The Democratic message is that <sarcasm>white people have raped the planet can created instituions that instill "structural violence" on non-whites, women and poor little innocent children. All these greedy people care about is making themselves rich and exploiting others. They should and do pay nearly all the tax and everyone else is *entitled* to spend it even if they didn't pay any tax on their own income. All of history is bad white people and Jews enslaving and exploiting non-whites with their mysterious and noble primitive ways</sarcasm> Even on Slashdot you see otherwise intelligent people ignore (or be ignorant of) historical facts and come out with this message. So they support a party that wants to spend an eventual factor of ten times what the US earns on *optional* 'entitlement' programmes. Meanwhile demonize the defence force and point to that as the expense when the unfunded liabilities of entitlements is nearly 100 times larger.
Or the pro-Islam curricums that US schools now have to wear. The Democrats have a soft racism that many miss: if you are white you are guilty of all the crimes in history and today; if you are non-white you are a victim of the whites and are absolved of blame for your actions. Compared that to the conservative message, "Every person is equal; if you make the personal choice to work hard you will benefit yourself as well as benefitting others". Can you spot the difference in these messages?
BBC used to be impartial. Comparing BBC to news on the Internet it is clear the BBC now has a political Left bias that is anti-Israel (if it is anti-Israeli they always go with it, they don't fact check: eg. their reporting on their associate's child tragically killed in Gaza and accused the Israelis when in fact it was a Hamas rocket that killed her - proper journalists don't make up stuff to match their narrative like the BBC do). BBC News is politically correct mash by wimps for wimps.
Al Jazeera isn't too bad for non-critical stuff but it *always* has a pro-Islam pro-Qatar slant (no suprise, considering who bankrolls it). If their whitewashing of Qur'an inspired terror is palatable to you then you are already a lost soul. The fact you can't see the bias in the BBC and Al Jazeera means you need to get out an consider more divergent news sources (something I try and do: look at news from multiple sources and known biases and try and pick out the facts before drawing any conclusions).
Then don't be afraid. Try not to insult anyone, but if you do, simply point out you didn't mean offence and move on.
Fellow Slashdotters we have to stop cringing for our values ("beta" behaviour) and be proud of what we believe in ("alpha" behaviour). If you believe in something then stand up for it. I believe in Enlightenment values; I believe in the values of the US Constitution (and I am not even a US citizen); I believe that Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself from jihadis whose stated goal is genocide; I believe in small government and economic prudence (if your tax revenue can't afford it, don't fsking keep borrowing for *optional* social programmes); I believe in nations working together in mutal defence; I believe that there is no substitute for victory, of you start a war you do *everything* in your power to win; I believe that Scientific Method gives Truth and religions once served a purpose but no longer do; I believe that Enlightenment values are superior to Islamic Sharia; I believe that the collective good should not override personal freedom; I believe nuclear weapons serve a purpose (deterrence of rational actors); I believe in working hard so that I have a surplus for others; I believe racism is wrong - although criticism of cultural characteristics is a Free Speech right; I believe political correctness and the political ideology called Islam are the enemy of liberty and free men; I believe in self-pride in backing yourself, but not to the point of arrogance or closed-mindedness;
In the modern progressive man they would not promote those views because they would be afraid of being criticised. I am not afraid of being criticised. No matter what point of view you take someone will dispute it and may even (childishly) not like you as a result. That's ok. I may be wrong, and if I do I accept the new data and change my mind (that's the Scientific Method in action).
Because of these views I live for my fellow man and please myself. Be confident Slashdotters! Stop apologising for who you are or the values you hold. Let no one tell you what you can or can't say (although always use personal discretion - don't be a jerk, k?); not your Government, not your employeer, not your wife, and certainly not some ill-informed muppet with an axe to grind (as Richard's was).
I hope that helps some folks out there. The fatal weakness of the current US President is he is trying to be liked and wants the US to be liked. So he apologises to enemies and betrays allies (eg. missile shield sell out etc.). He, and every US President should stand up for the values of liberty and justice for all - and make it clear that the US will always back those who seek the same values. Instead we get simpering where the US backs down all the time and even opposes Free Speech (eg. Hillary Clinton's utterly immoral co-sponsoring of anti-Free Speech UN HRC Resolution 16/18) and doesn't even rescue US citizens under fire from Al Qaeda for *eight hours* despite having aircraft based nearby (eg. the shame of Benghazi). Stand up for what the Enlightened World believes in! Do not vote for a politician of any party anywhere until they sound like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgxlp2UJI5I
Once upon a time the West felt it could do achieve any goal - at it nearly could. We have lost our mojo because we keep listening to the "beta" message: be nice, make everyoine like you, get along. Well, we can and should still do that - but let's set our horizons a little bigger. Per Ardua Ad Astra.
