The problem with debit cards in the US is that there's virtually no consumer protection on them. If somebody steals your card and PIN, they can easily drain pretty much as much as they want from your bank account, up to whatever your bank's daily withdrawal limit is, and the only thing you can do is tell your bank that your number was stolen so they can cancel it and send you a new card. You'll never get that money back.
Credit cards are better because although a thief doesn't need to steal a PIN, you can dispute unauthorized charges with your bank and they will dismiss them. So, they're less secure, but also much less risky. Put everything on your credit card and pay off your debt before your next monthly statement, and doesn't cost you anything.
But that has nothing to do with the crash back in 2008, that was mostly due to the subprime mortgage crisis.
That sounds awesome. Also, whenever somebody commits adultery, let's brand them with a big "A" so that everybody else will know about it. I think you've stumbled on a great idea here.
I'm not talking about what is legal, but what is moral. Merely being part of a "protected class" does not make it moral or immoral to deny services to certain classes of people.
Setting legality aside, why would it be wrong to refuse to provide an apartment or cake to a gay person but not to ban them from Reddit?
You're still misconstruing what everybody who is upset about this is saying. Reddit is not obligated, in the legal sense, to provide a forum for anybody. But if they tout themselves as being a place that values freedom of speech and open discussion -- which they previously have -- then it is hypocritical of them to exclude certain classes of people just because they find their views distasteful.
How does that relate to reddit? Are you suggesting that owners of popular web sites (and maybe TV channels or newspapers) must be burdened with publishing everyone's speech?
I don't see anybody suggesting that Reddit should be forced to allow everyone to speak. That seems to be a leap that all the anti-free speech here are making -- that because somebody is opposed to Reddit's actions, they must think Reddit should be legally compelled to allow everything.
No, people are saying that Reddit's actions are in the moral wrong. They're within their rights to do it, and we are all within ours rights to say we disapprove of it and that if you actually care about free speech (the concept and ideals behind it, not the legal enforcement of it), you should support other sites that don't filter out opinions they find distasteful.
Just so we're clear -- would you be ok with, say, if Reddit decided to ban everybody who says something opposing gay marriage because they consider that to be hate speech?
What if it's the opposite way and they decided to ban people who support gay marriage?
How about if a bakery decided to refuse service to bake a cake for a gay marriage because they didn't want to support that point of view?
What if an apartment complex decides to kick out and ban all gay tenants?
What if every apartment complex and housing community in the city decides to ban gay tenants? And every restaurant, and grocery store, and internet provider, too? Nobody's stopping those gay people from going outside the city and farming their own vegetables, generating their own electricity, building their own houses, and making their own internet, after all.
I'm trying to figure out where the line should be here. It seems like there are a lot of people here who completely support removing people who have unpopular views as long as the government isn't involved.
you should be defending Reddit's right to exercise whatever editorial policy they choose to put in place on their own system
I've never said otherwise. I certainly think they can have whatever policies they want. I am 100% behind that. I am also exercising my right to walk away from them and encourage other people to do the same.
No, defending freedom of speech means defending speech from interference by the government. It's not about controlling the editorial policies of publishers running private businesses.
I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I certainly don't intend to control the policies of private businesses -- but I also don't have to support businesses whose policies I don't like. One of those policies that I don't like is when a discussion-based site arbitrarily restricts discussions and bans people based on what the administrators find offensive. I will take my business elsewhere, and I will encourage other people to do the same.
However once it gains enough mass and becomes a sufficiently large enough target, then things might change. As they have with Reddit.
And if it does, then people can move somewhere else. I don't see the point in staying somewhere where you know you might be banned on a whim for stepping out of line because you're afraid of another place that could possibly become that way sometime in the future.
