Where do you see him calling for censorship? He is basically stating a problem with the media that transcends this issue: in the name of "balance" the media portrays both sides of an issue, no matter how few or how crazy the supporters of one side might be, as equal. Look at coverage of most protests. Several hundred thousand people on one side are equated with a few hundred on the other.
He has every right to say the other side is wrong. To say otherwise is to censor Gore. Not that Gor shutting up is necessarily a bad idea, he's a long-winded gasbag. But he is not a censor. That's his wife Tipper's job.
WTF? I read that whole biased piece by a staff writer at the Dickson Herald and I could not find one quote from Gore calling for censorship. He just pointed out that no peer reviewed studies disagreed with the premise of anthropogenic global warming, while 53% of newspaper articles did.
I put the word denier in context. What word would you have me use? These aren't skeptics I'm referring to, these are people who actively deny the possibility of anthropogenic global climate change. Again, what word should I use?
So your whole counter argument seems to be "I know you are but what am I."
How so? I'm honestly curious rather than insulted, because I can't really make any sense of this. I know you are what? And I am what? This is just perplexing.
That's funny, I seem to recall that Al Gore was calling for censorship of anybody who disagreed with his climatology viewpoint. Was I wrong?
Yes, you were wrong. Care to back that assertion up with a quote from a legitimate source? Note: Your cousin's right wing blog is not a legitimate source. People love to lie about Al Gore for some reason.
I've seen idiots get alarmed about all kinds of things. I've seen people attack others and then claim to be with a group they have nothing to do with. I've seen otherwise rational individuals goaded into attacking people with taunts and insults. So yeah, by some definitions I've seen some emotional global arming alarmists. I've seen orders of magnitude more emotional global warming deniers, yet it's always the people who think we should do something about global warming that get called emotional. Maybe that is because caring about the environment is seen as weak, feminine, and emotional in many circles.
Get a grip. Your first sentence makes my point for me. You try to insult me and belittle my position. Then you take a quote from me out of context and try to invoke Godwin. I said deniers as compared to skeptics. I have no problem with people who say, "We don't know." or "I'm not sure." I have a problem with people who actively deny the possibility and then toss around insults because they have no actual logical argument.
What money is there to be made on the green side? Where does the majority of research money in the world actually come from, people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, or those who have a vested interest in changing it?
Really, that's very odd. Because I see a lot of people claiming that this has become an emotional issue, and I see a lot of people who deny anthropogenic global climate change (not skeptics, but outright deniers) who become very emotional about the issue. In fact, the deniers are the only ones I have seen become emotional, all the while they are claiming it is others that are emotional. Classic case of projection. Governments and big business do everything they can to repress good science and cloud the issue with emotions, and then claim the other side is repressing and clouding the issue.
Libertarianism prohibits only one type of coercion. Consider the case where a small group of people own all the property in the world. Everyone who wants to eat has only one place to get that food, from the property owners. They have to do anything the property owners tell them to. If they rise up to overthrow the property owners, Libertarian philosophy says they are initiating force, rather than the property owners who are starving them to death. The owners then have every right to kill them.
Libertarianism in a nutshell is the idea that the only purpose of government is to maintain a police force to keep the slaves in line.
It's funny to see how some people say, "That's an interesting theory," and then some other people act as if I have insulted them personally and lash out with such witty rejoinders as "Grow up, your not in high school anymore."
I'm not talking about me, personally. I'm talking about what I see here and my theory as to why some slashdotters act the way they do about poor spelling and grammar. But obviously, I touched a raw nerve with some people. Sorry.
I let myself out of my cage a long time ago. I no longer act like an intellectual snob, and so I don't suffer from social isolation. But I call it like I see it.
You really, honestly think that people here don't think that way? What's your genius theory as to why people here care so much about spelling and grammar? I mean, if my idea is so dumb and stereotypical, I'm sure you have a better one.
A criticism in the form of a joke, and a geeky reference, I like! It's important to remember that it takes all kinds. For every Einstein, we need dozens of normal folks who just do what their culture tells them to do, what has worked for their fathers and their father's fathers.
A Stephen Hawking, alone in the jungle without his tribe, is lion meat. That slow fellow who mops up down at the local McDonalds has a better chance. Genius is only enabled by a strong and supportive society.
