There were plenty of predictions of the tsunami, when it was likely, how severe it was likely to be, etc. TEPCO chose to ignore those, because they were expensive, and to go with considerably cheaper predictions of a much smaller, more frequent, event.
Yup - human hubris.
And of course, disasters seldom have one single cause. But this one had one huge glaring red flag 5-alarm problem. The site.
In the true nature of human interaction, I suspect that someone made a real killing off the siting decision.
The entire Fukushima Disaster was more a disaster because it was entirely preventable. Whether is is malfeasance or nonfeasance it is plainly criminal because it is quite plainly negligence.
This disaster illustrates the fatal flaw of nuclear power generation.
It isn't the plants themselves. A nuc plant can be made pretty safe. The problem is humans.
Everything that happened in Fukushima was preventable. From the siting to the design to the seawalls to the back-up system.
But we have deadlines, finances, hubris, corruption and stupidity.
My research on the disaster included a "how could this have been avoided" section. After noting the freely available historical and physical evidence was ignored, it was clear that the site beside the ocean was one of the worst siting options. Further it was possible to come up with a much better site in a few minutes. Along a river, above the historic Tsunami height lines, and therefore much safer.
Why this didn't happen, why seawalls were built that were a dead lock to be overwashed was not the fault of nuclear power, but the results of humans being in charge of it. And it is foolish to think that all nuc plants except Chernobyl and Fukushima or TMI have non-corrupt humans involved.
It all comes to a shitload of energy packed in a small space. With not only kaboom aspects, but using poisonous materials that will take a long time to mitigate if it does go kaboom.
Nuc power can be made safe. History shows us that it is impossible to make humans safe.
I still design with Skeuomorphism. While not in fashion, we are pushing on figurative buttons and I've seen precious few buttons in the real world that are flat, shadowless monochromatic tiles.
The trick is to make it fairly subtle
The attack on Skeuomorphism was led by people without the skills to design that way. Flat is easier. That is my theory.
It certainly looks that way. Stick figure level design.
I I shouldn't have to spend a ton of time trying to learn an interface because of stupid UI design. The only time I should have to spend learning to use a program is on program specific features.
For me there was a tie in dumbshittedness. That was the Ribbon, and the whack-a-mole system maintenance of Windows 8. Simple tasks that functioned perfectly since W95 were moved for no reason at all other than to be different.
The OS is suposed to look nice, do what I want it to do and get out of the way so I can run my programs.
There is no such thing as making Skeuomorphism "fairly subtle". You are using the term improperly.
Skeuomorphism is the literal imitating or mimicking of materials, it is not the implementing of subtle visual cues that provide visual complexity. It is the fake woodgrain or yellow lined notepad, not the shading of a UI widget.
Skeuomorphism is abhorrent and must die a painful death. Reducing "flatness" is not a "comeback" for Skeuomorphism.
Agreed, it's using flat interfaces where you cannot spare a few pixels to create bevels to more clearly visually distinguish between elements. I realize that flat interface sure LOOK pretty, but the usability is objectively worse than the last generation of software applications with distinct, three dimensional controls and consistent set of toolkit widgets.
I still design with Skeuomorphism. While not in fashion, we are pushing on figurative buttons and I've seen precious few buttons in the real world that are flat, shadowless monochromatic tiles.
The trick is to make it fairly subtle. And if the customer demands trendiness, I can make the design flat and lifeless as they wish. I suspect that Skeuomorphism will make a comeback, as the flat tile concept is so damn limiting, lifeless, and boring.
Your work is shit, you are shit, you are useless and all your work will be undone in a few years, ufck you.
Just boot a 2010 Mac, and look at OSX 10.6 , oh wow, so pretty, so nice, so cute, fucking sweet ass bitch.
All these modern shit, made by simpletons newbies is crap. Might have been ok in 1998 with crap hardware.
Funny you should mention that. I was working on an iMac of that vintage with a hard drive problem. After fixing it I set it up for my wife to try out. She had never used a mac before, and is used to more "modern" UI's. She loved it! And her reaction read like your post. I'll have to show her the post when I get home.
You seem to think that wealth is a constant sum and that an increase for one person requires an equal reduction for another.
While there are certain limits to the amount of wealth products - outside of running the presses and faking it - the fact remains that the driving force of greed will cause the most driven and likely successful among us will want any and all wealth. They do want to reduce other's wealth as long as they can accumulate it for their own.