Defending freedom of speech means defending speech that you don't agree with. I'm sure you're familiar with the Voltaire quote, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
If somebody posts evidence of an illegal activity, by all means, prosecute them. Past that, things get more slippery. It's easy to say we don't like racist and sexist talk, but who's the authority that decides what is racism or sexism and what is valid criticism, and how do you ensure they're not biased? What do you do when you have a large group of vocal people who have legitimate complaints against specific people, but they're being dismissed due to mere accusations of sexism and racism? Shall we also start banning people who express antagonistic views toward certain countries, religions, or classes of people? Let's include anybody who criticizes the mods/admins and their decisions, too. And remember, just because you ban those people doesn't suddenly make them not exist. They'll just take their discussion somewhere that you can't see what they're discussing.
I can only speak for myself, but if I'm going to participate in a site that is all about public discussion, I would rather go somewhere that I know won't ban me on a moderator's whim. I can choose to ignore the people I don't like.
If you're interested in a Reddit-like site that won't arbitrarily close your subreddit and shadowban you because they don't like what you're talking about, voat.co is shaping up pretty nicely.
So, that raises an interesting question: who defines what a label means -- the people who call themselves by that label, or the people who observe those peoples' actions?
Brianna Wu calls herself feminist, yet she has done nothing meaningful to advance equality and has preferentially hired women. Either Wu is not a feminist, or feminism is not about equality.
At this point, any woman would garner an adverse reaction as strong as the one we're seeing here.
Why do you think that? The question gallery for other interviewees such as Rachel Sussman and Pam Fletcher were far more civil, even when the subject of gender came up -- and there were far more technical questions that weren't gender-related at all.
When in every single thread having anything remotely to do with GamerGaters being assholes, we see GamerGaters providing extensive amounts of evidence that they are in fact assholes, it sets the stage for "If it walks like a duck..."
In every thread you post in, you providence extensive amounts of evidence for you being an asshole, but I haven't accused you of being a harasser.
All sarcasm aside, why even bother including this? It's a bullshit, misleading statistic designed to make people believe what you're trying to say. It's an association fallacy at its finest. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)
No, you're just completely ignoring the report in question. The single statistic isn't as important as the sum of them. A small but significant percentage of harassing tweets proclaimed an association with GamerGate, and yet a vanishing small percentage of GamerGate supporters have actually been involved in that harassment. The implication of that is that GG as a whole is not a harassment campaign, but there are people who are trying to use it as a cover for their harassment.
Me, I'll believe that GG isn't a harassment campaign when all the harassment and doxxing in its name stops - ALL of it. Plain and simple.
Which is, of course, an unrealistic and completely impossible demand. (I actually can't remember the last time any widely-acknowledged GG supporter doxxed anybody -- care to remind me?) But please, come off anon and tell me what groups you're affiliated with who have never had any harassment committed in their name. Then we can go get somebody to make a threatening tweet under their banner, and now you're a member of a harassment campaign, too!
It's the same as Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black
Let me make sure I've got this right. Are you saying that skin color is the same as gender?
It sounds like you're trying to imply that transgenderism isn't a real thing. You're welcome to think that if you want, but keep in mind that if you're trying to say it's not real and she isn't really a woman, all you're going to do is attract people who will defend her purely on that basis, and criticisms of her actual behavior and ethics will get pushed under the rug.
It has led to an attitude that corruption is only a problem among liberals.
I don't think that's true. GamerGate is not a partisan movement. Many of the people who are very vocally slandering it (such as Wu) are part of the authoritarian left side of the spectrum, and there are some people on the far right who have professed support for GG simply because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but GG itself targets corruption regardless of where it comes from.
Why do you continue to believe that GamerGate is a hrassment campaign, when a study by Women Action Media! on Twitter harassment indicated that 88% of people reported as harassers had no connection to GG, and of accounts that do have a connection to GG, only 0.66% were even alleged of harassment?
Have you seen women's pants lately? A lot of them don't even have real pockets (seriously, they're just decorative), and the ones that do are tiny. You'd have trouble fitting a relatively tiny 3" phone in there, let alone some of the 5" phablets you see nowadays.
