This doesn't mean that the user hates womankind, just that they are expressing disdain for a certain woman.
Listen up Captain Clueless, when someone uses a word for a woman's genitalia to insult a certain woman, they're definitely not doing it because they think woman as a group are wonderful people. It's like when straight people say "I don't care if you're gay, just don't be a faggot!", or when white people say "I don't care that you're black, just don't be a nigger.". Whatever their justifications, it's obvious that this person is not your friend, they imagine themselves above you, able to judge you as a representative of your group, and will move against you or hurt you if they think they can get away with it. A woman/gay person/black person that agrees with this line of thought ("don't be a "), has internalized a lot of self-hatred.
Do you get all huffy when somebody calls a guy a dick?
Yes I do. Like I said, using gendered insults says a lot more about the person using them than the person being insulted.
Here's what your logic is missing shitface: you're using a word for female genitalia as an insult. When you do this, you're basically saying that being female, or possessing a vagina, is an insulting state of existence. Gendered slurs, they don't say good things about the people that use them.
Slashdot has become, in the last few years, more of a conservative techie site than just a plain techie site. It's not completely conservative, but especially when issues of gender, race and prejudice come out, you'll notice the skew.
My guess is a lot of slashdotters, especially the MRA crowd, don't have much nice things to say about women in general. Their silence is actually a measure of respect, instead of discrimination (in their minds at least).
Not only this, but being arthropods with considerably more primitive nervous systems than mammals, it's yet to be determined if they (insects) even feel pain the same way we do. The reason why mammals such as bears and dolphins seem "cuddly" is because our close evolutionary heritage show characteristics in common between species that elicit a protective and nurturing instinct even between species. Naturalists have filled pages and pages full of anecdotes of mammalian predators who have spared and even gone on to raise young mammals of their prey species; the nurturing instinct is strong and not very discriminating.
I have a degree in biology from a uni in a tropical island country - there are so many non endangered yet critical species the mind boggles to drill down to specifics, the example I gave of monographs and journals was relayed from actual experience and not speculation; but if I must satisfy your laziness, then I shall provide as my example: the family of crustaceans generally known as krill. They are a cornerstone of the food web in sub-temperate and polar waters, with a diverse array of species feeding directly or indirectly from them, such as salmon, blue whales and penguins. They are also not nearly close to being endangered, yet if they did become endangered, the food security of several temperate and sub-arctic countries could be called into question.
Here's a tip, try searching for information at a deeper level than just googling. Maybe ecology monographs and journals on various clades of marine organisms? Did you ever consider that only endangered animals would have layman friendly SEO optimized articles written about their ecological importance, while more mundane species would have just as much if not more data about them, but mouldering away in a university library somewhere, rather than being talked about on the mainstream news sites?
You haters ought to get together and discuss what FUD you're going to spread. I pays to be consistent.
Stop playing semantic games and just admit that there are no real alternative browsers, only wrappers around Apple's version of webkit, or some Frankensteinian monstrosity that offloads processing to the server.. Anyway, I joined this conversation to make a point and now must leave it point made, whether or not the recipient of my words understood them.
It's not the "real" Google Chrome because it's blocked from using it's own fork of WebKit, and cannot use a javascript JIT compiler (neither the builtin Nitro engine, nor any third party one).
No actually, Chrome on iOS uses a slower (and less powerful) version of the webkit engine than Safari does. More specifically, Chrome on iOS is blocked from using the Nitro javascript engine that Safari has access to, and is not allowed to use it's own javascript JIT compiler, due to Apple's guidelines. So no, Chrome on iOS is a shadow of it's form on other platforms. This basically means that Safari remains by design, and not by chance, the best and most performant browser on iOS.
Surely you realize that's just a wrapper around an iOS service? You are either disingenuously misinterpreting the GP to discredit their criticism, or really have no clue about the state of competing browsers on iOS (ie, there are none, only wrappers and bookmark/history syncing).
Slashdot is (or is in the process of becoming) a bastion of conservative techies. Everyone talks a good game about how they're only fiscally conservative, not socially conservative, but bring up racism, feminism or homophobia, and it's like the 1950's with better technology up in here. The people who most need to read and understand what you just said will not, because it is ideologically inconvenient.
