The first amendment is a reflection of the underlying philosophy that has led to the rise of the West and our modern world. This is why western societies most likely to prosecute hate/incorrect though crimes can be labeled these days as fundamentally in decline. Our willingness to challenge the orthodoxy, to be heretics is what leads to true progress. The things someone says today that seem to hurtful and antithetical to everything you believe may actually be TRUE and VALUABLE. Do you leave the decision about whether someone is a maverick blazing a new trail or just a person who's words have no value and should be suppressed up to bureaucrats or do you let allow all words that can possibly be viewed as not a direct threat of violence into the arena and see where the ideas take us?
Much of that is a reflection of the alt-right springing from online communities. It's trolling and satire. We label them as Nazi and so they say embrace the label and throw it back.
I'm very cautious about that noise about Trump regret. These are the same groups who's polling indicated a Hillary sweep on election night. If I had to guess the same mechanisms are involved too and the pollsters have learned nothing. 95%+ of the news is critical of Trump, it's unpopular still to like Trump, you call someone up asking them if they regret voting for Trump... some of them say "yes"... odds are in the voting booth next time they'll still vote for him again.
First, "SJW" could just as easily mean people on the more conservative side of things who call people "snowflakes" or are pushing for tougher immigration enforcement.
Nope. Here is the definition of "Social Justice":
justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
"individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice"
This is fundamentally liberal in the same way that marxism is fundamentally liberal. It isn't a huge deal... conservatives have their own annoying types but liberals get to own this particular group.
What I find more interesting is the idea that these social networks probably have compromising data on a portion of if not most of the politicians. How nervous would you get for example at the thought of personally pissing Zuckerberg off...
What freedom do you see being restricted by Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc.? How is that different from any company refusing to offer or to continue to offer a service if you refuse to abide by the terms of that service? Do you consider that these companies have some kind of obligation to provide you with a service on your terms? Do you equate being arrested for saying certain things with having your video rankings on Youtube lowered for saying those things and if so, why?
The problematic thing about this historically valid position is that virtually all platforms on the internet are privately owned and if you wish to communicate in the 21st century you use those platforms. Yes it is true that you can still go out onto the street and state your beliefs or print out a pamphlet but if that is no longer the means of communication... it doesn't do any good to have freedom of speech if you can only have it in a language no one any longer speaks or reads.
Most of her positions actually seemed kind of reasonable for a PETA type. If you watch any of her youtube videos though she's very wooden in her facial expression and posture. I'd bet the girl had been on a long-term stint of anti psychotics / anti depressants. Combine that with youtube demonetization and.. you hit unstable people in their pocketbook, a certain percentage of them are going to react in socially unacceptable ways.
This is complete nonsense. You're not even attempting reasonable sounding lies. Here is a chart of the murder rate in Venezuela over time wikipedia image link
They implemented strict gun laws sometime around 2016. Here is a nice little article discussing how helpful that was http://www.latimes.com/opinion...
That's completely nonsensical. Do you think white people are sneaking into poor black neighborhoods and murdering them? Or do you suppose police are hiding white corpses in white neighborhoods?
Possibly the best way to prevent unwanted homicides is executions.. Most of the crimes in cities like that are by what Hillary got in so much trouble for labeling super predators. This is a very small percentage of the population. It isn't like any significant percentage of black Americans in Chicago are going around killing people. What a significant percentage of black Americans in Chicago are doing though is dying from violence by the same people over and over again. Those same people also tend to have many children which is problematic given the established genetic link to violent criminality. Why not simply execute them on their first offense?
That seems a reasonable explanation. I actually found a graph where these fluctuate quite a bit month to month so possibly a one-off and NY will remain in the lead generally by a few homicides. If the two are even comparable though and London manages it without comparable amounts of gun violence isn't that a condemnation of a policy of more gun control?
Chicago has such terrible gun violence because it is essentially an incubator for black on black violence. I'm not someone that thinks more and more guns are the answer to everything but London just managed to surpass New York in murders and they happen almost entirely with blades or blunt weapons.
Apparently a woman in some sort of black head covering... but who knows the media always get this stuff wrong as they leap to be the first to provide info.
Even when you control for all of that you still see disparities by race. People have this knee-jerk reaction when these topics are brought up but honestly.. if you adopt 100 chinese babys and 100 babys, isolate them from any external media influences and treat and raise them the same, does anyone really doubt that you are likely to see very distinct differences between the adult populations of both groups?
Honest question. Why is it that everyone wanting to make the world a better place is so unpleasant to anyone that disagrees with them or is even willing to entertain a devil's advocate position? Is is just that once you decide you are in it for the greater good any behavior is justifiable toward that end even when it is unnecessary?
This is marked down I guess because it comes across as mean or dismissive but it is a valid point. You are paying for a multitude of separate plans. There are common APs scattered across a city that are already available. Obviously having broadband is nice but I spent most of my childhood without it in my home and managed to survive.
Oxygen is a known carcinogen. I have it on good authority that bottled water manufacturers knowingly include oxygen in their water with no care for the impact on the citizens of our state.
I don't know what kind of bizaro world I've stumbled into where Republicans are defending a generous pension quasi government entity and democrats are defending the most cut throat capitalistic company in the US currently. Do we all just reflexively side either pro or anti Trump then proceed to rationalize that decision with whatever mental contortions are necessary to avoid any serious challenge to or growth in the way we view the world?