Heh. Don't shoot the messenger. I never criticize others spelling or grammer. Well, I may have but certainly not with any frequency.
There's another geek characteristic that I forgot to mention, one that complicates the whole issue and one I think you demonstrate here.
We tend to be noncomformists. Compare how many times you see a criticism of "groupthink" or a post calling someone a "slashbot" to the number of posts criticizing spelling or grammar.
Nah, I was one of the lucky ones. Went to smart kids schools, never got picked on. I wasn't trying to be elitist, merely trying to point out why I think there is a focus on grammar and spelling here.
Yeah, but "loose" and "lose?" Come on! I don't give a fuck if someone misspells an uncommon or difficult word, or splits an infinitive or anything like that, but if you fuck up an apostrophe; too, two, and to; they're and their; it's and its or the like: that's fair game.
Do a google search on "Fairness reciprocity economic research." Look up game theory and behavioral economics on wikipedia. I also found a website a few days ago that gave a nice summary of the terms.
Would have responded sooner, but work has been busy. I'm the "Have you DST patched your servers yet?" guy here and the last few days have been a bit frantic. All good though.
I know I come off as kind of hostile towards property owners and I'd be willing to guess that everyone who has foed me has done so for that reason. But I'm not universally against private property, I just see it as a system with no checks and balances. The more you have the easier it is to get more. The less you have the harder it is.
Without some kinds of checks and balances, a free market, private property system will devolve into a small group of owners, with the rest of us as wage slaves who have no chance of ever becoming owners.
Let's get some things cleared up. Wealth is not bad. Differences in wealth are not bad. Not everyone deserves the same outcome, but everyone deserves an equitable opportunity. Creating wealth is a net benefit for society if and only if the wealth created outweighs the externalities inherent in its creation.
I'm confused how so many people who understand the idea of opportunity cost can be so blind when it comes to alternatives to free market capitalism. Without investment, there would be no jobs? So no one did anything before there was money and investment? One alternative is democratic control of the means of production. That does not require investment.
I fail to understand how a transaction where both parties agree and benefit, and in fact one party is a direct representative of the other can be characterized as "the government taking from the bourgeoisie." You wouldn't even have private property if it weren't for government protecting your property rights.
Look, let me explain something about group dynamics in general and geek psychology in particular. Every group develops little markers that let members know if someone is a part of the group. Particular ways of speaking, writing, or acting, little jokes, that sort of thing.
Many geeks grew up as outsiders. We were smarter, but lacked social skills. Dumber but more popular people felt threatened by our brains and put us down, picked on us, and so forth. One characteristic that groups of those dumber people adopted as their group marker was a disdain for all things intellectual. One thing many geeks have adopted is just the opposite, a respect for all things intellectual, to distinguish ourselves from them.
Do you see where this is going?
You come on a geek message board spouting anti-intellectualism, "Oh, you dorks, proper spelling and grammar don't matter. Get over yourselves." You have just identified yourself as "one of them," an outsider, probably anti-intellectual, most likely of the same sort that picked on many of us as kids.
Proper spelling and grammar are one of our shibboleths, along with Natalie Portman, hot grits, and Beowulf clusters. It isn't primarily about communication, although that is a factor. It is about identity. We are geeks. Geeks are smart. Smart people spell words correctly and use proper grammar. That is who we are.
When people here correct your spelling or grammar, they are really just trying to carry on our culture, and help you fit in. You don't have to, but if you don't, you will be seen as an outsider by many here. That's just how it is with people. You know the old saying, "When in Rome..."
How are "HP Sponsored Solutions" and "compare prices" related to this story in any way? Is HP building these towers? Are there multiple suppliers of these towers, so that we might need to compare prices? WTF is this place turning into?
Successful collectives that last all have three things in common, as shown in a study of communes, collectives and cooperatives done in the late 70s. First, they are not based around a charismatic leader. This guarantees failure in the long term. Second, they have a written set of rules that outline actual consequences, that all collective members agree to. Third, those consequences are actually applied in a fair and just manner through collective decisions.
Wikipedia fails points one and three. It won't be around long in its present form.
Slashdot Mirror
Now this is your last chance, I've been more than reasonable...
If you do not agree to my commands then I shall- [THWANG! Mooooooooooo] Jesus Christ!