If one party not only had no interest in catering to white people's interests, not only that but supporting politicians and policies that were openly anti-white, then they would be forgiven for being fucking logical and voting for another party. Also, blacks vote Dem in overwhelming numbers anyway, historically, ever since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. If the GOP actually had black voters best interests as heart (they fucking don't), then maybe it would be different.
Irrational actions can emerge from rational motives. A (relatively) rational insecurity about the paternity of the estranged wife's unborn child can snowball into killing her and the unborn child. All it takes is the right (or in this case wrong) brain chemistry. I don't know about the ex-husband guy being the prime suspect, but I sure as hell would be keeping track of his movements if I were in charge of that investigation.
The Republican party has a gay coalition (the "Log Cabin Republicans PAC", GOProud Inc., etc.).
OMG, stop talking. Right now. Those quislings, forgiving towards homophobes, willing to sacrifice marriage equality and discrimination protections for their pieces of silver. You'll find that members of GOProud skew white, rich and most often originating from the South. If that's your view of how "gays are split on parties" then that's a very distorted view. There are much more LGBT people (in fact, I doubt there are many T of LGBT people in the log cabin) who are against GOProud than there are GOProuders.
It's a pretty big one, don't you think, ending slavery? I also mentioned Eisenhower pushing for Civil Rights legislation over LBJ's objections to it in the Senate, but you forgot that real fast, didn't you? And that's the real problem with most of the electorate: they too quickly forget history.
Something tells me Abraham Lincoln and Eisenhower would be Democrats today if they were transported through time to this era. Your skewed view of events makes sense once you mentioned the log cabin. Have a nice time in there (assuming you're LGBT).
Again I have to ask, why are black people partisan for voting Dem, but LGBTs are not? What is the difference?
Also the lgbt vote is not split on parties. It votes liberal, which in nearly every case, is a Democrat rather than a Republican. I don't think further discussion is very useful, because our frames of reference are just too different. Also, I love how you provide an example from the Civil War era to show an example of Republicans doing something for black people, yet gave me hell for mentioning the much more recent Lee Atwater admission.
Maybe they need to learn a lesson from the LGBT community, and learn to figure out which politicians will support their issues, instead of voting along party lines.
I'm curious. Which republican politicans support black people and black issues? I really want to know. And what level of seniority do they have in the GOP? Can you rustle up any names? Because all you're doing is recycling boring rightwing talking points without actually discussing anything specific that a republican politician or the GOP itself has done for black people.
Another thing, LGBT people voted overwhelmingly democrat as well. Why is it a smart thing when LGBT voters do it, but black people are dumb for doing the same? And why would it be smarter for black people to vote Republican? What have the GOP ever done for them? There was a president who passed the Civil Rights Act against strident opposition from southern whites. That president was LBJ. Where is the Republican LBJ and what has he done?.
But Meg Whitman ISN'T a ginormous fuck-up, she just inherited a fucked up company and hasn't yet managed to reverse the fucked-upedness fast enough or well enough for the media gurus. She wasn't even the CEO when this deal went through, but immediately one of the first comments on slashdot has to pair her and Carly Fiorina together. I wonder what they have in common...
As I already mentioned, they can and do. That is, they are not partisans, they vote based on their issues. Your stereotyping all gay people as ignorant party loyalists is demonstrably false and a blatant insult to their intelligence. They have already demonstrated political savvy far beyond your myopic view of them.
Thats.... Not what I said. Everyone votes based on issues. Most gay people voted democrat because the religious right within the republican party hates them. Women voters skewed more democrat because of the lovely rape-alicious comments coming out of the religious fundies mouths that the republican party loves promoting, coddling and sheltering from criticism.
If you're going to go back 60 years to find racist quotes from dead Republicans in order to claim the Republican party hates blacks, you might as well go back 70 years to find quotes from Democrats that practically rioted to keep the blacks they hated from attending their white schools. This type of marketing of party politics is certainly effective, but inaccurate, and will likely fail in the long term. You can't keep an entire race in check solely by propaganda - I know that the Democrats are also working to keep them ignorant as well, but eventually enough will wake up and realize that they are being treated like chattel.