Where I live, it takes me 15 to 20 minutes to drive to work. The closest bus stop is a 5 minute walk away, I'd have to leave 20 minutes earlier than I usually do in order to make it there in time for the bus, and the real killer is that the route the bus follows would take over an hour to get me to work. And then there's another 10 minute walk from the bus stop to the building I actually work at.
During the summer here it's already over 80 degrees F and sometimes close to 90 by the time I leave for work, so I'd also be nice and sweaty by the time I get into the office. Add another 5 minutes to shower and change clothes.
That is, of course, not counting the creepy panhandlers you have to deal with who often hang around the bus stops.
So no, I wouldn't use the public transportation here to get to work if it was free.
Honestly it seems goddamned retarded that the software doesn't already try to optimize away left turns.
Absolutely, clearly this is a trivial problem and it's inconceivable that they didn't do it before anybody asked about it. So let's solve it real quick. When programmatically planning routes, exactly how much better is it to take a right turn than a left turn? When you compare them, how do you weight the different types of turns? Is it worth it if taking one left turn will avoid driving around an entire block and taking three extra right turns? What about if you're in an area with a lot of one-way streets and you might have to drive multiple blocks before you can make a right turn?
Although, let's also take into account that on some of those one-way streets you can turn left on red. Of course, there should also be a difference in weighting between turns where you have to wait for a stop light, a four-way stop sign, or if you don't have a stop. And some of those right turns might have signs disallowing right turns on red lights, so don't forget about that.
Slashdot Mirror
The first time I saw a commercial for that I pretty much said "yeah, I would not trust a vendor who uses one of those".
What makes them less trustworthy than any other credit card reader?
When you have no other defense, I'm sure pedantry seems like a viable strategy.
It isn't pedantry to point out that the OP doesn't know how science works after he has claimed science as a supporting argument.
The problem with debit cards in the US is that there's virtually no consumer protection on them. If somebody steals your card and PIN, they can easily drain pretty much as much as they want from your bank account, up to whatever your bank's daily withdrawal limit is, and the only thing you can do is tell your bank that your number was stolen so they can cancel it and send you a new card. You'll never get that money back.
Credit cards are better because although a thief doesn't need to steal a PIN, you can dispute unauthorized charges with your bank and they will dismiss them. So, they're less secure, but also much less risky. Put everything on your credit card and pay off your debt before your next monthly statement, and doesn't cost you anything.
But that has nothing to do with the crash back in 2008, that was mostly due to the subprime mortgage crisis.
That sounds awesome. Also, whenever somebody commits adultery, let's brand them with a big "A" so that everybody else will know about it. I think you've stumbled on a great idea here.
I'm not talking about what is legal, but what is moral. Merely being part of a "protected class" does not make it moral or immoral to deny services to certain classes of people.
Setting legality aside, why would it be wrong to refuse to provide an apartment or cake to a gay person but not to ban them from Reddit?
You're still misconstruing what everybody who is upset about this is saying. Reddit is not obligated, in the legal sense, to provide a forum for anybody. But if they tout themselves as being a place that values freedom of speech and open discussion -- which they previously have -- then it is hypocritical of them to exclude certain classes of people just because they find their views distasteful.
Out of curiosity, what have they blocked that isn't illegal?
Not being facetious, I haven't seen anything get blocked from any of the places I usually go to.
How does that relate to reddit? Are you suggesting that owners of popular web sites (and maybe TV channels or newspapers) must be burdened with publishing everyone's speech?
I don't see anybody suggesting that Reddit should be forced to allow everyone to speak. That seems to be a leap that all the anti-free speech here are making -- that because somebody is opposed to Reddit's actions, they must think Reddit should be legally compelled to allow everything.
No, people are saying that Reddit's actions are in the moral wrong. They're within their rights to do it, and we are all within ours rights to say we disapprove of it and that if you actually care about free speech (the concept and ideals behind it, not the legal enforcement of it), you should support other sites that don't filter out opinions they find distasteful.
