It's not just nazis but it is largely populated with various varieties of white nationalists. Its original intended purpose was as an alt-twitter for the alt-right. Its icon is a cartoon frog after all.
Sunlight is a good disinfectant. It is better for extremism to be discussed and confronted openly rather than festering in the shadows.
The most tired practically disproven idea in society since trickle-down economics. Sunlight makes these weeds grow tall and form growth patches. What works on people who follow nonsense ideologies that shouldn't survive first contact with rational debate is "don't feed the trolls."
We don't judge the wrongness of an ideology based solely on how many deaths it causes, that's why virtually nobody thinks communism is nearly as bad as nazism - going solely by the numbers, communism should be considered far worse.
Communism isn't a hateful ideology that supports racist ideas or advocates genocide. It ends up killing a great number of people anyway, but that's not intended. It's actually less hateful than capitalism which relies on classist victim-blaming for ideological support - communism constantly glorifies and praises the worker even as he suffers under the system, while capitalism constantly blames the worker not only for the entirety of his own plight but for a large share of the economy's ills. Both for the same reason, to prevent the workers from revolting against the horrific economic injustices these economic systems create. One butters them up and the other tells them to blame no-one but themselves.
Laissez-faire capitalism, if left in place long enough, will end up killing far more than communism ever did, when a majority of humanity is made unemployable through automation and there are killbots sitting around ready for orders.
The existence of those accounts isn't indicative of selective enforcement - Twitter's moderation operates at the content level, not the account level. So you can set up an account for a white supremacist organization but the moment you post a call for genocide, you'll get banned. Do the same on Gab, and nothing will happen, other than an overwhelming response of support from other users.
Yep, I would've preferred if Amazon were able to keep this particular patent forever, so that no other websites would have dangerous Big Red Buttons to avoid and disable. I wonder if they can make a slight, inconsequential change to it and reapply, like in the pharmaceutical industry?
So women just prefer to be paid less, to be shitty leaders, and to be more neurotic and stressed out?
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Money is though, in the USA. I think it would be better if money was not free speech and a dick up the ass was. Let's see politicians collect their bribes then! >:D
This. The whole idea of "shine a light on them/keep them visible/debate, don't silence" which is apparently widely held among Slashdotters, is perfectly counterproductive to the goal of extinguishing nonsensical and hateful ideas. This article should help explain why the correct tactic to use on any kind of terrible nonsense thinking that is unworthy of debate among intelligent people is "Don't feed the trolls:"
Mod parent up, you can tell this post is actually written by a woman because it calls out the comical level of crude sexism running rampant on this site that makes it hostile to female users (and I don't think it was this bad before the wider neo-reactionary movement started to build up steam a few years ago).
I'm disappointed that she used scientific and and chain-of-authority arguments against the memo rather than more important ethical ones, repeating one of the most common mistakes men who supported the memo did, but it's a noteworthy contribution nonetheless.
Those unintelligent people will do a lot worse than blather on about the terrible ideas that are spread to them in the process of giving said ideas a platform for "debate."
Of you don't think that's sexism then you don't know what sexism is. Good luck with that. It also clearly states the reasons why he thinks that women are on average less suited to careers in engineering due to biological differences, although he stops short of putting those exact words together in sequence, which is the only way it could be made more clear.
No, I disagree. It's better to keep them hidden, it makes their cause harder to find and join, keeps them disorganized.
Cheering for communism doesn't bother me any more than cheering for capitalism. Both are shitty extreme economic systems that will enrich a few, cause society-wide suffering, and eventually mass death.
Not to mention the absolute freakout by the media, and left calling for this to be "domestic terrorism" and blaming the "alt-right" or "neo-nazis" or "white nationalists" whatever the catch phrase is in this news cycle.
So, you're far right enough to downplay domestic terrorism by white nationalists (a useful umbrella term that covers neo-nazis, centipedes, neo-confederates, etc). Duly noted.
You give them a platform with which to spread their message if you don't. And the idea that it's better to debate ideas based on lies rather than smother them is misguided:
How do you take someone between two such completely opposite worldviews? And when you're doing it with public messaging, how can you prevent massive collateral damage to the rest of society in the process?
You sure showed those strawmen! Or are you saying that all white men are racists and all racists are white men? That seems bigoted!
This "meta-study" said that women were biologically less fit for working at Google and therefore Google should not make an effort to hire so many of them. Women at Google read that. This wasn't a scientific study submitted to a journal. This was a recommendation on hiring practices.