Wow that's quite an interesting interpretation of what I said. Come on, shelve the talking points and be real. The Republicans succeed in the South because of a certain strategy, and that strategy is racial anxiety and coded stoking of anti-black sentiment. Why would a black person vote for a party actively trying to denigrate and discredit them as a race? Democrats have definitely failed black people, but the Republicans are actively against black communities and people. They have no good options to vote for, because the USA is not and has never been a country that is friendly to black people
No, I don't, and many of them are turning away from the Democratic party for that very reason. Most are still buying the kind of bullshit you are spouting, though, even as their poverty gets worse with every election that they support them.
Turning away to where? The Republicans? Don't make me laugh. The Libertarians? I think not. Greens? Possibly. But in a two party system, there are only two realisitc choices for blacks. A Republican party whose southern stronghold must be pandered to via racebaiting or a Democrat party who have so long taken their vote as a given it doesn't even try to do anything for them.
I suggest you check again. I'm not familiar with how women feel about which party their "lady parts" should choose (invoking fear of the other party helps, of course, regardless of the basis), but it is well-understood that LGBT voters do NOT vote along party lines - they are issue voters and vote based on their issues. Period. They pay no attention to party, and that is precisely WHY they are so politically influential even though they are such a small voting bloc. Partisan voters never have that kind of influence, because they vote for "their" party, no matter how they are treated by it.
As long as the religious right holds sway in the Republican party, no self-respecting gay person will vote republican. Also, thanks to recent revelations of how the religious right view women's bodies and autonomy (i.e, that they're just cum receptacles and baby vats), many women are not going to vote for them either.
If black people voted like the LGBT folks, they would be a force to be reckoned with. Politicians would have to pay attention to them, and get focused on their issues. But it's not like that - they have all been fooled into continuing to support a single party, no matter how bad their situation gets. That means Democrats ignore their issues, because they will get their vote anyway, and Republicans ignore their issues, because they won't get their vote no matter what.
This is a quote from Lee Atwater:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[8][9]
He was one of the Rpublican Party leaders in the 60's, and the party hasn't looked back from a lot of those positions. Do you think it is rational for black people to vote for a party that actively hates them (R) rather than a party that takes them for granted(D)? Because I certainly don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, keep thinking it's because people have thin skin, and not that they're being insulted based on their group all their lives, while you are not.
This doesn't mean that the user hates womankind, just that they are expressing disdain for a certain woman.
Listen up Captain Clueless, when someone uses a word for a woman's genitalia to insult a certain woman, they're definitely not doing it because they think woman as a group are wonderful people. It's like when straight people say "I don't care if you're gay, just don't be a faggot!", or when white people say "I don't care that you're black, just don't be a nigger.". Whatever their justifications, it's obvious that this person is not your friend, they imagine themselves above you, able to judge you as a representative of your group, and will move against you or hurt you if they think they can get away with it. A woman/gay person/black person that agrees with this line of thought ("don't be a "), has internalized a lot of self-hatred.
Do you get all huffy when somebody calls a guy a dick?
Yes I do. Like I said, using gendered insults says a lot more about the person using them than the person being insulted.
Here's what your logic is missing shitface: you're using a word for female genitalia as an insult. When you do this, you're basically saying that being female, or possessing a vagina, is an insulting state of existence. Gendered slurs, they don't say good things about the people that use them.
Slashdot has become, in the last few years, more of a conservative techie site than just a plain techie site. It's not completely conservative, but especially when issues of gender, race and prejudice come out, you'll notice the skew.
Shhhhh! Evidence is not what these MRA types have a wealth of.
Definitely j.
My guess is a lot of slashdotters, especially the MRA crowd, don't have much nice things to say about women in general. Their silence is actually a measure of respect, instead of discrimination (in their minds at least).
Not only this, but being arthropods with considerably more primitive nervous systems than mammals, it's yet to be determined if they (insects) even feel pain the same way we do. The reason why mammals such as bears and dolphins seem "cuddly" is because our close evolutionary heritage show characteristics in common between species that elicit a protective and nurturing instinct even between species. Naturalists have filled pages and pages full of anecdotes of mammalian predators who have spared and even gone on to raise young mammals of their prey species; the nurturing instinct is strong and not very discriminating.
I have a degree in biology from a uni in a tropical island country - there are so many non endangered yet critical species the mind boggles to drill down to specifics, the example I gave of monographs and journals was relayed from actual experience and not speculation; but if I must satisfy your laziness, then I shall provide as my example: the family of crustaceans generally known as krill. They are a cornerstone of the food web in sub-temperate and polar waters, with a diverse array of species feeding directly or indirectly from them, such as salmon, blue whales and penguins. They are also not nearly close to being endangered, yet if they did become endangered, the food security of several temperate and sub-arctic countries could be called into question.
