It will be interesting to see what the dignity of a celebrity is worth.
The fact that there was even a story about this shows that their dignity is worth vastly more than yours or mine. Not that I think photos have anything to do with dignity.
A multi-billion dollar company told them their photos were "secure". These people are not computer scientists; they cannot judge security on their own. Do you think these people understand the difference in security between their bank and iCloud? In both cases they are trusting in the perceived expertise of those successfully running the services.
Not even sure what you are replying to either. The parent was clearly not defending Apple.
It's just as likely that women are more risk averse than men because girls are not encouraged to take the risks that boys are.
You cannot just claim things are "just as likely". You need a reason to justify that claim. Especially since the lack of encouragement for girls is simply not true. Girls have gotten nothing but encouragement for the last 30 years at least. They definitely have not gotten less encouragement than boys.
Here at Slashdot most of us have realized that not all bachelor's degrees are created equal. A bachelor of science and a bachelor of arts may be the same "education level" but they are not the same education nor do they qualify you for the same jobs and definitely not the same pay.
It tells me that women are more risk averse than men on average. Something that is pretty well established in most studies of male and female psychology.
Remember that for every high profile politician or CEO there are thousands of failures. Just because someone has an opportunity does not mean they are going to take it. Nor does it mean they have to take it.
I didn't cherry pick anything. He went on some absurd tirade about how people were flagging his inflammatory comments as flamebait. I pointed out the exact sentences that gave me the impression that i kan reed was disregarding all criticism as coming from horrible people that he is "morally superior" to. There was nothing reasonable about what he said and definitely not how he said it.
So far I have received no clarification as to how I misinterpreted the statements. Just a repetition of "I don't label everyone that disagrees with me as morally inferior it just so happens that they are morally inferior". When he acts like a total dickhead himself no one has any obligation to not be a dickhead back. I don't expect either of you will admit to this behaviour; you will just continually repeat your vague rationalizations.
You're projecting here. What I see is him disagreeing with people who are basically asshole MRAs and you jumping all over him accusing him of being a "straw feminist" whatever the fuck that is. You are thereby getting a very smug feeling of superiority over him (and now presumably me) which is exactly what you're accusing him of.
I am projecting nothing. i kan reed made inflammatory comments and decided to act like a child after being modded flamebait. I told him why he was modded flamebait- that is not being an asshole. Whereas as soon as I say something you do not like you start trying to label me with words you think are insults like "MRA", "misogynist", "asshole".
I have a pretty strong suspicion that you both know what a straw-feminist is. A straw-feminist is a culmination of bad traits attributed to feminists that feminists claim "feminists aren't like that". To use i kan reed's own straw-feminist strawman defense:
feminism is evil and actively attacking poor helpless men.
Feminists say feminist critics accuse all feminists of being that (aka straw-feminist). Now that is actually a strawman fallacy accusing others of making a strawman fallacy (straw-ception). What feminist critics actually say is feminists behave in deplorable and extremely obnoxious ways. Being completely dishonest and more attached to their own sense of superiority than actually helping anyone. To again use i kan reed's own words:
And I don't give a fuck if you think I'm being "morally superior" to people whose behaviors are outright reprehensible.
It's flamebait to imply anything other than feminism is evil and actively attacking poor helpless men. Sorry you didn't know that. It antagonizes the misogynists.
So what are you saying here other than that anyone that thought your post was flamebait was an antagonized misogynist? I really don't understand how you can think people are going to take you seriously when you say moronic things like that. Especially when you say I am making a strawman. I read what you wrote and I am really unsure how to interpret it other than you implying people are misogynist.
And I don't give a fuck if you think I'm being "morally superior" to people whose behaviors are outright reprehensible.
That would be exactly my point. You just label anyone that disagrees with you to have "outright reprehensible behaviour". Either that or you just conveniently ignore (or pretend don't exist) the huge amount of people that disagree with you and do not have reprehensible behaviour. You think that you are better than people; you think that entitles you to act like an asshole.
Pointing out that you have a brazen superiority complex does not mean I am being self-righteous. You can call me hypocritical and self-righteous all day long but you are still the one constantly going on about how superior you are to all us mere mortal misogynists.