Slashdot Mirror
The first amendment is a reflection of the underlying philosophy that has led to the rise of the West and our modern world. This is why western societies most likely to prosecute hate/incorrect though crimes can be labeled these days as fundamentally in decline. Our willingness to challenge the orthodoxy, to be heretics is what leads to true progress. The things someone says today that seem to hurtful and antithetical to everything you believe may actually be TRUE and VALUABLE. Do you leave the decision about whether someone is a maverick blazing a new trail or just a person who's words have no value and should be suppressed up to bureaucrats or do you let allow all words that can possibly be viewed as not a direct threat of violence into the arena and see where the ideas take us?
I identify as Republican thank you very much. It is my gender and I expect you to respect it.
Much of that is a reflection of the alt-right springing from online communities. It's trolling and satire. We label them as Nazi and so they say embrace the label and throw it back.
I'm very cautious about that noise about Trump regret. These are the same groups who's polling indicated a Hillary sweep on election night. If I had to guess the same mechanisms are involved too and the pollsters have learned nothing. 95%+ of the news is critical of Trump, it's unpopular still to like Trump, you call someone up asking them if they regret voting for Trump... some of them say "yes"... odds are in the voting booth next time they'll still vote for him again.
First, "SJW" could just as easily mean people on the more conservative side of things who call people "snowflakes" or are pushing for tougher immigration enforcement.
Nope. Here is the definition of "Social Justice":
justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. "individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice"
This is fundamentally liberal in the same way that marxism is fundamentally liberal. It isn't a huge deal... conservatives have their own annoying types but liberals get to own this particular group.
Not all peoples have demonstrated an ability to escape the malthusian trap.
What I find more interesting is the idea that these social networks probably have compromising data on a portion of if not most of the politicians. How nervous would you get for example at the thought of personally pissing Zuckerberg off...
What freedom do you see being restricted by Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc.? How is that different from any company refusing to offer or to continue to offer a service if you refuse to abide by the terms of that service? Do you consider that these companies have some kind of obligation to provide you with a service on your terms? Do you equate being arrested for saying certain things with having your video rankings on Youtube lowered for saying those things and if so, why?
The problematic thing about this historically valid position is that virtually all platforms on the internet are privately owned and if you wish to communicate in the 21st century you use those platforms. Yes it is true that you can still go out onto the street and state your beliefs or print out a pamphlet but if that is no longer the means of communication... it doesn't do any good to have freedom of speech if you can only have it in a language no one any longer speaks or reads.
Most of her positions actually seemed kind of reasonable for a PETA type. If you watch any of her youtube videos though she's very wooden in her facial expression and posture. I'd bet the girl had been on a long-term stint of anti psychotics / anti depressants. Combine that with youtube demonetization and.. you hit unstable people in their pocketbook, a certain percentage of them are going to react in socially unacceptable ways.
This charts to demographics more than anything else.
They implemented strict gun laws sometime around 2016. Here is a nice little article discussing how helpful that was http://www.latimes.com/opinion...
That's completely nonsensical. Do you think white people are sneaking into poor black neighborhoods and murdering them? Or do you suppose police are hiding white corpses in white neighborhoods?
I suppose the US is also causing 30% of south african men in this survey to have participated in rape. https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Possibly the best way to prevent unwanted homicides is executions.. Most of the crimes in cities like that are by what Hillary got in so much trouble for labeling super predators. This is a very small percentage of the population. It isn't like any significant percentage of black Americans in Chicago are going around killing people. What a significant percentage of black Americans in Chicago are doing though is dying from violence by the same people over and over again. Those same people also tend to have many children which is problematic given the established genetic link to violent criminality. Why not simply execute them on their first offense?
I didn't want to say anything until we were sure but yes it seems likely.
That seems a reasonable explanation. I actually found a graph where these fluctuate quite a bit month to month so possibly a one-off and NY will remain in the lead generally by a few homicides. If the two are even comparable though and London manages it without comparable amounts of gun violence isn't that a condemnation of a policy of more gun control?
Chicago has such terrible gun violence because it is essentially an incubator for black on black violence. I'm not someone that thinks more and more guns are the answer to everything but London just managed to surpass New York in murders and they happen almost entirely with blades or blunt weapons.
Apparently a woman in some sort of black head covering... but who knows the media always get this stuff wrong as they leap to be the first to provide info.
Obviously I for example have some sort of genetic trait that impairs my ability to spell babies properly.
Even when you control for all of that you still see disparities by race. People have this knee-jerk reaction when these topics are brought up but honestly.. if you adopt 100 chinese babys and 100 babys, isolate them from any external media influences and treat and raise them the same, does anyone really doubt that you are likely to see very distinct differences between the adult populations of both groups?
There are very few or possibly no scenarios in which I think breaking the TOS on a website should be prosecutable as a criminal offense in any case.
Honest question. Why is it that everyone wanting to make the world a better place is so unpleasant to anyone that disagrees with them or is even willing to entertain a devil's advocate position? Is is just that once you decide you are in it for the greater good any behavior is justifiable toward that end even when it is unnecessary?
the library is free
This is marked down I guess because it comes across as mean or dismissive but it is a valid point. You are paying for a multitude of separate plans. There are common APs scattered across a city that are already available. Obviously having broadband is nice but I spent most of my childhood without it in my home and managed to survive.
Oxygen is a known carcinogen. I have it on good authority that bottled water manufacturers knowingly include oxygen in their water with no care for the impact on the citizens of our state.
I don't know what kind of bizaro world I've stumbled into where Republicans are defending a generous pension quasi government entity and democrats are defending the most cut throat capitalistic company in the US currently. Do we all just reflexively side either pro or anti Trump then proceed to rationalize that decision with whatever mental contortions are necessary to avoid any serious challenge to or growth in the way we view the world?