Here's a tip, try searching for information at a deeper level than just googling. Maybe ecology monographs and journals on various clades of marine organisms? Did you ever consider that only endangered animals would have layman friendly SEO optimized articles written about their ecological importance, while more mundane species would have just as much if not more data about them, but mouldering away in a university library somewhere, rather than being talked about on the mainstream news sites?
You haters ought to get together and discuss what FUD you're going to spread. I pays to be consistent.
Stop playing semantic games and just admit that there are no real alternative browsers, only wrappers around Apple's version of webkit, or some Frankensteinian monstrosity that offloads processing to the server.. Anyway, I joined this conversation to make a point and now must leave it point made, whether or not the recipient of my words understood them.
It's not the "real" Google Chrome because it's blocked from using it's own fork of WebKit, and cannot use a javascript JIT compiler (neither the builtin Nitro engine, nor any third party one).
No actually, Chrome on iOS uses a slower (and less powerful) version of the webkit engine than Safari does. More specifically, Chrome on iOS is blocked from using the Nitro javascript engine that Safari has access to, and is not allowed to use it's own javascript JIT compiler, due to Apple's guidelines. So no, Chrome on iOS is a shadow of it's form on other platforms. This basically means that Safari remains by design, and not by chance, the best and most performant browser on iOS.
Surely you realize that's just a wrapper around an iOS service? You are either disingenuously misinterpreting the GP to discredit their criticism, or really have no clue about the state of competing browsers on iOS (ie, there are none, only wrappers and bookmark/history syncing).
Slashdot is (or is in the process of becoming) a bastion of conservative techies. Everyone talks a good game about how they're only fiscally conservative, not socially conservative, but bring up racism, feminism or homophobia, and it's like the 1950's with better technology up in here. The people who most need to read and understand what you just said will not, because it is ideologically inconvenient.
Korean pop has been called K-pop (and Japanese pop called J-pop) long before Gangnam Style was a twinkle in PSY's sunglasses.
If one party not only had no interest in catering to white people's interests, not only that but supporting politicians and policies that were openly anti-white, then they would be forgiven for being fucking logical and voting for another party. Also, blacks vote Dem in overwhelming numbers anyway, historically, ever since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. If the GOP actually had black voters best interests as heart (they fucking don't), then maybe it would be different.
Irrational actions can emerge from rational motives. A (relatively) rational insecurity about the paternity of the estranged wife's unborn child can snowball into killing her and the unborn child. All it takes is the right (or in this case wrong) brain chemistry. I don't know about the ex-husband guy being the prime suspect, but I sure as hell would be keeping track of his movements if I were in charge of that investigation.
The Republican party has a gay coalition (the "Log Cabin Republicans PAC", GOProud Inc., etc.).
OMG, stop talking. Right now. Those quislings, forgiving towards homophobes, willing to sacrifice marriage equality and discrimination protections for their pieces of silver. You'll find that members of GOProud skew white, rich and most often originating from the South. If that's your view of how "gays are split on parties" then that's a very distorted view. There are much more LGBT people (in fact, I doubt there are many T of LGBT people in the log cabin) who are against GOProud than there are GOProuders.
It's a pretty big one, don't you think, ending slavery? I also mentioned Eisenhower pushing for Civil Rights legislation over LBJ's objections to it in the Senate, but you forgot that real fast, didn't you? And that's the real problem with most of the electorate: they too quickly forget history.
Something tells me Abraham Lincoln and Eisenhower would be Democrats today if they were transported through time to this era. Your skewed view of events makes sense once you mentioned the log cabin. Have a nice time in there (assuming you're LGBT).
Replying to undo incorrect mod.
Again I have to ask, why are black people partisan for voting Dem, but LGBTs are not? What is the difference? Also the lgbt vote is not split on parties. It votes liberal, which in nearly every case, is a Democrat rather than a Republican. I don't think further discussion is very useful, because our frames of reference are just too different. Also, I love how you provide an example from the Civil War era to show an example of Republicans doing something for black people, yet gave me hell for mentioning the much more recent Lee Atwater admission.
