate words to a physical quantity such as half a kg of water doesn't mean the world is going to decide differently.
Offense is nothing like physical force, which is what a water balloon imparts.
So if I blow on your hand, I've used "physical force" and thus committed an assault? Does it matter of the "blowing" of air was from speaking? I can measure the "physical force" speech causes. Microphones are designed to measure and record that physical force. But you have an inarticulable line between speech and "force" where the force has no force. For the water balloon, what if it misses the car, and the driver still panicked and crashed?
Regardless of your personal belief, a water balloon has a physical quantity while words do not. You are unlikely to find many people agreeing with you if you maintain that words flying through the air and a water-filled balloon flying through the air are similar.
Ah so apparently there's some slashdot "rule" where I'm only supposed to reply to you if you reply to me first. Righty ho.
The reason you've been seeing a lot of me is because it appears that we both like the same threads. Only one of us consistently lies about things other people say, and it isn't me who does that.
I like how you never retracted your comment, nor tried to back up your claim.
I didn't make any claim to retract, other than (let me try again because you seem to be a slow learner):
The world does not care about your feels,
Neither do I, as a matter of fact.
You'd be right if "socially" referred to the people who hang out on GitHub, which isn't exactly going to be a very precise reflection of society in general. Something can be wildly popular on GitHub and still be moronic to the rest of society.
His point stands, yours doesn't.
His point was regarding dick jokes, which Monty Python proved to be wildly popular with in Life of Brian. My point still stands, in that society saw nothing wrong with an extended "dick jokes" scene before and they are thus unlikely to do so now.
You are quite welcome to believe that society is siding with you and the rest of the peanut gallery, but the evidence indicates otherwise. Dick jokes in all sorts of contexts remain to be seen as funny by the world.
then your oh so precious feels are hurt...
Out of interest, do you realise that you're a pathological liar or is this subconscious trait?
I challenge you to find any time I've made any objection to the DICSS project (you won't because I haven't and it's long list of entertaining dick jokes).
Well, you *have* been following me around and replying to my every comment even when you have nothing to say that's on-topic, so I tend to agree that there is something pathological going on. I mean, after all, I don't reply to your every comment with an off-topic post, do I?
Nah nah nah, only the part where they are using their phones to look up "top 10 ways to kill yourself discretely while at a restaurant with your parents".
Why? Is it better to kill yourself in steps or does the slow bleed-out from slit wrists put too many of them off?
:-)
Not to mention, India's got a few nukes of their own. I don't know if they have a delivery system that will work after a first strike though.
I'm not sure they have a delivery system that will work *before* a first strike.
You are advocating limiting someone's non-harmful free speech while using the platform of free speech to do so.
[citation needed]
Or in other words, you seriously need to learn to read, unless you're so stupid that you believe tho opposite but don't realise it.
Free speech means that everyone including assholes get to say what they want, and that includes telling assholes that they're assholes.
So, you can blither on mindlessly based on your inability to read and I can call you an idiot for doing so.
Yes, you can, inaccurate though it may be. You can also note, like I've already said, that the world doesn't think your "feels" are important enough to be protected and that's the way it should remain (and probably will for the foreseeable future). Interestingly enough, no one objected to Monty Python making dick jokes, but if a techie does it, then your oh so precious feels are hurt...
In case your lack of comprehension skills hurt your feels again, let me reiterate - the world does not care about your feels, because then it has to care about my feels too.
Oh, filthy humor can be very funny and clever. But just saying "dick" a bunch of times is neither.
The world seems to have disagreed with you already; just ask my friend Biggus Dickus. Let's face it - a great deal of british humour (especially from the "carry on" series and Monty Python) revolved around genitalia.
Sure, just don't piss and moan when a private platform like GitHub decides not to host it for you.
Well, if you're going to use your free-speech ability to condemn it, you hurl insults at those who use the very same fee-speech ability to condone it without looking a little bit hypocritical, right?
Oh, right, it's you - the one who hurls insults at people and then wonder why so few women want to join his "community"...
I'm curious, poet. Is there anything about this DICSS project that gave you "a good laugh"? How old are you that references to a penis is the height of comedy?
I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were drafted into the comedy police who gets to decide what is funny and what is not...
Oh, wait...
Of course you have a legal right to be a dick by making people uncomfortable. And yes, I know people who are afraid of dogs, it's an illness as real as any physical one, and their dog owning friends keep their dogs away from them because, you know, that's what friendship is. Similarly, I do okay so I don't go around flashing my money in the face of poor people, because it's tasteless and liable to attract a negative response.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Freedom of speech and action is not freedom from consequences. No one has to tolerate your behaviour, they are free to no associate with you or otherwise shun you for your actions. If people don't like this project they are free to say so, and have every right to do so. You are free to disagree.
The world has shown repeatedly and conclusively that it doesn't care about your unmeasurable "feels", no matter how many high-profile PR battles are started. The majority of the human race /do not want/ to care that your feelings were hurt by something someone said, somewhere... maybe. You see if we have to care about your feels when it is about genitalia-speech, then we have to care about your feels when the speech is about your belief in the FSM, or Jesus, or vaccine-causes-autism, or Mohammed, or Microsoft-vs-Linux-vs-Apple-vs-Google, or any one of a number of things *you* believe in.
The world has already decided that peoples feelings about speech are not important enough to care about. You are advocating limiting someone's non-harmful free speech while using the platform of free speech to do so. I suggest that you first follow your own advice and keep quiet; if that is not appealing to you then consider why no one else (i.e. the rest of the world) finds it appealing.