They put throttles on engines because if allowed to run wide open, the engine soon destroys itself. While some might want the engine to run wide open all the time, others want the engine to last a long time and perform it's best work.
You label and judge, good for you. How's that working out for you in your personal life?
What I find funny is that, even though you claim to be pro-2nd Amendment, you're totally okay with somebody saying "They are too busy jerking each other off" about gun owners but you're all over me for defending those same people.
He was being an asshole, but hey muchacho - so were you. You can call me an asshole as well - and hey bro - yes, I'm a major asshole. But I don't care. That's my super power.
Granted, I came on strong, but I've had a bad day and I'm really sick of all the stupid AC posts that ruin the comment boards around here.
No problem - we all have bad days on occasion. Relax with the adult beverage of your choice, or if you are in Colorado, there are other options! 8^)
You are a kook because you don't get worked up about the other parts of the "Bill of Rights". You probably have never even read it. Gun nuts are the worst.
Also:
Demands people who are not in lockstep with him leave the country.
\
Demands anyone who doesn't think in lockstep with him to not be allowed to come into the country.
Apparently believes that anyone who disagrees with him is a liberal douch or piece of trash.
Gun nuts have gone so far around the bend that they now foist their insane rants on normal 2nd amendment loving gun owners.
Chillaxe, and get back to infowars. I'm big on the second amendment, and very very not big on kooks such as yourself.
What did I say that makes me a kook? Is it my support of the Bill of Rights? Please explain yourself.
Every word you posted in the first post. Everything you posted in the second one. You don't get to label yourself. If you re-read what wou've been writing and still don't see it, it affirms. I judge - You are a first class certifiable kook - deal with it.
Oooh, so funny! You're so funny! I bet all your liberal SJW friends really enjoy being around you because you're so clever and funny with you're anti-2nd Amendment jokes. What a funny guy you are!!!!
False. You're a douche. If you live in the U.S. then get the hell out. If you don't live in the U.S. then stay the hell out. Despite the liberal narrative, the majority of Americans still view the Bill of Rights as 100% valid and don't want pieces of trash like you focking it up.
Chillaxe, and get back to infowars. I'm big on the second amendment, and very very not big on kooks such as yourself.
You don't get to give the orders, tovarisch. You and the rest of the ammosexuals are the biggest threat to gun ownership.
I absolutely cannot. Because
Communism
is always destroyed by the first person who succeeds. The effect of greed is such that while the greediest spout about
egalitarianism
, but their greed causes them to want anything but competition. If I want all of the
power
that is possible to
have
, upon success, I will do everything to take others
things
, and ascertain that the deck is stacked in my favor.
You aren't wrong. I hope you weren't trying to disagree with me. Any pure 'ism destroys itself because it makes fatally flawed assumptions.
Can you show me an example of a society that has committed suicide through too pure capitalism? I can think of several that did the reverse.
I absolutely cannot. Because Capitalism is always destroyed by the first person who succeeds. The effect of greed is such that while the greediest spout about capitalism, but their greed causes them to want anything but competition. If I want all of the money that is possible to make, upon success, I will do everything to take others money, and ascertain that the deck is stacked in my favor.
So now give me an example of a pure capitalist society that exists, much less succeeds.
But think about all the extra money he would make from royalties from the book. A lot of people will pay top dollar to reinforce their views against capitalism.
The biggest problem is that I am not sure if I am being sarcastic or not.
Any conflicts you might have are probably based on the differences between unfettered and controlled capitalism. Capitalism in it's purist form is suicidal. What is surprising is that more people don't realize that an economy based on greed needs some control over that greed. Since greed lies along a spectrum, from people who are altruistic, to people who can and do kill other humans to secure wealth in their sociopathic level of greed. Some want it all.
It also tends toward the common mistake of humans that they don't understand simple math. Pure capitalism will attempt to accumulate all other money, especially in it's corporatism mutant form. The simple math is an equation. If the corporation has no customers, or almost no one can afford to buy their products - it makes no money. If all of the potential customers are out of work because " The actions we are taking today continue our transformation to be highly agile, resilient, and profitable, while giving us the flexibility to invest in the future.." as the lady said, they miss the profitable part.