Just so we're clear -- would you be ok with, say, if Reddit decided to ban everybody who says something opposing gay marriage because they consider that to be hate speech?
What if it's the opposite way and they decided to ban people who support gay marriage?
How about if a bakery decided to refuse service to bake a cake for a gay marriage because they didn't want to support that point of view?
What if an apartment complex decides to kick out and ban all gay tenants?
What if every apartment complex and housing community in the city decides to ban gay tenants? And every restaurant, and grocery store, and internet provider, too? Nobody's stopping those gay people from going outside the city and farming their own vegetables, generating their own electricity, building their own houses, and making their own internet, after all.
I'm trying to figure out where the line should be here. It seems like there are a lot of people here who completely support removing people who have unpopular views as long as the government isn't involved.
you should be defending Reddit's right to exercise whatever editorial policy they choose to put in place on their own system
I've never said otherwise. I certainly think they can have whatever policies they want. I am 100% behind that. I am also exercising my right to walk away from them and encourage other people to do the same.
No, defending freedom of speech means defending speech from interference by the government. It's not about controlling the editorial policies of publishers running private businesses.
I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I certainly don't intend to control the policies of private businesses -- but I also don't have to support businesses whose policies I don't like. One of those policies that I don't like is when a discussion-based site arbitrarily restricts discussions and bans people based on what the administrators find offensive. I will take my business elsewhere, and I will encourage other people to do the same.
However once it gains enough mass and becomes a sufficiently large enough target, then things might change. As they have with Reddit.
And if it does, then people can move somewhere else. I don't see the point in staying somewhere where you know you might be banned on a whim for stepping out of line because you're afraid of another place that could possibly become that way sometime in the future.
Defending freedom of speech means defending speech that you don't agree with. I'm sure you're familiar with the Voltaire quote, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
If somebody posts evidence of an illegal activity, by all means, prosecute them. Past that, things get more slippery. It's easy to say we don't like racist and sexist talk, but who's the authority that decides what is racism or sexism and what is valid criticism, and how do you ensure they're not biased? What do you do when you have a large group of vocal people who have legitimate complaints against specific people, but they're being dismissed due to mere accusations of sexism and racism? Shall we also start banning people who express antagonistic views toward certain countries, religions, or classes of people? Let's include anybody who criticizes the mods/admins and their decisions, too. And remember, just because you ban those people doesn't suddenly make them not exist. They'll just take their discussion somewhere that you can't see what they're discussing.
I can only speak for myself, but if I'm going to participate in a site that is all about public discussion, I would rather go somewhere that I know won't ban me on a moderator's whim. I can choose to ignore the people I don't like.
If you're interested in a Reddit-like site that won't arbitrarily close your subreddit and shadowban you because they don't like what you're talking about, voat.co is shaping up pretty nicely.
So, that raises an interesting question: who defines what a label means -- the people who call themselves by that label, or the people who observe those peoples' actions?
Brianna Wu calls herself feminist, yet she has done nothing meaningful to advance equality and has preferentially hired women. Either Wu is not a feminist, or feminism is not about equality.
At this point, any woman would garner an adverse reaction as strong as the one we're seeing here.
Why do you think that? The question gallery for other interviewees such as Rachel Sussman and Pam Fletcher were far more civil, even when the subject of gender came up -- and there were far more technical questions that weren't gender-related at all.
When in every single thread having anything remotely to do with GamerGaters being assholes, we see GamerGaters providing extensive amounts of evidence that they are in fact assholes, it sets the stage for "If it walks like a duck..."
In every thread you post in, you providence extensive amounts of evidence for you being an asshole, but I haven't accused you of being a harasser.
