Well, the American government isn't even bound by the Constitution in practice, so I've no idea what that document is even for. And if it is, hell, all you need is the Supreme Court to, like great High Priests or perhaps mystical shamans, decide what really means with a papal infallibility...! So again, what is the document for? I submit it is like Britain's royal family--mostly symbolic.
(b) transmit uninvited communications, data or information, or engage in other similar activities,
This reminds me how silly and broad these ToSes are. That appears to even making pinging against the ToS. What is an "uninvited communication" when it comes to the internet?
If you need a tl;dr example, just big a view that is so abhorrent to you that it you consider it offensive by default. I'll pick on neo-nazis bigots here. Almost no forum seriously allows neo-nazi punks to spread their bullshit because it's racially offensive. But they do so at the expense of "free" discussion (again, not saying all discussion must be "free"), and when you start taking any side based on how offensive the view is, you slant the discourse by default.
Of course, most ISP ToSes do not allow you to spread racism on the internet in the first place, although it's rarely enforced. But that is beside the point here.
This is just a blatant, extreme example, but if you look closely you can find this effect occurring more subtly on forums towards minority viewpoints.
In my experience online, particularly with internet forums featuring heavy political debate (or more accurately put, "argumentation"), rules like "no off-topic posting" can easily be twisted or broadened to accompany the biases of the moderators or the majority opinion to stifle dissent.
How? For example, someone who has a completely opposite opinion of the majority may often have a completely opposing ideology and thus their opposition may be seen as "trolling." I'll use examples from the supposed "both sides" (yes, this is a gross simplification of political ideologies but bear with me), i.e., the left and the right on the political spectrum. It is frequently seen as off-topic trolling to the left when they are discussing what the proper amount of taxation should be and a libertarian or conservative come in railing against ALL taxation on principle, since the tone of discussion itself was not the validity of taxation but "just the right" amount. Of course, to many libertarians and conservatives, there is no "right amount," but it's seen as disruption and trolling all the same.
Similarly for the right, when the left criticize religiously-based policies it is often seen as rambling on about un-American stuff, and since they are talking about AMERICA! they really ought go someplace else (usually Cuba) to discuss that sort of thing. And then they're banned.
I've seen the same thing with "don't be rude" rules. Tell someone that a particular belief they have is racist, and on some forums you will get punished for insulting, nevermind the fact that some wackjobs people out there proudly call themselves racists (and if you intend to have free, open discussion, you'll have to remain neutral to both sides and favor neither) and nevermind the fact that by some definitions their views can be considered racist. For example (trying to remain unbiased towards "both" sides of the fence here, again), you can sometimes be punished for claiming that someone is a racist for affirmative action, or can be punished for saying that someone is racist for supporting Israel's status as an officially Jewish state. Of course, just being contradictory enough times, particularly towards deeply-established social norms and views is seen as disruptive and can also get you kicked from forums for "being a jerk."
This is similar to how the media marginalizes minority viewpoints in politics, by not televising them, referring to them as "spoilers" as if the votes really belong to the Big Two, treating them as sideshow attractions, and generally holding them in contempt--this applies to the Libertarians AND the left-wing parties such as the Green Party.
Conformity rules everywhere, even in places that supposedly pride themselves on having open discussion and unbiased moderation. Consensus will eventually appear and if a voice is too contradictory they'll be seen not as a contributing member but as a disruptive element. The only solution I can see for truly "free" discussion online (and I am not implying that all forums should have "free" discussion, simply ones that aim to) is to require members to have a bit of backbone and a lot of leeway on what is appropriate.
Michelle Obama on the other hand, does not deserve the same treatment.
That's your political determination, then, and if comparing Mugabe to a chimp is not inherently racist then comparing any of the Obamas to a chimp is not necessarily racist by the same line of logic.
