because I know that governmental restrictions on free speech tend to be disproportionately applied to minorities.
As was noted above, a rich white male is not considered minority, although blacks are more. It is about power balance. And from here, everything government does is unjust. If everyone is perfectly equal before the law, then xenophobia and such will keep these people in poverty or whatever. But if law is written for minorities – then there are people, who are more special. But there are always people, who are more special.
Since we will always live in unjust society, there has to be a better argument for supporting hate speech.
Well, why don't you worry about the appalling state of free speech on your side of the pond then
In Latvia (where I am), during gay pride people form catholic church threw excrements at participants of the pride. No arrests or anything. Makes me wonder.
On this topic the only belief I hold is that you are bind to the harms of free speech. I am just asking questions about what you believe and point out, that this view (if became norm) can be harmful. To which you answer, that one dominant POV can be harmful. And I agree, it is rather obvious.
Next, I am/was not talking about laws, but about principles. What is the world you want to live in?
What is free expression? Is command form a lieutenant an opinion? Is a quote "Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed." form a statesman an opinion he is entitled to?
Some other poster on this topic pointed out, that there are things like verbal acts, and it is very clear (from my point of view) in case of lieutenant.
Fun example. When there is a demonstration of some sort, and some members of crowd actively instigate riots, burning of buildings etc., are these instigators free from any moral responsibility?
I solve this by saying – the instigator is guilty, for he used his free will to cause harm and should be held personally responsible. And so should those who did the burning/looting/etc.
tl.dr.
Where (if at all) you draw a line between stating an opinion and using words as just another form of action?
I was addressing his belief, that free speech is über alles. It was bit difficult to find an example, where he could possibly be threatened by hate speech. If one is white and posh and male, then all is dandy. Black guy kills a black guy, police won't care, maybe a vendeta will take place. If a black guy kills white guy, easy conviction. If a white guy kills back guy, no one cares, if goes to trail, something can be figured out. Ok, from this side of pond, all states look the same, but you get the idea.
You don't get this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpyrM6GDG1Q in your dream world of rational people, now do you. This is not form playing Quake too long. Awful things, like genocide, are done, because people think, it is good thing to do (or at least OK). And quite frankly, Hitler made some high quality hate speeches. Of course, that not all he said was truth, but we should never limit free expressions of our leaders. It would be tragic, if Bush couldn't express his feelings freely about WMD in Iraq.
In short: words manipulate people.
Back to America. If there is already hate for blacks, Muslims or what you hate there, then a right word in right moment can spark what happened in Kyrgyzstan.
There is no such thing as hate speech only speech and its supposed to be free. Even advocationg violence I do not think meets the clear and presant danger test.
No such thing as hate speech? I can have an opinion that all white rich bastards should be shot dead, that is one thing. So, who is the bogeyman on the month? Take Muslims. If in the mosque near you, there would be preachings day in and day out, that all Christians and other non-believers should be shot, and that THEY should do it themselves, and not wait till friends form Afghanistan do it for them. Now, is this ok?
science is defined by a particular way of thinking -- its reliance on naturalistic, testable hypotheses and empiricism.
Firstly, there are/were lots of scientists, who have achieved a lot, whiles believing in God. One thing is about what they think about world and how it is made, another – being honest about research they make.
Secondly, science is not about reliance. It is about scepticism. And in the end, we all fall into "Magic happens here" trap eventually. When I am told "Don't put metals in microwave oven", I blindly obey the masters of carbon box. When I live fork in there, if they are wrong, nothing changes, if they are right, my microwave is dead, so I rather take the fork out. Call it "Tranzistors's wager".
So Mr. Linux what version of the kernel are you running?
And which version of windows are majority of users running? If most Linux users would use kernel 2.4 and FF would only support 2.6, you think it would be taken lightly?
Then, when someone tries it and has a ligit complain, they're told, STFU, you get what you pay for.
I am trying really hard to remember reading a bug report that was answered with STFU. Maybe because complaints look more like offence (Concern look like doing a lot of that on this topic) in direction of/. (where maturity is not a prerequisite), then STFU answer is not surprising.
In your opinion, how should "OMG, KDE suxors, crashes all the time. And Amarok, gah!!!" be addressed? With "Thank you for valuable input, we will address these issues right away"?
Well, the taxes do change the bottom line, don't they? The coal suddenly is more expensive than wind and then you go green.
How exactly green energy will magically benefit bottom line more than coal? Has it ever occurred to you that what is beneficial to you is not always good (i.e. beneficial to the rest)?