It's all well and good to make money. A lot of it is fine. I loves me my money. But in today's corporatism/capitalism world, it appears that some folks think you can make money without having any customers. Or by demanding first world prices at the some time as demanding third world wages.
My wife is asked out all the time on line. In today's world, that is sexual harassment. She just giggles and tells the guy he's not man enough
What a cunt. She could have just said she's married, rather than cutting a guy's balls off every time one shows interest. She better not say this to peoples' faces, she could come home with a black eye and a bloody nose for that kind of talk.
Oh, little snowflake, it is apparently easy to give you booboo feelings. Perhaps you are not man enough to take any negativity? I told my wife, and she said she was so sorry that she gave you hurts.
A few words completely emasculate you. Sad. Now give mommy and daddy's laptop back to them, and come back when you are out of middle school, and off of Ritalin.
Bring up your trolling game, because you are getting boring by just repeating yourself.
This isn't terribly surprising. And it will be quite difficult to turn the online experience into one that caters to the most sensitive. In general, men just let it go, yet apparently it damages women terribly.
I don't buy Georgie Harman's ideat that it damages men as well, but that men don't seek treatment. Sorry, other than a direct threat of violence, the insults and abuse are just background noise.
What is more, the attempts on some sites to reign this "bad behavior" in are inconsistent, leading to draconian suppression in some cases, but not others. I haven't seen enough to figure a trend yet. I do know some posts I've commented on have been deleted after a male disagreed with a female. You start out trying to avoid abuse, and you end up squelching civil discourse.
And then there is tumblr. This one is pretty funny, as Tumblr's "porn detection algorithms" flag some pretty innocuous things as pornography https://arstechnica.com/gaming...
Some of the more amusing things that Tumblr is protecting the sensitive from are some cute little candles a woman knitted. Some dinosaur drawings, two fully clothed males with their arms around each other. Spiderman's head, Alex Ovechkin taking a nap with the Stanley cup, a dog sitting in a shopping cart. Not in the article, but another case was a guy who collected gemstones and posted beautiful pictures online. Yup - Tumblr reported it as porn. The unfortunate irony is that Tumblr was a source of imagery for the LGBT community as well as women, who might feel a little awkward going to places like Pornhub or porn.com. They re pissing off the more sensitive among us.
And I don't have the hard data, but I suspect that the heavy hand of suppression is weighted toward keeping the men in line. Not certain about that, but a number of the things I've found suppressed were right after a male disagreed with a woman's post. None were abusive or profane, just simple disagreement.
So back to the abuse - how do we eliminate abuse when some people consider not agreeing with them as abuse? I've seen people do exactly that over the years. And the Jessica Price twitter assault on a guy who had a respectful criticism shows it continues.
The only way to avoid going down that perpetually offended rabbit hole is to ignore their demands.
Frightened aren't you? Danger around every corner - the Universe wants to hurt you, and you are plum terrified.
This is the mindset that FOX News and others loooooove to perpetuate to their right-wing/conservative audience- that the world is a dangerous place and everyone is out to get you.
Conservative mindsets eat that shit up, which is why numpties like Hannity and Limbaugh and Jeanine Pirro continue to exist.
Ugh. I suppose the best thing about them is that they corral the mentally ill in one place.
"Oh no, brown people! Migrants! Homeless people! Gays! Liberals! Atheists! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU!!!!"
Gonna take our jerbs!! I vacillate between disdain, ridicule, and feeling sorry for these tools.
Considering that women are generally the ones that initiate divorce and that you don't really know if people are married online, she's a cunt that's rationalizing her own bad before based on her projection of what they're thinking.
Also the confusion between what people do and what they're is incredibly immature. Guys are going to ask random women out because there isn't really any alternative other than celibacy or going gay.
Your wife is acting like a bitch responding like that. Simply saying no is hardly a huge imposition.
They know she is married - it's right in her bio.
And seriously, you are utilizing the actions of a cunt by telling me all about what she "is", without knowing the situation. Don't be a cunt.
So the question is Why? Why is something that means almost nothing to me and most other males, an unforgivable assault upon women?
Societal expectations. Women are protected and men are sacrificed for society. Men are treated badly and told its their own fault. Women behave badly and are told its someone else's fault. Among many differences.
Essentially every time a news article like this comes out and people act on it to protect women, those very women in our society are treated as being less and less effective at managing their own lives.