Maybe they need to learn a lesson from the LGBT community, and learn to figure out which politicians will support their issues, instead of voting along party lines.
I'm curious. Which republican politicans support black people and black issues? I really want to know. And what level of seniority do they have in the GOP? Can you rustle up any names? Because all you're doing is recycling boring rightwing talking points without actually discussing anything specific that a republican politician or the GOP itself has done for black people.
Another thing, LGBT people voted overwhelmingly democrat as well. Why is it a smart thing when LGBT voters do it, but black people are dumb for doing the same? And why would it be smarter for black people to vote Republican? What have the GOP ever done for them? There was a president who passed the Civil Rights Act against strident opposition from southern whites. That president was LBJ. Where is the Republican LBJ and what has he done?.
But Meg Whitman ISN'T a ginormous fuck-up, she just inherited a fucked up company and hasn't yet managed to reverse the fucked-upedness fast enough or well enough for the media gurus. She wasn't even the CEO when this deal went through, but immediately one of the first comments on slashdot has to pair her and Carly Fiorina together. I wonder what they have in common...
As I already mentioned, they can and do. That is, they are not partisans, they vote based on their issues. Your stereotyping all gay people as ignorant party loyalists is demonstrably false and a blatant insult to their intelligence. They have already demonstrated political savvy far beyond your myopic view of them.
Thats.... Not what I said. Everyone votes based on issues. Most gay people voted democrat because the religious right within the republican party hates them. Women voters skewed more democrat because of the lovely rape-alicious comments coming out of the religious fundies mouths that the republican party loves promoting, coddling and sheltering from criticism.
If you're going to go back 60 years to find racist quotes from dead Republicans in order to claim the Republican party hates blacks, you might as well go back 70 years to find quotes from Democrats that practically rioted to keep the blacks they hated from attending their white schools. This type of marketing of party politics is certainly effective, but inaccurate, and will likely fail in the long term. You can't keep an entire race in check solely by propaganda - I know that the Democrats are also working to keep them ignorant as well, but eventually enough will wake up and realize that they are being treated like chattel.
Wow that's quite an interesting interpretation of what I said. Come on, shelve the talking points and be real. The Republicans succeed in the South because of a certain strategy, and that strategy is racial anxiety and coded stoking of anti-black sentiment. Why would a black person vote for a party actively trying to denigrate and discredit them as a race? Democrats have definitely failed black people, but the Republicans are actively against black communities and people. They have no good options to vote for, because the USA is not and has never been a country that is friendly to black people
No, I don't, and many of them are turning away from the Democratic party for that very reason. Most are still buying the kind of bullshit you are spouting, though, even as their poverty gets worse with every election that they support them.
Turning away to where? The Republicans? Don't make me laugh. The Libertarians? I think not. Greens? Possibly. But in a two party system, there are only two realisitc choices for blacks. A Republican party whose southern stronghold must be pandered to via racebaiting or a Democrat party who have so long taken their vote as a given it doesn't even try to do anything for them.
I am a crackpot
Oh. I see.
I suggest you check again. I'm not familiar with how women feel about which party their "lady parts" should choose (invoking fear of the other party helps, of course, regardless of the basis), but it is well-understood that LGBT voters do NOT vote along party lines - they are issue voters and vote based on their issues. Period. They pay no attention to party, and that is precisely WHY they are so politically influential even though they are such a small voting bloc. Partisan voters never have that kind of influence, because they vote for "their" party, no matter how they are treated by it.
As long as the religious right holds sway in the Republican party, no self-respecting gay person will vote republican. Also, thanks to recent revelations of how the religious right view women's bodies and autonomy (i.e, that they're just cum receptacles and baby vats), many women are not going to vote for them either.
If black people voted like the LGBT folks, they would be a force to be reckoned with. Politicians would have to pay attention to them, and get focused on their issues. But it's not like that - they have all been fooled into continuing to support a single party, no matter how bad their situation gets. That means Democrats ignore their issues, because they will get their vote anyway, and Republicans ignore their issues, because they won't get their vote no matter what.
This is a quote from Lee Atwater:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[8][9]
He was one of the Rpublican Party leaders in the 60's, and the party hasn't looked back from a lot of those positions. Do you think it is rational for black people to vote for a party that actively hates them (R) rather than a party that takes them for granted(D)? Because I certainly don't.