Where do you see him calling for censorship? He is basically stating a problem with the media that transcends this issue: in the name of "balance" the media portrays both sides of an issue, no matter how few or how crazy the supporters of one side might be, as equal. Look at coverage of most protests. Several hundred thousand people on one side are equated with a few hundred on the other.
He has every right to say the other side is wrong. To say otherwise is to censor Gore. Not that Gor shutting up is necessarily a bad idea, he's a long-winded gasbag. But he is not a censor. That's his wife Tipper's job.
WTF? I read that whole biased piece by a staff writer at the Dickson Herald and I could not find one quote from Gore calling for censorship. He just pointed out that no peer reviewed studies disagreed with the premise of anthropogenic global warming, while 53% of newspaper articles did.
Please point out where I was being hostile, and where I called anyone a name.
I put the word denier in context. What word would you have me use? These aren't skeptics I'm referring to, these are people who actively deny the possibility of anthropogenic global climate change. Again, what word should I use?
So your whole counter argument seems to be "I know you are but what am I."
How so? I'm honestly curious rather than insulted, because I can't really make any sense of this. I know you are what? And I am what? This is just perplexing.
That's funny, I seem to recall that Al Gore was calling for censorship of anybody who disagreed with his climatology viewpoint. Was I wrong?
Yes, you were wrong. Care to back that assertion up with a quote from a legitimate source? Note: Your cousin's right wing blog is not a legitimate source. People love to lie about Al Gore for some reason.
Just buy them used.
I've seen idiots get alarmed about all kinds of things. I've seen people attack others and then claim to be with a group they have nothing to do with. I've seen otherwise rational individuals goaded into attacking people with taunts and insults. So yeah, by some definitions I've seen some emotional global arming alarmists. I've seen orders of magnitude more emotional global warming deniers, yet it's always the people who think we should do something about global warming that get called emotional. Maybe that is because caring about the environment is seen as weak, feminine, and emotional in many circles.
Get a grip. Your first sentence makes my point for me. You try to insult me and belittle my position. Then you take a quote from me out of context and try to invoke Godwin. I said deniers as compared to skeptics. I have no problem with people who say, "We don't know." or "I'm not sure." I have a problem with people who actively deny the possibility and then toss around insults because they have no actual logical argument.
What money is there to be made on the green side? Where does the majority of research money in the world actually come from, people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, or those who have a vested interest in changing it?
Really, that's very odd. Because I see a lot of people claiming that this has become an emotional issue, and I see a lot of people who deny anthropogenic global climate change (not skeptics, but outright deniers) who become very emotional about the issue. In fact, the deniers are the only ones I have seen become emotional, all the while they are claiming it is others that are emotional. Classic case of projection. Governments and big business do everything they can to repress good science and cloud the issue with emotions, and then claim the other side is repressing and clouding the issue.
Libertarianism prohibits only one type of coercion. Consider the case where a small group of people own all the property in the world. Everyone who wants to eat has only one place to get that food, from the property owners. They have to do anything the property owners tell them to. If they rise up to overthrow the property owners, Libertarian philosophy says they are initiating force, rather than the property owners who are starving them to death. The owners then have every right to kill them.
Libertarianism in a nutshell is the idea that the only purpose of government is to maintain a police force to keep the slaves in line.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just calling it like I see it.
It's funny to see how some people say, "That's an interesting theory," and then some other people act as if I have insulted them personally and lash out with such witty rejoinders as "Grow up, your not in high school anymore."
I'm not talking about me, personally. I'm talking about what I see here and my theory as to why some slashdotters act the way they do about poor spelling and grammar. But obviously, I touched a raw nerve with some people. Sorry.
I let myself out of my cage a long time ago. I no longer act like an intellectual snob, and so I don't suffer from social isolation. But I call it like I see it.
You really, honestly think that people here don't think that way? What's your genius theory as to why people here care so much about spelling and grammar? I mean, if my idea is so dumb and stereotypical, I'm sure you have a better one.
A criticism in the form of a joke, and a geeky reference, I like! It's important to remember that it takes all kinds. For every Einstein, we need dozens of normal folks who just do what their culture tells them to do, what has worked for their fathers and their father's fathers.