The whole social justice process is self defeating. Safe spaces brings back segregation. Protecting women makes them weaker and less able.
Yes. The strange thing is that this promotion of women who must be protected and who are so delicate that asking them out can damage them emotionally, simply is not liberation, but the exact opposite, It is telling women that they are too weak to cope with life and that they definitely cannot cope with men. So since the woman is too weak - society must protect them. Victorian women would think that today's women are wimps that cannot handle life.
I've married to a woman who has had a very successful career, one who knows how to take care of herself. No one's fool. She would normally be considered a feminist. The problem is - she actually likes men. My thoughts on modern women's willful return to a state of weakness come from her. She thinks that modern feminists are an embarassment to all women. Screaming and yelling does not equate strength.
The idea that all spaces must be made safe for those who can brook no adversity or disagreement isn't going to work.
But that's irrelevant to the people who believe that it will.
It should be, because they will fail.
People who are permanently offended eventually have to be ignored. Because they will always find something to be offended about. Tyranny of the weakest means that if the state doesn't collapse on it's own, outside others who aren't racing to the bottom will just take over.
This. Women in the workplace must all think us guys all chum around together, plot to derail females careers, all like to work with each other, all get along with the boss swimmingly, never stab anyone in the fucking back, never call shit on crap work from the other guys, are never criticized, never emotional, always get the raise whether we deserve it or not. It just like a fucking vacation ever day at work. Right guys? And now if we ask you out, we're fucking sexual predators. The proverbial nest has pretty much been shit in, good luck with that moving forward.
Asking a woman out today in person is a version of Russian roulette. That's why dating sites like Tinder exist, So that the woman in her quest for complete control, can pick and choose who is worthy of her attention, and the male has some distance.
Fear not, becasue Tindr has the douchebag initiative, so that women can shame anyone. You not only don't get a date, they don't have to merely swipe left, but they can abuse you if you aren't worthy.
Slashdot Mirror
There were plenty of predictions of the tsunami, when it was likely, how severe it was likely to be, etc. TEPCO chose to ignore those, because they were expensive, and to go with considerably cheaper predictions of a much smaller, more frequent, event.
Yup - human hubris.
And of course, disasters seldom have one single cause. But this one had one huge glaring red flag 5-alarm problem. The site.
In the true nature of human interaction, I suspect that someone made a real killing off the siting decision.
The entire Fukushima Disaster was more a disaster because it was entirely preventable. Whether is is malfeasance or nonfeasance it is plainly criminal because it is quite plainly negligence.
This disaster illustrates the fatal flaw of nuclear power generation.
It isn't the plants themselves. A nuc plant can be made pretty safe. The problem is humans.
Everything that happened in Fukushima was preventable. From the siting to the design to the seawalls to the back-up system.
But we have deadlines, finances, hubris, corruption and stupidity.
My research on the disaster included a "how could this have been avoided" section. After noting the freely available historical and physical evidence was ignored, it was clear that the site beside the ocean was one of the worst siting options. Further it was possible to come up with a much better site in a few minutes. Along a river, above the historic Tsunami height lines, and therefore much safer.
Why this didn't happen, why seawalls were built that were a dead lock to be overwashed was not the fault of nuclear power, but the results of humans being in charge of it. And it is foolish to think that all nuc plants except Chernobyl and Fukushima or TMI have non-corrupt humans involved.
It all comes to a shitload of energy packed in a small space. With not only kaboom aspects, but using poisonous materials that will take a long time to mitigate if it does go kaboom.
Nuc power can be made safe. History shows us that it is impossible to make humans safe.
I still design with Skeuomorphism. While not in fashion, we are pushing on figurative buttons and I've seen precious few buttons in the real world that are flat, shadowless monochromatic tiles. The trick is to make it fairly subtle
The attack on Skeuomorphism was led by people without the skills to design that way. Flat is easier. That is my theory.
It certainly looks that way. Stick figure level design.
I I shouldn't have to spend a ton of time trying to learn an interface because of stupid UI design. The only time I should have to spend learning to use a program is on program specific features.
For me there was a tie in dumbshittedness. That was the Ribbon, and the whack-a-mole system maintenance of Windows 8. Simple tasks that functioned perfectly since W95 were moved for no reason at all other than to be different.
The OS is suposed to look nice, do what I want it to do and get out of the way so I can run my programs.
