If someone is in your home and they start saying things you find offensive and you ask them to leave because of it, would you call that something like banning speech, censorship, or like something else
It's always been the case that there's a large variability in individual capabilities, so taking yourself or your friends as a representative example of what should be is the wrong way to go.
"It's not reasonable to ask or demand someone to recuse themselves for such a reason, but an allegation of bias"
I just checked quotes of what Trump said, and he didn't say the judge was biased, he said the judge has an "absolute conflict", which sounds like saying the judge should recluse himself according to the law.
Doesn't mean much, other than Trump is good at the kind of talk that technically isn't x but sounds like x.
"It's not unreasonable for Trump to ask for a judge that doesn't have these potential conflicts of interest."
I don't know that a judge who volunteers his time to make sure the law is respected when individuals are accused of illegal activities can be said to have a conflict of interest.
"She wanted to use his Jewish ancestry to stir up religious divisions"
No, not at all, they were talking possibilities, in a private email exchange, and it was about the possibility of getting a question to Sanders on his beliefs, on the assumption Sanders would say he was an atheist and that wouldn't go over well with the average American voter.
"Would it be OK for a Republican candidate to use a candidate's sexuality or religion to try to gain an electoral advantage? Would you whitewash that as well?"
To use a real example, it's also not ok to use a private conversation between what's his name and Trump, on the possibility of him grabbing pussies, to gain an electoral advantage.
So she said if they got him to to be honest about his religious affiliations he would probably say he was an atheist that might help Hillary gain a few votes.
Neuro biology says otherwise, we might have latitude in how we respond but that doesn't mean words have no power.
"The reaction is strictly personal, an internal affair, a conditioned reflex. The pain is self inflicted."
Again only partly, and in varying degrees depending on genetics. If we weren't a biologically social organisms with brains built in consequence I might agree with you more.
Not every bully operates in the same fashion, some will simply escalate the violence, you can never tell how much they have invested in hurting others.
"Life itself has physical consequences. I was bullied, with no help from parents or school. Some times you are just in a situation whether you want to be or not."
Glad to hear it wasn't as bad for you as it can sometimes get for others
"we seem to be inculcating them with the idea that there should be no negativity in their life."
When you tell your 5 year old not to swear, are you not banning their free speech? My point is there's a movable line and you can't always make clear calls.
"So what? First rule: We don't tolerate physical violence. Period. So no matter what someone says, it won't go further than words"
We don't tolerate physical violence already but that doesn't stop it from happening repeatedly, and emotions are so pervasive and integral to human biology way would you think we can 'turn them off'.
When you tell your 5 year old not to swear, are you not banning their free speech? My point is there's a movable line and you can't always make clear calls.
"What is there to be afraid of? It's only ones and zeros and every four-eyed 90 pound weakling can stand up to the best of them."
One and zeros, and then there's emotion, and the online bullies you also see every day at school, and...
Slashdot Mirror
If someone is in your home and they start saying things you find offensive and you ask them to leave because of it, would you call that something like banning speech, censorship, or like something else
It's always been the case that there's a large variability in individual capabilities, so taking yourself or your friends as a representative example of what should be is the wrong way to go.
"It's not reasonable to ask or demand someone to recuse themselves for such a reason, but an allegation of bias"
I just checked quotes of what Trump said, and he didn't say the judge was biased, he said the judge has an "absolute conflict", which sounds like saying the judge should recluse himself according to the law.
Doesn't mean much, other than Trump is good at the kind of talk that technically isn't x but sounds like x.
I kind of agree with all you said, and I think it all applies to Hillary and her accusers too
"It's not unreasonable for Trump to ask for a judge that doesn't have these potential conflicts of interest."
I don't know that a judge who volunteers his time to make sure the law is respected when individuals are accused of illegal activities can be said to have a conflict of interest.
"She wanted to use his Jewish ancestry to stir up religious divisions"
No, not at all, they were talking possibilities, in a private email exchange, and it was about the possibility of getting a question to Sanders on his beliefs, on the assumption Sanders would say he was an atheist and that wouldn't go over well with the average American voter.
"Would it be OK for a Republican candidate to use a candidate's sexuality or religion to try to gain an electoral advantage? Would you whitewash that as well?"
To use a real example, it's also not ok to use a private conversation between what's his name and Trump, on the possibility of him grabbing pussies, to gain an electoral advantage.
So she said if they got him to to be honest about his religious affiliations he would probably say he was an atheist that might help Hillary gain a few votes.
Why is that a problem?
"the head of the DNC wanted to call out Bernie Sanders for being Jewish"
Not according to what I've read; what are you referring to?
"They literally admitted to literally bussing people around to vote multiple times and claimed they had been doing it for 50 years"
"But as a liberal, you ..."
"to such a standard"
What standard?
"like her rigging the primary"
I don't understand why some people think you can say anything without evidence.
I guess there's more than two options
Sad but true
"A 25% commission and booking fee on top of that is way too steep for what they (Uber) do."
right, and some even call it the 'sharing economy'.
"I blame Tesla software coders last here, because that's an easy fix by comparison."
Sounds like what Elon said, but if it made it to court it might be decided otherwise.
considering the number of people who can't access it anymore, censorship is the correct word
That's not how you find out that crime has been dropping for the past 30 years
Agreed.
"Words have absolutely no power of their own."
Neuro biology says otherwise, we might have latitude in how we respond but that doesn't mean words have no power.
"The reaction is strictly personal, an internal affair, a conditioned reflex. The pain is self inflicted."
Again only partly, and in varying degrees depending on genetics. If we weren't a biologically social organisms with brains built in consequence I might agree with you more.
Glad to hear what you saw wasn't as bad as it can sometimes gets for others.
And I think the problem today is as it's always been, role models like parents and others in authority who use various degrees of bullying themselves.
Not every bully operates in the same fashion, some will simply escalate the violence, you can never tell how much they have invested in hurting others.
What Anonymous said, and sometimes bullies will react by increasing the harassment, by punch back or worse.
"Life itself has physical consequences. I was bullied, with no help from parents or school. Some times you are just in a situation whether you want to be or not."
Glad to hear it wasn't as bad for you as it can sometimes get for others
"we seem to be inculcating them with the idea that there should be no negativity in their life."
Seem?
When you tell your 5 year old not to swear, are you not banning their free speech? My point is there's a movable line and you can't always make clear calls.
"So what? First rule: We don't tolerate physical violence. Period. So no matter what someone says, it won't go further than words"
We don't tolerate physical violence already but that doesn't stop it from happening repeatedly, and emotions are so pervasive and integral to human biology way would you think we can 'turn them off'.
From the link:
“Apple took my phone and details, but said it couldn’t have been the phone because it didn’t have a distinct smell,”
It doesn't tell us how often it happens but it does tell us it happens with iphones too
When you tell your 5 year old not to swear, are you not banning their free speech? My point is there's a movable line and you can't always make clear calls.
"What is there to be afraid of? It's only ones and zeros and every four-eyed 90 pound weakling can stand up to the best of them."
One and zeros, and then there's emotion, and the online bullies you also see every day at school, and ...