Way back when I was editing the "scientific skepticism" article, and I had some clownshoes nutcases fighting me because they had some sort of mystical, anti-science bent. From vandalizing in anti-science quotations from prominent wackjobs to inserting claims with citations by people talking about angels or people living with no brains in their heads, to libel about writers on scientific skepticism, I couldn't handle it. I committed the sin of reverting the page 3 times in one day which got me in hot water, same as the other guy, but I was still in the wrong despite how clearly what I was saying was simply true (and verifiable) information while the other guys' was pseudoscientific, bizarre nonsense, the type of crank that believes anything that isn't established science.
The wiki admins were quick to point out "NPOV!" regarding scientific facts, and if you can't take a point of view over scientific evidence then even the most obscure "revelation" and superstition should, according to this line of thought, be given equal time. It is just like the evolution vs creationist nonsense, with the wiki staff taking a "both sides get to speak" position. It was ridiculous! If you're going to treat established, mainstream science on the same level as obscure fantasy then the whole endeavor is useless. Wikipedia was supposed to be a compendium of knowledge, not "claims." Science essentially is the purest form of our knowledge, and with such a backhanded attitude toward... just, ugh.
Additionally, when asked about the page being frozen with clearly untrue and unscientific information, the staff knee-slapped about how "oh, the page is ALWAYS frozen on the wrong one." So, clearly, wikipedia bureaucrats have a relativistic view of truth as well. Fascinating. They told me to just "let the community take care of it," despite none of them willing to listen to my pleas and step in and fix it. I gave up and came back a month later with the problems not being fixed. Ugh.
I won out in the end, with the page being changed significantly to include more (accurate) information and without the nonsense, but seeing what I went through I'm not going to give wikipedia much consideration anymore.
Or, as in the case with a Vote for Deletion, an angry user or admin can continually nominate an article until it's deleted, an infinite number of times. Eventually, they'll win, and it's much harder to recover a deleted article (impossible?) than to request its deletion.
This is exactly what happened with the GNAA article, among others.
"What about statutory rape, like the 18yrold with 17yrold cases?"
Do you really just think in terms of legal principles and terms and not using actual concepts? He's not talking about the legal meaning of "rape" but the more conceptual meaning of rape which he defined above.
How about looking at the individual and not justifying oppression due to consensus? Social consensus does not justify the individual being subject to tyranny.
Far Left - "Obama is perpetuating cultural hegemony and displaying his intolerance toward other cultures' ways of life by forcing Western cultural norms down their throats."
Now that's delving into troll-like behavior. I will not call you a troll, because it may simply be very idealistic beliefs on your part, but do consider how others will perceive your arguments. We are not talking about Nazi Germany, nor are we talking about a country that is anything like Nazi Germany. Yes, Russia has a problem with corruption; a problem that is slowly being approached from various levels. This does not mean that they are gathering a group of people, and killing them off. At most, they may be working to remove the power from opportunists that used the collapse of the soviet union to secure fortunes beyond any human reason. Yet again, while you may disagree with the idea based on ideology, I ask that you please apply logic to the situation: Russia is not the United States, it has a very different culture, demographic, ideology, history, and belief system. Do not ask of them to be like you, instead urge them to find their own way, like this guy is doing.
Pay attention to what I was responding to. If you were trying to justify the behavior of Russia's authority by appeals to popularity and mob rule, then my response is on-target. Tyranny is tyranny no matter how many hands are in the air.
That said:
So I would disagree with you. If you carry out the laws of a corrupt government, you are no different than if you carry out the laws of a utopia. It just so happens that the laws you carry out may not be something you agree with, but the other choice is not even worth entertaining.
Pragmatically speaking, even under arguably unjust government someone needs to take care of the public law and order. Wouldn't you prefer those people taking care of the safety of the streets to be of high moral stance and have some integrity, even if the state power itself is unjust? And no matter what some rosy-eyed idealists think, living under over-controlling government beats living in anarchy any day.
But when you carry out the laws of corrupt governments you're no better than a mere thug. Unless you want to talk about cops deciding which laws are just and which are unjust...