It is the mindless and baseless insults to anyone that disagrees with you that makes it flamebait. Your brazen strawmen that make people completely disregard what you have to say. That is also the number one reason that there is such a strong push-back against feminism. Obnoxious, pretentious blow-hards like yourself are the exact reason why so many people think feminism is a joke.
Of course you will continue to excuse your reprehensible attitude with pious self-importance and sarcastically shrug off any criticism with "most people that disagree are just misogynists" even though you have no reason the believe that and are shown otherwise every time you say it.
I want you to think about this, i kan reed, every time you feel someone is complaining about "straw-feminists" or "doesn't know what feminism is about". It is because of you and people like you. You are the number one reason that people have a bad image of feminism. It isn't misogyny. It isn't insecurities. People do not fear strong women nor do they fear losing their "privileges" (not that there aren't many feminists that love infringing on the rights of others). It is you. It is you and the other preening mooks like you. The self-aggrandizing attitude that because you are "feminist" you are morally superior and entitled to talk down, belittle, insult and defame anyone that dares say something you do not like.
Actually Slashdot is like that about everything. What really gets to some on Slashdot is how people like you act all sanctimonious and incredulous when people disagree about something, and only when it comes to feminism.
the ubiquitous 1920x1080 is cheap as dirt and nice and wide; but actually throws fewer vertical pixels than a nasty old 1280x1024
I think your math may be off.
taking a cheapo 1920x1080 and rotating it gives you a 1080x1920
Which makes it look terrible. The viewing angles on cheap monitors tend to suck if you aren't looking at it right. Although rotating a monitor that doesn't look terrible is the bee's knees.
I personally prefer working on widescreen monitors for programming. Once you've written properly descriptive names or you are working in a wordy OO language there is really no such thing as "reasonably short lines" though. I've never understood why people on Slashdot do not like widescreen- your vision is widescreen.
The charger for the Nexus5 is magnetic and holds/helps place the phone in the proper location and has some new-agey sticky crap on the bottom that allows it to be fixed in pretty much any position.
define gamer: a person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.
Herp derp nothing about misogyny.
But thank you for the definition. I'll be sure to tell Anita and Zoe and all these gaming journalists that they aren't actually feminists. I'm sure they'll accept that.
You keep repeating misogyny- maybe eventually you'll convince someone it's true. Most likely people will come to realize you're just making pleas to emotion.
Defending a strawman argument with a strawman argument isn't a great choice. Not a single person has said that. In fact, pretty much everyone wants that guy fired. So "That a boy" was said by no one ever.
Evidence that Zoe got death threats? Link? Reference? How's that for a double standard. You just take her word for it but demand unrealistic evidence for anything else.
Tell me, did your ears get sore from having your fingers jammed in them so hard? The link can be found from the article and numerous times in this thread. Constantly demanding a link after it has already been provided is pretty asinine.
Manufacture what? The infographic? Would you find it more credible if there were simply more infographics with the same content? It was a review of the credibility of the threat. How come you don't have this same level of disbelief when the only evidence of threats that was manufactured was this one short term twitter account?
I suppose it helps explain your method of thinking. There is a large group of people circularly referencing each other about how there is totally no corruption going on in their circle. But they provide lots of stories and references to those stories so by virtue of the bandwagon fallacy they must be correct.
Simple error? I mean I guess it would be understandable for someone that doesn't like or know anything about video games to not understand how game mechanics work. But completely misrepresenting how a game works is not a "simple error".
She hasn't made a lot of them; not sure how you would forget such an absurd part. She went on at length about Hitman and something about punishing women for their sexuality.
The issue is: This anonymous person did something "evil" and therefore you claim an entire demographic is evil and you are mad at them. Not a good example of rationality.
I have never used my integrity to promote someone that I am secretly sleeping with. Are you saying that you would do that given the chance?
The issue is nepotism and nothing at all to do with misogyny. You can keep repeating misogyny to derail the conversation all you'd like but it's clearly not all that effective.
Just world? What the hell are you going on about here? That has absolutely nothing to do with what was said.
Slashdot Mirror
It will be interesting to see what the dignity of a celebrity is worth.
The fact that there was even a story about this shows that their dignity is worth vastly more than yours or mine. Not that I think photos have anything to do with dignity.