So again you and that Philosopher are the idiots here for thinking the English statement "You can't prove a negative" translates to 'You can't prove a negative to be false" you certainly CAN prove a 'negative to be false'. The statement is more fully "You can't prove a negative to be true" and there is NO amount of symbolic logic that will let you wriggle out of that.
Using 1 of his examples we have:
A = Bigfoot exists Not(A) = Not (Bigfoot exists) or in proper English grammar Bigfoot does not exist
IF you find 1 Bigfoot you have 'proven A to be true' but you have NOT proven 'Not-A to be TRUE' in fact by the very rule of 'logical non-contradiction' it can NOT be both so you have proven 'Not-A to be FALSE (or 'not-true)'. So no you have 'not proven a negative to be true', you have proven that 'negative to be FALSE'. OR if you REALLY want to blow your mind than I could say you have proven "Not-A is not a true statement is true' but that does NOT 'prove a negative' since all I've done there is 'Prove A is a true statement'.
Now, NO amount of evidence that 'Bigfoot does not exist' actually proves 'Bigfoot does not exist' because all it takes is finding 1 Bigfoot and the statement 'Bigfoot does not exist' will be FALSE not TRUE.
Now you've shifted from logic to science, which is where I contend that you certainly can prove a negative. Science is happy to say that, since after exhaustive searches we've never found any physical evidence of a bigfoot or even a good photo, bigfoot does not exist. That's a proven negative. Just as science would say that since reindeer have never been observed flying, do not have any lifting surfaces, thrust mechanisms, or lighter-than-air envelopes, and did not use flight ability to save their lives when thrown from a building, reindeer cannot fly.
Getting back to the logic of proving a negative, you seem to be arguing that it's impossible to prove the negative of a true statment to be true, which indeed conflicts with the law of non-contradiction, but that has nothing with the possibility or impossibility of proving a negative in general. Have a look at this:
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just nazis but it is largely populated with various varieties of white nationalists. Its original intended purpose was as an alt-twitter for the alt-right. Its icon is a cartoon frog after all.
Sunlight is a good disinfectant. It is better for extremism to be discussed and confronted openly rather than festering in the shadows.
The most tired practically disproven idea in society since trickle-down economics. Sunlight makes these weeds grow tall and form growth patches. What works on people who follow nonsense ideologies that shouldn't survive first contact with rational debate is "don't feed the trolls."
We don't judge the wrongness of an ideology based solely on how many deaths it causes, that's why virtually nobody thinks communism is nearly as bad as nazism - going solely by the numbers, communism should be considered far worse.
Communism isn't a hateful ideology that supports racist ideas or advocates genocide. It ends up killing a great number of people anyway, but that's not intended. It's actually less hateful than capitalism which relies on classist victim-blaming for ideological support - communism constantly glorifies and praises the worker even as he suffers under the system, while capitalism constantly blames the worker not only for the entirety of his own plight but for a large share of the economy's ills. Both for the same reason, to prevent the workers from revolting against the horrific economic injustices these economic systems create. One butters them up and the other tells them to blame no-one but themselves.
Laissez-faire capitalism, if left in place long enough, will end up killing far more than communism ever did, when a majority of humanity is made unemployable through automation and there are killbots sitting around ready for orders.
The existence of those accounts isn't indicative of selective enforcement - Twitter's moderation operates at the content level, not the account level. So you can set up an account for a white supremacist organization but the moment you post a call for genocide, you'll get banned. Do the same on Gab, and nothing will happen, other than an overwhelming response of support from other users.
De-fault! De-fault! De-fault!
Yep, I would've preferred if Amazon were able to keep this particular patent forever, so that no other websites would have dangerous Big Red Buttons to avoid and disable. I wonder if they can make a slight, inconsequential change to it and reapply, like in the pharmaceutical industry?
So women just prefer to be paid less, to be shitty leaders, and to be more neurotic and stressed out?
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Cry more for me, MRA neckbeard.
Government-printed money is a lot easier to track, that's the difference.
(taking it up the ass isn't free speech)
Money is though, in the USA. I think it would be better if money was not free speech and a dick up the ass was. Let's see politicians collect their bribes then! >:D
This. The whole idea of "shine a light on them/keep them visible/debate, don't silence" which is apparently widely held among Slashdotters, is perfectly counterproductive to the goal of extinguishing nonsensical and hateful ideas. This article should help explain why the correct tactic to use on any kind of terrible nonsense thinking that is unworthy of debate among intelligent people is "Don't feed the trolls:"
https://www.wired.com/story/me...