It isn't helped by people like you minimizing the problem and making it seem frivolous. This particular example just seems silly - the article doesn't reference where the jokes went "too far" so I can't speak to that. But spouting bullshit like "reverse privilege" and shouting down women who complain is problematic. Women who complain about *anything* - but especially tech - online are subjected to threats and harassment that men are far far far FAR less likely to encounter. As always the story isn't about some women (and only some - look at the tweets there are plenty of women who find it funny) who object to dick jokes. It is about the way those women are treated as a result of sharing their opinion.
PopeRatzo posted his results some time back about the level of harrassment for men and women on 8-chan (or similar, I don't remember). He displayed conclusively that (perceived) men received a multiple of the number of harassment than (perceived) women.
Use to be that programming was woman work. But who cares about history when there is a rant to be made.
Because batched data entry with punch-cards is exactly like Java programming!
You find this risible?
"He wanks as high as any in Wome" :-)
if this socially moronic project rockets to the top in popularity on GitHub, what have you learned about the prevailing culture?
you tell me
You have learned that your point of view is not as popular as you thought it was. You may want to re-examine your definition of "socially moronic".
Is being offended a harm? If so, should it be illegal?
Whether it [causing offence without any other harm] should be illegal or not is a different question - right now it is perfectly legal as you imply, hence many, if not most, sane people fall on the side of "free speech, but no incitement" rather than "free speech, but spare my feels".
That would move the discussion from "offense" to "harm" so that a rational discussion could be had.
That's a hypothetical future - right now the harm cannot be measured, and so is (correctly, IMHO) ignored by most legal systems.
Offense is like a water balloon thrown from a bridge at a passing car. If the person hit by it panics and crashes, is that the fault of the person who panicked from a non-harm of a water balloon? Or the fault of the person throwing it, knowing it was likely to cause harm?
Offense is nothing like physical force, which is what a water balloon imparts.
Does it matter if the "offensive language" is an adult trying to talk a mentally ill minor into suicide?
What if you take offense to me saying "god doesn't exist"? Should I then be automatically in the wrong because you found my speech offensive?
They know what they are doing - for the first time in many years. Windows devices are currently 14% of global computing devices sales. Their 1.5 billion unit installed base is already less than Android's 2 billion plus and its advantage is eroding at a billion units a year. It is incredibly fragmented, with only 15% of their own users on version 8+ able to access the latest version of their browser. They must consolidate their base if they hope to leverage it into a credible entry into the mobile space. And they are out of time. If this fails, by the time a "next version" is ready they will be in Blackberry share land because between them Android and iOS will be moving 2 billion units a year, their installed base will be greater than 4 billion, and there are only 7 billion humans - many of whom are too young, one, poor to count at all.
They can still save themselves without giving it away for free. I'd buy Windows 10 if the price was around 20USD for the full non-crippled run-as-many-processes-and-users-as-you-want version, rather than 100USD for the crippled home-user-who-only-runs-one-program-at-a-time. As it stands, I've got Win7, won't move off it due to their stupid pricing but will gladly upgrade to Win10 for free if it is anything like Win7. If it wasn't free, I am willing to pay up to 20USD for Win10, but won't "upgrade" to Win10 if the upgrade is to a crippled home version of Win10.
The original SimCity had weird aspects to transportation, too. At some point your city would get so large that the only way to ease traffic was to remove all the roads and replace them with public transit. Which made me wonder how anyone who needed a new stove or couch got them home on the bus or train.
I do not recall public transit as an option in the original SimCity. Nor in SC2k, come to think of it.
Old Scam. - This offering is for "Sophisticated Investors" only. You should read this phrase as "Run Away Quickly", but a lot of people like to think they are smarter and more capable than they really are, and are sucked in. "Hell Yes I'm sufistikated, lets see what you got."
You may be on to something there - it worked the same way for bitcoins - "Only smart people who can understand the math can see why BTC are a good idea. Can you see?"...
I'm well aware of the discrimination against women in IT, against older IT workers, and against people whose skin colour is not "Snowy White" in IT. And yes, it's not just limited to IT. The real work is in changing peoples attitudes so that none of this matters. And that applies to ex-cons, single parents, people with mental illnesses, people with physical handicaps, and pretty much everything else.
Everyone here has baggage. Everyone.
Now I'm not saying that someone who was convicted of defrauding a bunch of people of their life's savings should get a job after that involves, say, setting up their own fund-raising scheme ... or that a serial pedophile should should be applying for a job working at a day-care. But even in those cases, there must be jobs that they can do to, at the very least, make some restitution to their victims.
We have a saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Once they've done their time, it's time to move on, fix what got them thrown in jail in the first place, and make sure to the best of our abilities that it doesn't happen again while allowing them to have a stake in being a law-abiding citizen.
I do not disagree with any of the above; what you said was:
expect any suspected discrimination to be challenged in the courts
and what I said in reply to that was:
Good luck proving discrimination.
I do not expect to see widespread (hell, even in limited numbers above a single percentage point) challenges of discrimination in court. Firstly, in most jurisdictions it is legal for employers to discriminate based on criminal record. Secondly, if you found a jurisdiction which makes it illegal to discriminate against ex-cons, how the hell would you prove a particular ex-con was discriminated against?
I mean, even with the whole organised PR campaign against discrimination of women, we have yet to see a successful case of an employer discriminating against females.
How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade
Sex work should not be criminal, period.
While I agree with you, not everyone who's in the sex trade is there by choice.
That's true for all professions, excepting the star/celebrity ones.