More like, how is it ON topic? I have to exploit my imagination quite a bit, to see relation between stories, and I still can't see, how they correlate in any meaningful way.
So your post basically boils down to this: my freedom is lessened if someone else doesn't write free software for me so I can do cool stuff with my Android phone.
I never stated, that free software should just fall from the sky.
A while ago GNU guys figured out, that there should have good pdf creation support, so they mobilized free software community to do something about it, namely, write the stuff.
So, spot the threat -> warn others of it -> do something about it. I am not saying that requiring only GPL stuff is the right way, but you sure did misinterpret me.
The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary. It's supposed to win on merit [..]
Open source vs. free software again. Proprietary software was never a threat to the open source. You can make an open source app and run it in completely closed environment and it would be cool. TFA talks about free software where they go for liberation of user. And if the only thing, that is free is the underlining platform and you need to use closed apps to do anything useful, then the freedom is, well, lost.
You talk as if downloading latest Red Hot Chilly Peppers album is the same as ripping the said album, repackaging it as "Raga aginst teh muchine" and selling it.
Google is not a butler, more like anonymous service provider, like train ticket seller or waitress. With people it is simple - each of them don't know much about you and they forget. It is hard to do data mining on people and there is the privacy.
Now imagine, that every person that services you is the same person, who doesn't forget. The guy who serves food on the table for you and your spouse is the same, who sold you fetish porn 10 years ago (and remembers it was you).
Back to butlers, yes, they are creepy and judging from British crime novels - serious threat to privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
There was no question begging. It was remix begging.
[..]In which case, you are one of the 'Libertarian Communists' that another poster referred to recently[...]
Yeah, total nonsense.
If fraction per capita of gunfire crime is good, then bad would be one or more gun crimes per capita? Still a lot in my book.
And about Switzerland - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rise-in-gun-crime-forces-swiss-to-reconsider-right-to-bear-arms-446946.html
This is where creationism and similar cargo cults fail[...]
What do cargo cults have to do with creationism? You mean that the guy who wrote genesis encountered an uber advanced civilization?
because I know that governmental restrictions on free speech tend to be disproportionately applied to minorities.
As was noted above, a rich white male is not considered minority, although blacks are more. It is about power balance. And from here, everything government does is unjust. If everyone is perfectly equal before the law, then xenophobia and such will keep these people in poverty or whatever. But if law is written for minorities – then there are people, who are more special. But there are always people, who are more special.
Since we will always live in unjust society, there has to be a better argument for supporting hate speech.
Well, why don't you worry about the appalling state of free speech on your side of the pond then
In Latvia (where I am), during gay pride people form catholic church threw excrements at participants of the pride. No arrests or anything. Makes me wonder.
On this topic the only belief I hold is that you are bind to the harms of free speech. I am just asking questions about what you believe and point out, that this view (if became norm) can be harmful. To which you answer, that one dominant POV can be harmful. And I agree, it is rather obvious.
Next, I am/was not talking about laws, but about principles. What is the world you want to live in?
What is free expression? Is command form a lieutenant an opinion? Is a quote "Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed." form a statesman an opinion he is entitled to?
Some other poster on this topic pointed out, that there are things like verbal acts, and it is very clear (from my point of view) in case of lieutenant.
Fun example. When there is a demonstration of some sort, and some members of crowd actively instigate riots, burning of buildings etc., are these instigators free from any moral responsibility?
I solve this by saying – the instigator is guilty, for he used his free will to cause harm and should be held personally responsible. And so should those who did the burning/looting/etc.
tl.dr.
Where (if at all) you draw a line between stating an opinion and using words as just another form of action?
I was addressing his belief, that free speech is über alles. It was bit difficult to find an example, where he could possibly be threatened by hate speech. If one is white and posh and male, then all is dandy.
Black guy kills a black guy, police won't care, maybe a vendeta will take place. If a black guy kills white guy, easy conviction. If a white guy kills back guy, no one cares, if goes to trail, something can be figured out.
Ok, from this side of pond, all states look the same, but you get the idea.
You don't get this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpyrM6GDG1Q in your dream world of rational people, now do you. This is not form playing Quake too long. Awful things, like genocide, are done, because people think, it is good thing to do (or at least OK). And quite frankly, Hitler made some high quality hate speeches. Of course, that not all he said was truth, but we should never limit free expressions of our leaders. It would be tragic, if Bush couldn't express his feelings freely about WMD in Iraq.
In short: words manipulate people.
Back to America. If there is already hate for blacks, Muslims or what you hate there, then a right word in right moment can spark what happened in Kyrgyzstan.