Mod parent up, you can tell this post is actually written by a woman because it calls out the comical level of crude sexism running rampant on this site that makes it hostile to female users (and I don't think it was this bad before the wider neo-reactionary movement started to build up steam a few years ago).
I'm disappointed that she used scientific and and chain-of-authority arguments against the memo rather than more important ethical ones, repeating one of the most common mistakes men who supported the memo did, but it's a noteworthy contribution nonetheless.
Mod parent Insightful. I'm glad they've been pushed to the deepest darkest corners of the Internet.
Those unintelligent people will do a lot worse than blather on about the terrible ideas that are spread to them in the process of giving said ideas a platform for "debate."
Of you don't think that's sexism then you don't know what sexism is. Good luck with that. It also clearly states the reasons why he thinks that women are on average less suited to careers in engineering due to biological differences, although he stops short of putting those exact words together in sequence, which is the only way it could be made more clear.
No, I disagree. It's better to keep them hidden, it makes their cause harder to find and join, keeps them disorganized.
Cheering for communism doesn't bother me any more than cheering for capitalism. Both are shitty extreme economic systems that will enrich a few, cause society-wide suffering, and eventually mass death.
Back into the darkest corners of the Internet where you belong.
Not to mention the absolute freakout by the media, and left calling for this to be "domestic terrorism" and blaming the "alt-right" or "neo-nazis" or "white nationalists" whatever the catch phrase is in this news cycle.
So, you're far right enough to downplay domestic terrorism by white nationalists (a useful umbrella term that covers neo-nazis, centipedes, neo-confederates, etc). Duly noted.
Beats me, but many do, nonetheless.
You give them a platform with which to spread their message if you don't. And the idea that it's better to debate ideas based on lies rather than smother them is misguided:
https://www.wired.com/story/me...
Did my personal biases make these points appear in the original text?
https://slashdot.org/comments....
How do you take someone between two such completely opposite worldviews? And when you're doing it with public messaging, how can you prevent massive collateral damage to the rest of society in the process?
Climate scientists were right then, but it's because most of them were ignoring the global cooling bullshit:
http://physicstoday.scitation....
You sure showed those strawmen! Or are you saying that all white men are racists and all racists are white men? That seems bigoted!
This "meta-study" said that women were biologically less fit for working at Google and therefore Google should not make an effort to hire so many of them. Women at Google read that. This wasn't a scientific study submitted to a journal. This was a recommendation on hiring practices.
So again you and that Philosopher are the idiots here for thinking the English statement "You can't prove a negative" translates to 'You can't prove a negative to be false" you certainly CAN prove a 'negative to be false'. The statement is more fully "You can't prove a negative to be true" and there is NO amount of symbolic logic that will let you wriggle out of that.
Using 1 of his examples we have:
A = Bigfoot exists
Not(A) = Not (Bigfoot exists) or in proper English grammar Bigfoot does not exist
IF you find 1 Bigfoot you have 'proven A to be true' but you have NOT proven 'Not-A to be TRUE' in fact by the very rule of 'logical non-contradiction' it can NOT be both so you have proven 'Not-A to be FALSE (or 'not-true)'. So no you have 'not proven a negative to be true', you have proven that 'negative to be FALSE'. OR if you REALLY want to blow your mind than I could say you have proven "Not-A is not a true statement is true' but that does NOT 'prove a negative' since all I've done there is 'Prove A is a true statement'.
Now, NO amount of evidence that 'Bigfoot does not exist' actually proves 'Bigfoot does not exist' because all it takes is finding 1 Bigfoot and the statement 'Bigfoot does not exist' will be FALSE not TRUE.
Now you've shifted from logic to science, which is where I contend that you certainly can prove a negative. Science is happy to say that, since after exhaustive searches we've never found any physical evidence of a bigfoot or even a good photo, bigfoot does not exist. That's a proven negative. Just as science would say that since reindeer have never been observed flying, do not have any lifting surfaces, thrust mechanisms, or lighter-than-air envelopes, and did not use flight ability to save their lives when thrown from a building, reindeer cannot fly.
Getting back to the logic of proving a negative, you seem to be arguing that it's impossible to prove the negative of a true statment to be true, which indeed conflicts with the law of non-contradiction, but that has nothing with the possibility or impossibility of proving a negative in general. Have a look at this:
http://www3.canisius.edu/~mole...
Opposition to bigotry is not bigotry. Racism is not an immutable trait. Tolerating intolerance would be self-conflicting and self-defeating.