And if the customer demands trendiness, I can make the design flat and lifeless as they wish.
The correct response is to tell the customer "No", and then hit them in the head with a brick over and over again until they come to their senses.
oooohhhh, I like the way you think!!
"The trick is to make it fairly subtle."
There is no such thing as making Skeuomorphism "fairly subtle". You are using the term improperly.
Skeuomorphism is the literal imitating or mimicking of materials, it is not the implementing of subtle visual cues that provide visual complexity. It is the fake woodgrain or yellow lined notepad, not the shading of a UI widget.
Skeuomorphism is abhorrent and must die a painful death. Reducing "flatness" is not a "comeback" for Skeuomorphism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
But thanks - it is good to get a professional designer to educate us.
Agreed, it's using flat interfaces where you cannot spare a few pixels to create bevels to more clearly visually distinguish between elements. I realize that flat interface sure LOOK pretty, but the usability is objectively worse than the last generation of software applications with distinct, three dimensional controls and consistent set of toolkit widgets.
I still design with Skeuomorphism. While not in fashion, we are pushing on figurative buttons and I've seen precious few buttons in the real world that are flat, shadowless monochromatic tiles.
The trick is to make it fairly subtle. And if the customer demands trendiness, I can make the design flat and lifeless as they wish. I suspect that Skeuomorphism will make a comeback, as the flat tile concept is so damn limiting, lifeless, and boring.
A msg to YOU CEOS and underling UI coders ;
Your work is shit, you are shit, you are useless and all your work will be undone in a few years, ufck you.
Just boot a 2010 Mac, and look at OSX 10.6 , oh wow, so pretty, so nice, so cute, fucking sweet ass bitch.
All these modern shit, made by simpletons newbies is crap. Might have been ok in 1998 with crap hardware.
Funny you should mention that. I was working on an iMac of that vintage with a hard drive problem. After fixing it I set it up for my wife to try out. She had never used a mac before, and is used to more "modern" UI's. She loved it! And her reaction read like your post. I'll have to show her the post when I get home.
You seem to think that wealth is a constant sum and that an increase for one person requires an equal reduction for another.
While there are certain limits to the amount of wealth products - outside of running the presses and faking it - the fact remains that the driving force of greed will cause the most driven and likely successful among us will want any and all wealth. They do want to reduce other's wealth as long as they can accumulate it for their own.
They put throttles on engines because if allowed to run wide open, the engine soon destroys itself. While some might want the engine to run wide open all the time, others want the engine to last a long time and perform it's best work.
You label and judge, good for you. How's that working out for you in your personal life?
What I find funny is that, even though you claim to be pro-2nd Amendment, you're totally okay with somebody saying "They are too busy jerking each other off" about gun owners but you're all over me for defending those same people.
He was being an asshole, but hey muchacho - so were you. You can call me an asshole as well - and hey bro - yes, I'm a major asshole. But I don't care. That's my super power.
Granted, I came on strong, but I've had a bad day and I'm really sick of all the stupid AC posts that ruin the comment boards around here.
No problem - we all have bad days on occasion. Relax with the adult beverage of your choice, or if you are in Colorado, there are other options! 8^)
You are a kook because you don't get worked up about the other parts of the "Bill of Rights". You probably have never even read it. Gun nuts are the worst.
Also:
Demands people who are not in lockstep with him leave the country.
\ Demands anyone who doesn't think in lockstep with him to not be allowed to come into the country.
Apparently believes that anyone who disagrees with him is a liberal douch or piece of trash.
Gun nuts have gone so far around the bend that they now foist their insane rants on normal 2nd amendment loving gun owners.
Chillaxe, and get back to infowars. I'm big on the second amendment, and very very not big on kooks such as yourself.
What did I say that makes me a kook? Is it my support of the Bill of Rights? Please explain yourself.
Every word you posted in the first post. Everything you posted in the second one. You don't get to label yourself. If you re-read what wou've been writing and still don't see it, it affirms. I judge - You are a first class certifiable kook - deal with it.
Oooh, so funny! You're so funny! I bet all your liberal SJW friends really enjoy being around you because you're so clever and funny with you're anti-2nd Amendment jokes. What a funny guy you are!!!!
False. You're a douche. If you live in the U.S. then get the hell out. If you don't live in the U.S. then stay the hell out. Despite the liberal narrative, the majority of Americans still view the Bill of Rights as 100% valid and don't want pieces of trash like you focking it up.