All sarcasm aside, why even bother including this? It's a bullshit, misleading statistic designed to make people believe what you're trying to say. It's an association fallacy at its finest. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)
No, you're just completely ignoring the report in question. The single statistic isn't as important as the sum of them. A small but significant percentage of harassing tweets proclaimed an association with GamerGate, and yet a vanishing small percentage of GamerGate supporters have actually been involved in that harassment. The implication of that is that GG as a whole is not a harassment campaign, but there are people who are trying to use it as a cover for their harassment.
Me, I'll believe that GG isn't a harassment campaign when all the harassment and doxxing in its name stops - ALL of it. Plain and simple.
Which is, of course, an unrealistic and completely impossible demand. (I actually can't remember the last time any widely-acknowledged GG supporter doxxed anybody -- care to remind me?) But please, come off anon and tell me what groups you're affiliated with who have never had any harassment committed in their name. Then we can go get somebody to make a threatening tweet under their banner, and now you're a member of a harassment campaign, too!
It's the same as Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black
Let me make sure I've got this right. Are you saying that skin color is the same as gender?
It sounds like you're trying to imply that transgenderism isn't a real thing. You're welcome to think that if you want, but keep in mind that if you're trying to say it's not real and she isn't really a woman, all you're going to do is attract people who will defend her purely on that basis, and criticisms of her actual behavior and ethics will get pushed under the rug.
It has led to an attitude that corruption is only a problem among liberals.
I don't think that's true. GamerGate is not a partisan movement. Many of the people who are very vocally slandering it (such as Wu) are part of the authoritarian left side of the spectrum, and there are some people on the far right who have professed support for GG simply because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but GG itself targets corruption regardless of where it comes from.
I've only seen a few. To be fair, there's more than I've seen, but statistically they're a tiny drop in the bucket compared to all of the #GamerGate discussion that goes on and has nothing to do with harassing women: https://womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/05/wam-twitter-abuse-report.pdf
But I'm curious, what sort of statistics have you come up with?
Why do you continue to believe that GamerGate is a hrassment campaign, when a study by Women Action Media! on Twitter harassment indicated that 88% of people reported as harassers had no connection to GG, and of accounts that do have a connection to GG, only 0.66% were even alleged of harassment?
Have you seen women's pants lately? A lot of them don't even have real pockets (seriously, they're just decorative), and the ones that do are tiny. You'd have trouble fitting a relatively tiny 3" phone in there, let alone some of the 5" phablets you see nowadays.
Where I live, it takes me 15 to 20 minutes to drive to work. The closest bus stop is a 5 minute walk away, I'd have to leave 20 minutes earlier than I usually do in order to make it there in time for the bus, and the real killer is that the route the bus follows would take over an hour to get me to work. And then there's another 10 minute walk from the bus stop to the building I actually work at.
During the summer here it's already over 80 degrees F and sometimes close to 90 by the time I leave for work, so I'd also be nice and sweaty by the time I get into the office. Add another 5 minutes to shower and change clothes.
That is, of course, not counting the creepy panhandlers you have to deal with who often hang around the bus stops.
So no, I wouldn't use the public transportation here to get to work if it was free.
Honestly it seems goddamned retarded that the software doesn't already try to optimize away left turns.
Absolutely, clearly this is a trivial problem and it's inconceivable that they didn't do it before anybody asked about it. So let's solve it real quick. When programmatically planning routes, exactly how much better is it to take a right turn than a left turn? When you compare them, how do you weight the different types of turns? Is it worth it if taking one left turn will avoid driving around an entire block and taking three extra right turns? What about if you're in an area with a lot of one-way streets and you might have to drive multiple blocks before you can make a right turn?
Although, let's also take into account that on some of those one-way streets you can turn left on red. Of course, there should also be a difference in weighting between turns where you have to wait for a stop light, a four-way stop sign, or if you don't have a stop. And some of those right turns might have signs disallowing right turns on red lights, so don't forget about that.
Am I missing anything?
he/she died of:______ is usually left out.
Does it really matter?