I will not even go into the whole topic of Russia some of the oppressive government policies may be mirroring the sentiments of the population at large, many of whom are nostalgic for Soviet past.
Yeah, and maybe the majority in Nazi Germany weren't thrilled about Jews, too.
It's hard to sympathize with someone when their job description includes conducting laws made by an oppressive government regime. Maybe they need someone to help with real crimes, but I personally have difficulty sympathizing with anyone that takes a job that involves carrying out the unjust laws of a corrupt regime.
I'm scared the US is going to start looking like that, what with the omnipresent push for more government and "social oversight and responsibility" into our lives and the fact that those with an agenda always conflate "society" with "government."
There's a difference between saying that people don't "deserve" money for software and the fact that people who may copy software aren't doing anything unethical.
Ahahaha, such self-righteous indignity from a hypocrite. No wonder you are so spiteful, nobody is buying your shit software. Sorry dude. For someone bragging about creating shit you're too small time to even matter and you're apparently becoming increasingly irrelevant.
You don't care about fair or deserved or the moral/justified aspects yet you're willing to whine and whine about how you "deserve" money and how it's all communism so on so forth? Yeah, OK buddy.
Anyway, you are equivocating with the word "scarcity." I am referring to material scarcity, while you are referring to scarcity of originality. But an original idea no more belongs to someone than an original sound. It's like saying the first person to ever make a pizza has the exclusive rights to the pizza recipe. He has exclusive rights to the pizzas he makes, but not to "pizza" in general. And yet that is exactly the idea behind so-called "intellectual property".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the American government isn't even bound by the Constitution in practice, so I've no idea what that document is even for. And if it is, hell, all you need is the Supreme Court to, like great High Priests or perhaps mystical shamans, decide what really means with a papal infallibility...! So again, what is the document for? I submit it is like Britain's royal family--mostly symbolic.
This reminds me how silly and broad these ToSes are. That appears to even making pinging against the ToS. What is an "uninvited communication" when it comes to the internet?
If you need a tl;dr example, just big a view that is so abhorrent to you that it you consider it offensive by default. I'll pick on neo-nazis bigots here. Almost no forum seriously allows neo-nazi punks to spread their bullshit because it's racially offensive. But they do so at the expense of "free" discussion (again, not saying all discussion must be "free"), and when you start taking any side based on how offensive the view is, you slant the discourse by default.
Of course, most ISP ToSes do not allow you to spread racism on the internet in the first place, although it's rarely enforced. But that is beside the point here.
This is just a blatant, extreme example, but if you look closely you can find this effect occurring more subtly on forums towards minority viewpoints.
In my experience online, particularly with internet forums featuring heavy political debate (or more accurately put, "argumentation"), rules like "no off-topic posting" can easily be twisted or broadened to accompany the biases of the moderators or the majority opinion to stifle dissent.
How? For example, someone who has a completely opposite opinion of the majority may often have a completely opposing ideology and thus their opposition may be seen as "trolling." I'll use examples from the supposed "both sides" (yes, this is a gross simplification of political ideologies but bear with me), i.e., the left and the right on the political spectrum. It is frequently seen as off-topic trolling to the left when they are discussing what the proper amount of taxation should be and a libertarian or conservative come in railing against ALL taxation on principle, since the tone of discussion itself was not the validity of taxation but "just the right" amount. Of course, to many libertarians and conservatives, there is no "right amount," but it's seen as disruption and trolling all the same.
Similarly for the right, when the left criticize religiously-based policies it is often seen as rambling on about un-American stuff, and since they are talking about AMERICA! they really ought go someplace else (usually Cuba) to discuss that sort of thing. And then they're banned.