Chillaxe, and get back to infowars. I'm big on the second amendment, and very very not big on kooks such as yourself.
You don't get to give the orders, tovarisch. You and the rest of the ammosexuals are the biggest threat to gun ownership.
Peace out.
I have not been able to dial 911 for months
Can't find the 11 key?
I absolutely cannot. Because Communism is always destroyed by the first person who succeeds. The effect of greed is such that while the greediest spout about egalitarianism , but their greed causes them to want anything but competition. If I want all of the power that is possible to have , upon success, I will do everything to take others things , and ascertain that the deck is stacked in my favor.
You aren't wrong. I hope you weren't trying to disagree with me. Any pure 'ism destroys itself because it makes fatally flawed assumptions.
Can you show me an example of a society that has committed suicide through too pure capitalism? I can think of several that did the reverse.
I absolutely cannot. Because Capitalism is always destroyed by the first person who succeeds. The effect of greed is such that while the greediest spout about capitalism, but their greed causes them to want anything but competition. If I want all of the money that is possible to make, upon success, I will do everything to take others money, and ascertain that the deck is stacked in my favor.
So now give me an example of a pure capitalist society that exists, much less succeeds.
But think about all the extra money he would make from royalties from the book. A lot of people will pay top dollar to reinforce their views against capitalism.
The biggest problem is that I am not sure if I am being sarcastic or not.
Any conflicts you might have are probably based on the differences between unfettered and controlled capitalism. Capitalism in it's purist form is suicidal. What is surprising is that more people don't realize that an economy based on greed needs some control over that greed. Since greed lies along a spectrum, from people who are altruistic, to people who can and do kill other humans to secure wealth in their sociopathic level of greed. Some want it all.
It also tends toward the common mistake of humans that they don't understand simple math. Pure capitalism will attempt to accumulate all other money, especially in it's corporatism mutant form. The simple math is an equation. If the corporation has no customers, or almost no one can afford to buy their products - it makes no money. If all of the potential customers are out of work because " The actions we are taking today continue our transformation to be highly agile, resilient, and profitable, while giving us the flexibility to invest in the future.." as the lady said, they miss the profitable part.
It's all well and good to make money. A lot of it is fine. I loves me my money. But in today's corporatism/capitalism world, it appears that some folks think you can make money without having any customers. Or by demanding first world prices at the some time as demanding third world wages.
My wife is asked out all the time on line. In today's world, that is sexual harassment. She just giggles and tells the guy he's not man enough
What a cunt. She could have just said she's married, rather than cutting a guy's balls off every time one shows interest. She better not say this to peoples' faces, she could come home with a black eye and a bloody nose for that kind of talk.
Oh, little snowflake, it is apparently easy to give you booboo feelings. Perhaps you are not man enough to take any negativity? I told my wife, and she said she was so sorry that she gave you hurts.
A few words completely emasculate you. Sad. Now give mommy and daddy's laptop back to them, and come back when you are out of middle school, and off of Ritalin.
Bring up your trolling game, because you are getting boring by just repeating yourself.
Peace out.
https://www.theguardian.com/me... higher-proportion-of-men-than-women-report-online-abuse-in-survey
This isn't terribly surprising. And it will be quite difficult to turn the online experience into one that caters to the most sensitive. In general, men just let it go, yet apparently it damages women terribly.
I don't buy Georgie Harman's ideat that it damages men as well, but that men don't seek treatment. Sorry, other than a direct threat of violence, the insults and abuse are just background noise.
What is more, the attempts on some sites to reign this "bad behavior" in are inconsistent, leading to draconian suppression in some cases, but not others. I haven't seen enough to figure a trend yet. I do know some posts I've commented on have been deleted after a male disagreed with a female. You start out trying to avoid abuse, and you end up squelching civil discourse.
And then there is tumblr. This one is pretty funny, as Tumblr's "porn detection algorithms" flag some pretty innocuous things as pornography https://arstechnica.com/gaming...
Some of the more amusing things that Tumblr is protecting the sensitive from are some cute little candles a woman knitted. Some dinosaur drawings, two fully clothed males with their arms around each other. Spiderman's head, Alex Ovechkin taking a nap with the Stanley cup, a dog sitting in a shopping cart. Not in the article, but another case was a guy who collected gemstones and posted beautiful pictures online. Yup - Tumblr reported it as porn. The unfortunate irony is that Tumblr was a source of imagery for the LGBT community as well as women, who might feel a little awkward going to places like Pornhub or porn.com. They re pissing off the more sensitive among us.