There is no such thing as hate speech only speech and its supposed to be free. Even advocationg violence I do not think meets the clear and presant danger test.
No such thing as hate speech? I can have an opinion that all white rich bastards should be shot dead, that is one thing. So, who is the bogeyman on the month? Take Muslims. If in the mosque near you, there would be preachings day in and day out, that all Christians and other non-believers should be shot, and that THEY should do it themselves, and not wait till friends form Afghanistan do it for them. Now, is this ok?
I think the keyword here is "service". No more "seed plz, fuckers", no more hunting for best quality, all in one place and perhaps other good stuff.
Do you live in Finland?
About Newton
he considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.
He was no believer, he was a frikin prophet.
Gregor Mendel did his work on genetics in monastery. Maybe he was hard core atheist, but I have my doubts.
If you have a lot of time on your hands, you can dig through biographies of the Nobel laureates. How many of them, do you think would be believers?
science is defined by a particular way of thinking -- its reliance on naturalistic, testable hypotheses and empiricism.
Firstly, there are/were lots of scientists, who have achieved a lot, whiles believing in God. One thing is about what they think about world and how it is made, another – being honest about research they make.
Secondly, science is not about reliance. It is about scepticism. And in the end, we all fall into "Magic happens here" trap eventually. When I am told "Don't put metals in microwave oven", I blindly obey the masters of carbon box. When I live fork in there, if they are wrong, nothing changes, if they are right, my microwave is dead, so I rather take the fork out. Call it "Tranzistors's wager".
So Mr. Linux what version of the kernel are you running?
And which version of windows are majority of users running? If most Linux users would use kernel 2.4 and FF would only support 2.6, you think it would be taken lightly?
Then, when someone tries it and has a ligit complain, they're told, STFU, you get what you pay for.
I am trying really hard to remember reading a bug report that was answered with STFU. Maybe because complaints look more like offence (Concern look like doing a lot of that on this topic) in direction of /. (where maturity is not a prerequisite), then STFU answer is not surprising.
In your opinion, how should "OMG, KDE suxors, crashes all the time. And Amarok, gah!!!" be addressed? With "Thank you for valuable input, we will address these issues right away"?
Well, the taxes do change the bottom line, don't they? The coal suddenly is more expensive than wind and then you go green.
How exactly green energy will magically benefit bottom line more than coal? Has it ever occurred to you that what is beneficial to you is not always good (i.e. beneficial to the rest)?
More like, how is it ON topic? I have to exploit my imagination quite a bit, to see relation between stories, and I still can't see, how they correlate in any meaningful way.
e.g. the BOFH substitutes some images, and/or inserts a rather loud audioclip.
Anything else is Bastard Annoyance From Dentist
I don't care to pay *any* amount of money for nerd news, that's why I'm here in the first place.
You got the news - "Scientists Measure How Quickly Plant Genes Mutate". Even more so, you got some numbers - 1:1,4*10^8 per gen. This is news.
What you are asking is "Science papers for nerds", or maybe you want a free book with book review.
Btw, did you file a bug report?
So your post basically boils down to this: my freedom is lessened if someone else doesn't write free software for me so I can do cool stuff with my Android phone.
I never stated, that free software should just fall from the sky.
A while ago GNU guys figured out, that there should have good pdf creation support, so they mobilized free software community to do something about it, namely, write the stuff.
So, spot the threat -> warn others of it -> do something about it. I am not saying that requiring only GPL stuff is the right way, but you sure did misinterpret me.
The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary. It's supposed to win on merit [..]
Open source vs. free software again. Proprietary software was never a threat to the open source. You can make an open source app and run it in completely closed environment and it would be cool. TFA talks about free software where they go for liberation of user. And if the only thing, that is free is the underlining platform and you need to use closed apps to do anything useful, then the freedom is, well, lost.
You talk as if downloading latest Red Hot Chilly Peppers album is the same as ripping the said album, repackaging it as "Raga aginst teh muchine" and selling it.
Google is not a butler, more like anonymous service provider, like train ticket seller or waitress. With people it is simple - each of them don't know much about you and they forget. It is hard to do data mining on people and there is the privacy.
Now imagine, that every person that services you is the same person, who doesn't forget. The guy who serves food on the table for you and your spouse is the same, who sold you fetish porn 10 years ago (and remembers it was you).
Back to butlers, yes, they are creepy and judging from British crime novels - serious threat to privacy.
It is funny because it is true. Disregard of ethical principles helps, especially if everyone else plays by the rules.