I've seen the same thing with "don't be rude" rules. Tell someone that a particular belief they have is racist, and on some forums you will get punished for insulting, nevermind the fact that some wackjobs people out there proudly call themselves racists (and if you intend to have free, open discussion, you'll have to remain neutral to both sides and favor neither) and nevermind the fact that by some definitions their views can be considered racist. For example (trying to remain unbiased towards "both" sides of the fence here, again), you can sometimes be punished for claiming that someone is a racist for affirmative action, or can be punished for saying that someone is racist for supporting Israel's status as an officially Jewish state. Of course, just being contradictory enough times, particularly towards deeply-established social norms and views is seen as disruptive and can also get you kicked from forums for "being a jerk."
This is similar to how the media marginalizes minority viewpoints in politics, by not televising them, referring to them as "spoilers" as if the votes really belong to the Big Two, treating them as sideshow attractions, and generally holding them in contempt--this applies to the Libertarians AND the left-wing parties such as the Green Party.
Conformity rules everywhere, even in places that supposedly pride themselves on having open discussion and unbiased moderation. Consensus will eventually appear and if a voice is too contradictory they'll be seen not as a contributing member but as a disruptive element. The only solution I can see for truly "free" discussion online (and I am not implying that all forums should have "free" discussion, simply ones that aim to) is to require members to have a bit of backbone and a lot of leeway on what is appropriate.
Why is all criticism (whatever the form) of Obama branded as racism?
Because the Obamas as Gods and ought be revered as such.
Michelle Obama on the other hand, does not deserve the same treatment.
That's your political determination, then, and if comparing Mugabe to a chimp is not inherently racist then comparing any of the Obamas to a chimp is not necessarily racist by the same line of logic.
Pay attention closer next time. Obama wasn't saying "change", he was saying "chains."
Way back when I was editing the "scientific skepticism" article, and I had some clownshoes nutcases fighting me because they had some sort of mystical, anti-science bent. From vandalizing in anti-science quotations from prominent wackjobs to inserting claims with citations by people talking about angels or people living with no brains in their heads, to libel about writers on scientific skepticism, I couldn't handle it. I committed the sin of reverting the page 3 times in one day which got me in hot water, same as the other guy, but I was still in the wrong despite how clearly what I was saying was simply true (and verifiable) information while the other guys' was pseudoscientific, bizarre nonsense, the type of crank that believes anything that isn't established science.
The wiki admins were quick to point out "NPOV!" regarding scientific facts, and if you can't take a point of view over scientific evidence then even the most obscure "revelation" and superstition should, according to this line of thought, be given equal time. It is just like the evolution vs creationist nonsense, with the wiki staff taking a "both sides get to speak" position. It was ridiculous! If you're going to treat established, mainstream science on the same level as obscure fantasy then the whole endeavor is useless. Wikipedia was supposed to be a compendium of knowledge, not "claims." Science essentially is the purest form of our knowledge, and with such a backhanded attitude toward... just, ugh.
Additionally, when asked about the page being frozen with clearly untrue and unscientific information, the staff knee-slapped about how "oh, the page is ALWAYS frozen on the wrong one." So, clearly, wikipedia bureaucrats have a relativistic view of truth as well. Fascinating. They told me to just "let the community take care of it," despite none of them willing to listen to my pleas and step in and fix it. I gave up and came back a month later with the problems not being fixed. Ugh.
I won out in the end, with the page being changed significantly to include more (accurate) information and without the nonsense, but seeing what I went through I'm not going to give wikipedia much consideration anymore.
Or, as in the case with a Vote for Deletion, an angry user or admin can continually nominate an article until it's deleted, an infinite number of times. Eventually, they'll win, and it's much harder to recover a deleted article (impossible?) than to request its deletion.
This is exactly what happened with the GNAA article, among others.
"What about statutory rape, like the 18yrold with 17yrold cases?"
Do you really just think in terms of legal principles and terms and not using actual concepts? He's not talking about the legal meaning of "rape" but the more conceptual meaning of rape which he defined above.
Now, what do we do about the violent murder caused by certain first-world entities over oil?