A Stephen Hawking, alone in the jungle without his tribe, is lion meat. That slow fellow who mops up down at the local McDonalds has a better chance. Genius is only enabled by a strong and supportive society.
Heh. Don't shoot the messenger. I never criticize others spelling or grammer. Well, I may have but certainly not with any frequency.
There's another geek characteristic that I forgot to mention, one that complicates the whole issue and one I think you demonstrate here.
We tend to be noncomformists. Compare how many times you see a criticism of "groupthink" or a post calling someone a "slashbot" to the number of posts criticizing spelling or grammar.
Nah, I was one of the lucky ones. Went to smart kids schools, never got picked on. I wasn't trying to be elitist, merely trying to point out why I think there is a focus on grammar and spelling here.
Yeah, but "loose" and "lose?" Come on! I don't give a fuck if someone misspells an uncommon or difficult word, or splits an infinitive or anything like that, but if you fuck up an apostrophe; too, two, and to; they're and their; it's and its or the like: that's fair game.
Do a google search on "Fairness reciprocity economic research." Look up game theory and behavioral economics on wikipedia. I also found a website a few days ago that gave a nice summary of the terms.
Would have responded sooner, but work has been busy. I'm the "Have you DST patched your servers yet?" guy here and the last few days have been a bit frantic. All good though.
I know I come off as kind of hostile towards property owners and I'd be willing to guess that everyone who has foed me has done so for that reason. But I'm not universally against private property, I just see it as a system with no checks and balances. The more you have the easier it is to get more. The less you have the harder it is.
Without some kinds of checks and balances, a free market, private property system will devolve into a small group of owners, with the rest of us as wage slaves who have no chance of ever becoming owners.
Let's get some things cleared up. Wealth is not bad. Differences in wealth are not bad. Not everyone deserves the same outcome, but everyone deserves an equitable opportunity. Creating wealth is a net benefit for society if and only if the wealth created outweighs the externalities inherent in its creation.
I'm confused how so many people who understand the idea of opportunity cost can be so blind when it comes to alternatives to free market capitalism. Without investment, there would be no jobs? So no one did anything before there was money and investment? One alternative is democratic control of the means of production. That does not require investment.
I fail to understand how a transaction where both parties agree and benefit, and in fact one party is a direct representative of the other can be characterized as "the government taking from the bourgeoisie." You wouldn't even have private property if it weren't for government protecting your property rights.
Look, let me explain something about group dynamics in general and geek psychology in particular. Every group develops little markers that let members know if someone is a part of the group. Particular ways of speaking, writing, or acting, little jokes, that sort of thing.
Many geeks grew up as outsiders. We were smarter, but lacked social skills. Dumber but more popular people felt threatened by our brains and put us down, picked on us, and so forth. One characteristic that groups of those dumber people adopted as their group marker was a disdain for all things intellectual. One thing many geeks have adopted is just the opposite, a respect for all things intellectual, to distinguish ourselves from them.
Do you see where this is going?
You come on a geek message board spouting anti-intellectualism, "Oh, you dorks, proper spelling and grammar don't matter. Get over yourselves." You have just identified yourself as "one of them," an outsider, probably anti-intellectual, most likely of the same sort that picked on many of us as kids.
Proper spelling and grammar are one of our shibboleths, along with Natalie Portman, hot grits, and Beowulf clusters. It isn't primarily about communication, although that is a factor. It is about identity. We are geeks. Geeks are smart. Smart people spell words correctly and use proper grammar. That is who we are.
When people here correct your spelling or grammar, they are really just trying to carry on our culture, and help you fit in. You don't have to, but if you don't, you will be seen as an outsider by many here. That's just how it is with people. You know the old saying, "When in Rome..."
How are "HP Sponsored Solutions" and "compare prices" related to this story in any way? Is HP building these towers? Are there multiple suppliers of these towers, so that we might need to compare prices? WTF is this place turning into?
Successful collectives that last all have three things in common, as shown in a study of communes, collectives and cooperatives done in the late 70s. First, they are not based around a charismatic leader. This guarantees failure in the long term. Second, they have a written set of rules that outline actual consequences, that all collective members agree to. Third, those consequences are actually applied in a fair and just manner through collective decisions.
Wikipedia fails points one and three. It won't be around long in its present form.