A multi-billion dollar company told them their photos were "secure". These people are not computer scientists; they cannot judge security on their own. Do you think these people understand the difference in security between their bank and iCloud? In both cases they are trusting in the perceived expertise of those successfully running the services.
Not even sure what you are replying to either. The parent was clearly not defending Apple.
It's just as likely that women are more risk averse than men because girls are not encouraged to take the risks that boys are.
You cannot just claim things are "just as likely". You need a reason to justify that claim. Especially since the lack of encouragement for girls is simply not true. Girls have gotten nothing but encouragement for the last 30 years at least. They definitely have not gotten less encouragement than boys.
"Heforshe". You know: women first. Normal equality stuff.
Here at Slashdot most of us have realized that not all bachelor's degrees are created equal. A bachelor of science and a bachelor of arts may be the same "education level" but they are not the same education nor do they qualify you for the same jobs and definitely not the same pay.
It tells me that women are more risk averse than men on average. Something that is pretty well established in most studies of male and female psychology.
Remember that for every high profile politician or CEO there are thousands of failures. Just because someone has an opportunity does not mean they are going to take it. Nor does it mean they have to take it.
I didn't cherry pick anything. He went on some absurd tirade about how people were flagging his inflammatory comments as flamebait. I pointed out the exact sentences that gave me the impression that i kan reed was disregarding all criticism as coming from horrible people that he is "morally superior" to. There was nothing reasonable about what he said and definitely not how he said it.
So far I have received no clarification as to how I misinterpreted the statements. Just a repetition of "I don't label everyone that disagrees with me as morally inferior it just so happens that they are morally inferior". When he acts like a total dickhead himself no one has any obligation to not be a dickhead back. I don't expect either of you will admit to this behaviour; you will just continually repeat your vague rationalizations.
You're projecting here. What I see is him disagreeing with people who are basically asshole MRAs and you jumping all over him accusing him of being a "straw feminist" whatever the fuck that is. You are thereby getting a very smug feeling of superiority over him (and now presumably me) which is exactly what you're accusing him of.
I am projecting nothing. i kan reed made inflammatory comments and decided to act like a child after being modded flamebait. I told him why he was modded flamebait- that is not being an asshole. Whereas as soon as I say something you do not like you start trying to label me with words you think are insults like "MRA", "misogynist", "asshole".
I have a pretty strong suspicion that you both know what a straw-feminist is. A straw-feminist is a culmination of bad traits attributed to feminists that feminists claim "feminists aren't like that". To use i kan reed's own straw-feminist strawman defense:
feminism is evil and actively attacking poor helpless men.
Feminists say feminist critics accuse all feminists of being that (aka straw-feminist). Now that is actually a strawman fallacy accusing others of making a strawman fallacy (straw-ception). What feminist critics actually say is feminists behave in deplorable and extremely obnoxious ways. Being completely dishonest and more attached to their own sense of superiority than actually helping anyone. To again use i kan reed's own words:
And I don't give a fuck if you think I'm being "morally superior" to people whose behaviors are outright reprehensible.
It's flamebait to imply anything other than feminism is evil and actively attacking poor helpless men. Sorry you didn't know that. It antagonizes the misogynists.
So what are you saying here other than that anyone that thought your post was flamebait was an antagonized misogynist? I really don't understand how you can think people are going to take you seriously when you say moronic things like that. Especially when you say I am making a strawman. I read what you wrote and I am really unsure how to interpret it other than you implying people are misogynist.
And I don't give a fuck if you think I'm being "morally superior" to people whose behaviors are outright reprehensible.
That would be exactly my point. You just label anyone that disagrees with you to have "outright reprehensible behaviour". Either that or you just conveniently ignore (or pretend don't exist) the huge amount of people that disagree with you and do not have reprehensible behaviour. You think that you are better than people; you think that entitles you to act like an asshole.
Pointing out that you have a brazen superiority complex does not mean I am being self-righteous. You can call me hypocritical and self-righteous all day long but you are still the one constantly going on about how superior you are to all us mere mortal misogynists.
It is the mindless and baseless insults to anyone that disagrees with you that makes it flamebait. Your brazen strawmen that make people completely disregard what you have to say. That is also the number one reason that there is such a strong push-back against feminism. Obnoxious, pretentious blow-hards like yourself are the exact reason why so many people think feminism is a joke.