How about looking at the individual and not justifying oppression due to consensus? Social consensus does not justify the individual being subject to tyranny.
True, true, but it goes both ways.
Far Left - "Obama is perpetuating cultural hegemony and displaying his intolerance toward other cultures' ways of life by forcing Western cultural norms down their throats."
Where does the UN's funding come from?
Now that's delving into troll-like behavior. I will not call you a troll, because it may simply be very idealistic beliefs on your part, but do consider how others will perceive your arguments. We are not talking about Nazi Germany, nor are we talking about a country that is anything like Nazi Germany. Yes, Russia has a problem with corruption; a problem that is slowly being approached from various levels. This does not mean that they are gathering a group of people, and killing them off. At most, they may be working to remove the power from opportunists that used the collapse of the soviet union to secure fortunes beyond any human reason. Yet again, while you may disagree with the idea based on ideology, I ask that you please apply logic to the situation: Russia is not the United States, it has a very different culture, demographic, ideology, history, and belief system. Do not ask of them to be like you, instead urge them to find their own way, like this guy is doing.
Pay attention to what I was responding to. If you were trying to justify the behavior of Russia's authority by appeals to popularity and mob rule, then my response is on-target. Tyranny is tyranny no matter how many hands are in the air.
That said:
So I would disagree with you. If you carry out the laws of a corrupt government, you are no different than if you carry out the laws of a utopia. It just so happens that the laws you carry out may not be something you agree with, but the other choice is not even worth entertaining.
That excuse didn't work in the Nuremberg trials.
Pragmatically speaking, even under arguably unjust government someone needs to take care of the public law and order. Wouldn't you prefer those people taking care of the safety of the streets to be of high moral stance and have some integrity, even if the state power itself is unjust? And no matter what some rosy-eyed idealists think, living under over-controlling government beats living in anarchy any day.
But when you carry out the laws of corrupt governments you're no better than a mere thug. Unless you want to talk about cops deciding which laws are just and which are unjust...
I will not even go into the whole topic of Russia some of the oppressive government policies may be mirroring the sentiments of the population at large, many of whom are nostalgic for Soviet past.
Yeah, and maybe the majority in Nazi Germany weren't thrilled about Jews, too.
It was a Democratic executive that used the term, "stroke of the pen, law of the land."
I'm not sure I'd want to be "stopping crime" under an oppressive regime that has a lot of innocuous stuff being criminal.
So he arrests guys smoking pot?
Not to mention, it's not like cops don't get transferred/promoted. Next you'll be sticking up for vice cops.
It's hard to sympathize with someone when their job description includes conducting laws made by an oppressive government regime. Maybe they need someone to help with real crimes, but I personally have difficulty sympathizing with anyone that takes a job that involves carrying out the unjust laws of a corrupt regime.
No, I think they completely get the point.
I'm scared the US is going to start looking like that, what with the omnipresent push for more government and "social oversight and responsibility" into our lives and the fact that those with an agenda always conflate "society" with "government."
There's a difference between saying that people don't "deserve" money for software and the fact that people who may copy software aren't doing anything unethical.
The second is not a form of the first.
Uh, no, and it appears you're trying to save face now. Amusing.
Ahahaha, such self-righteous indignity from a hypocrite. No wonder you are so spiteful, nobody is buying your shit software. Sorry dude. For someone bragging about creating shit you're too small time to even matter and you're apparently becoming increasingly irrelevant.
You don't care about fair or deserved or the moral/justified aspects yet you're willing to whine and whine about how you "deserve" money and how it's all communism so on so forth? Yeah, OK buddy.
Anyway, you are equivocating with the word "scarcity." I am referring to material scarcity, while you are referring to scarcity of originality. But an original idea no more belongs to someone than an original sound. It's like saying the first person to ever make a pizza has the exclusive rights to the pizza recipe. He has exclusive rights to the pizzas he makes, but not to "pizza" in general. And yet that is exactly the idea behind so-called "intellectual property".