And I don't have the hard data, but I suspect that the heavy hand of suppression is weighted toward keeping the men in line. Not certain about that, but a number of the things I've found suppressed were right after a male disagreed with a woman's post. None were abusive or profane, just simple disagreement.
So back to the abuse - how do we eliminate abuse when some people consider not agreeing with them as abuse? I've seen people do exactly that over the years. And the Jessica Price twitter assault on a guy who had a respectful criticism shows it continues.
The only way to avoid going down that perpetually offended rabbit hole is to ignore their demands.
Frightened aren't you? Danger around every corner - the Universe wants to hurt you, and you are plum terrified.
This is the mindset that FOX News and others loooooove to perpetuate to their right-wing/conservative audience- that the world is a dangerous place and everyone is out to get you.
Conservative mindsets eat that shit up, which is why numpties like Hannity and Limbaugh and Jeanine Pirro continue to exist.
Ugh. I suppose the best thing about them is that they corral the mentally ill in one place.
"Oh no, brown people! Migrants! Homeless people! Gays! Liberals! Atheists! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU!!!!"
Gonna take our jerbs!! I vacillate between disdain, ridicule, and feeling sorry for these tools.
Considering that women are generally the ones that initiate divorce and that you don't really know if people are married online, she's a cunt that's rationalizing her own bad before based on her projection of what they're thinking.
Also the confusion between what people do and what they're is incredibly immature. Guys are going to ask random women out because there isn't really any alternative other than celibacy or going gay.
Your wife is acting like a bitch responding like that. Simply saying no is hardly a huge imposition.
They know she is married - it's right in her bio.
And seriously, you are utilizing the actions of a cunt by telling me all about what she "is", without knowing the situation. Don't be a cunt.
So the question is Why? Why is something that means almost nothing to me and most other males, an unforgivable assault upon women?
Societal expectations. Women are protected and men are sacrificed for society. Men are treated badly and told its their own fault. Women behave badly and are told its someone else's fault. Among many differences.
Essentially every time a news article like this comes out and people act on it to protect women, those very women in our society are treated as being less and less effective at managing their own lives.
The whole social justice process is self defeating. Safe spaces brings back segregation. Protecting women makes them weaker and less able.
Yes. The strange thing is that this promotion of women who must be protected and who are so delicate that asking them out can damage them emotionally, simply is not liberation, but the exact opposite, It is telling women that they are too weak to cope with life and that they definitely cannot cope with men. So since the woman is too weak - society must protect them. Victorian women would think that today's women are wimps that cannot handle life.
I've married to a woman who has had a very successful career, one who knows how to take care of herself. No one's fool. She would normally be considered a feminist. The problem is - she actually likes men. My thoughts on modern women's willful return to a state of weakness come from her. She thinks that modern feminists are an embarassment to all women. Screaming and yelling does not equate strength.
Hikaru Sulu: "D'oh!"
"oh my!"
The idea that all spaces must be made safe for those who can brook no adversity or disagreement isn't going to work.
But that's irrelevant to the people who believe that it will.
It should be, because they will fail.
People who are permanently offended eventually have to be ignored. Because they will always find something to be offended about. Tyranny of the weakest means that if the state doesn't collapse on it's own, outside others who aren't racing to the bottom will just take over.
This. Women in the workplace must all think us guys all chum around together, plot to derail females careers, all like to work with each other, all get along with the boss swimmingly, never stab anyone in the fucking back, never call shit on crap work from the other guys, are never criticized, never emotional, always get the raise whether we deserve it or not. It just like a fucking vacation ever day at work. Right guys? And now if we ask you out, we're fucking sexual predators. The proverbial nest has pretty much been shit in, good luck with that moving forward.
Asking a woman out today in person is a version of Russian roulette. That's why dating sites like Tinder exist, So that the woman in her quest for complete control, can pick and choose who is worthy of her attention, and the male has some distance.
Fear not, becasue Tindr has the douchebag initiative, so that women can shame anyone. You not only don't get a date, they don't have to merely swipe left, but they can abuse you if you aren't worthy.