Of course you will continue to excuse your reprehensible attitude with pious self-importance and sarcastically shrug off any criticism with "most people that disagree are just misogynists" even though you have no reason the believe that and are shown otherwise every time you say it.
I want you to think about this, i kan reed, every time you feel someone is complaining about "straw-feminists" or "doesn't know what feminism is about". It is because of you and people like you. You are the number one reason that people have a bad image of feminism. It isn't misogyny. It isn't insecurities. People do not fear strong women nor do they fear losing their "privileges" (not that there aren't many feminists that love infringing on the rights of others). It is you. It is you and the other preening mooks like you. The self-aggrandizing attitude that because you are "feminist" you are morally superior and entitled to talk down, belittle, insult and defame anyone that dares say something you do not like.
You are a straw-feminist.
Actually Slashdot is like that about everything. What really gets to some on Slashdot is how people like you act all sanctimonious and incredulous when people disagree about something, and only when it comes to feminism.
Humans have a hard time being objective about themselves.
Controlling resources attracts mates.
Google is pretty sweet but some people use their computers for other stuff too.
the ubiquitous 1920x1080 is cheap as dirt and nice and wide; but actually throws fewer vertical pixels than a nasty old 1280x1024
I think your math may be off.
taking a cheapo 1920x1080 and rotating it gives you a 1080x1920
Which makes it look terrible. The viewing angles on cheap monitors tend to suck if you aren't looking at it right. Although rotating a monitor that doesn't look terrible is the bee's knees.
I personally prefer working on widescreen monitors for programming. Once you've written properly descriptive names or you are working in a wordy OO language there is really no such thing as "reasonably short lines" though. I've never understood why people on Slashdot do not like widescreen- your vision is widescreen.
The charger for the Nexus5 is magnetic and holds/helps place the phone in the proper location and has some new-agey sticky crap on the bottom that allows it to be fixed in pretty much any position.
define gamer: a person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.
Herp derp nothing about misogyny.
But thank you for the definition. I'll be sure to tell Anita and Zoe and all these gaming journalists that they aren't actually feminists. I'm sure they'll accept that.
You keep repeating misogyny- maybe eventually you'll convince someone it's true. Most likely people will come to realize you're just making pleas to emotion.
Defending a strawman argument with a strawman argument isn't a great choice. Not a single person has said that. In fact, pretty much everyone wants that guy fired. So "That a boy" was said by no one ever.
Evidence that Zoe got death threats? Link? Reference? How's that for a double standard. You just take her word for it but demand unrealistic evidence for anything else.
sig: The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Yours at the very least.
Tell me, did your ears get sore from having your fingers jammed in them so hard? The link can be found from the article and numerous times in this thread. Constantly demanding a link after it has already been provided is pretty asinine.
Which in the realm of gaming women have. So hooray! Feminism can leave gaming alone now?
Manufacture what? The infographic? Would you find it more credible if there were simply more infographics with the same content? It was a review of the credibility of the threat. How come you don't have this same level of disbelief when the only evidence of threats that was manufactured was this one short term twitter account?
I suppose it helps explain your method of thinking. There is a large group of people circularly referencing each other about how there is totally no corruption going on in their circle. But they provide lots of stories and references to those stories so by virtue of the bandwagon fallacy they must be correct.
You should try reality, instead of FeministFrequency's imagination land. You'll find it much more rewarding.
Simple error? I mean I guess it would be understandable for someone that doesn't like or know anything about video games to not understand how game mechanics work. But completely misrepresenting how a game works is not a "simple error".
She hasn't made a lot of them; not sure how you would forget such an absurd part. She went on at length about Hitman and something about punishing women for their sexuality.
The issue is: This anonymous person did something "evil" and therefore you claim an entire demographic is evil and you are mad at them. Not a good example of rationality.
I have never used my integrity to promote someone that I am secretly sleeping with. Are you saying that you would do that given the chance?
The issue is nepotism and nothing at all to do with misogyny. You can keep repeating misogyny to derail the conversation all you'd like but it's clearly not all that effective.
Just world? What the hell are you going on about here? That has absolutely nothing to do with what was said.