I thought this was "News for Nerds", not "News for sub-average IQs that can't figure out a pretty obvious play on historical scandal sobriquets". The summary is fine.
Her job was to evangelize for the community. Instead she decided to wage jihad against jokes she didn't like. She was a fool and her company was right that she was working against the goal they hired her for.
I find it funny that she disliked the way the men were talking loudly in their private conversation and could be overheard. Those guys must have been *loud*. I say this because as a Bloody Foreigner I find that all (US) Americans are enormously loud when they talk - all sorts of details of their private lives are shouted at each other at maximum decibels. However, as a quiet foreigner I don't feel the need to change their culture, I just mock instead:) Perhaps Richards should have been a bit more accepting of geek culture *while at a PyCon Conference*. Perhaps if the guys had been at a "Women against Domestic Violence" rally instead she would have been appropriate.
Incidentally, why do we need more women in programming? The ones that are there do a great job. The guys that do it also do a great job. So why do we need to change the entire technology culture to get a few reluctant girls to try it out? for what end? what is the problem we are trying to solve? is it just so we can satisfy some academic theory that there is equality in programing because the numbers by gender are more equal? well, that doesn't solve the problem that many girls at the start of their work career choose to things that they like - which is not creating hardware or software. Apart from a few ideologues one has a serious problem with the gender imbalance in nursing or teaching - so why should the gender imbalance in tech be a problem that requires warping the existing tech culture conform to their ideological wishes? If tech culture was "No girls allowed" then there would be a problem. If it was structurally sexist then there would be a problem - but to complain about tech culture (to the point of loss of livelihood) because some loud-mouthed guys make a joke intended to be kinda private too loudly? That is just silly.
Well said. However the political correctness assault on free speech does need to be identified and talked about. Free Speech is being prorgressively eroded (mostly by the "Progressives", ironiclly).
You may think you have Free Speech but what happens if you talk about something generally held to be inappropriate in public? people try and stop you talking (as Richards did). If the legal system backs that suppression up then you don't have Free Speech now, do you?
That said, the geek community is full of sexually inexperienced and frustrated people who say stupid and immature things.
That's a steorotype about 'geek culture'. The reality is that the majority of 'geeks' are past their twenties and get plenty of action (with real women, mostly). It's just demographics. From the ages 15-30 is only a third of the time from 30-60, and IT has been around long enough that there are still plenty of greybeards out there. So let's get real - 'geek culture' is a handy stereotype, but a stereotype nonetheless. Decisions based on a stereotype will always carry some degree of inaccuracy.
As an aside. What is interesting that the biggest promoters of the stereotype are marketing outfits that see the chique of geek and want to cash in. All sorts of outfits used to do this in the past too with science - from detergent ads where 'scientists' only wear white lab coats to 'Christian Science' that is anti-scientific superstition but appends the word 'science' to benefit from the cachet of the triumphs of reason. So, it's ok to accept the 'geek stereotype' as long as you also make a mental note that this is an approximation of reality and really only covers the 1/3 of 'new' geeks (those still excited about 'coming out' to self-identify as a geek comfortable with the label).
At least a million have died between the invasion and the civil war.
Citation please with *counts* not *estimates*. You are just repeating the propaganda of the anti-war movement (where no war is ever just).
Millions more have been made refugees.
Citation please. Most Iraqis appear to have returned (apart from the Assyrians who have been ethnically cleansed by the Islamists).
Thousands are being effected by the shit we dropped there, including severe birth defects from depleted uranium.
Citation from a reputable medical journal please. There have been numerous allegations in the past, however depleted uranium was not the cause. Otherwise you are just spewing popular, but false, propaganda. I used to also believe that depleted uranium and 'Gulf War' syndrome were real, but the medical studies have shown this not to be the case. You do know that depleted uranium is a very common substance that occurs naturally in low concentrations in the earth/soil and our concrete structures, right? from a scientific point of view it has been turned into a bogeyman by those with a poor scientific knowledge (and who equate uranium in any form as directly equivalent to enriched uranium of weapon and reactor cores). Now, depleted uranium could be a possible factor, but there are are more likely factors too (eg. toxic oil well fires, polluted sanitation and water) that could also be factors in maternity problems. So let's just stick with the science, please.
Civil rights for women have been set back centuries.
I agree with you wholeheartedly here. The problem is not the invasion though. The problem was the clueless US allowing an Iraqi Constitution to be drafted that explicitly included Sharia. They made the exact same mistake in Afghanistan. The US should have been more muscular in enforcing secular democratic values to improve the long-term outlook of both countries. The US paid the price to give themselves the chance but they totally blew it. It is no wonder, two clueless presidents who have the Muslim Brotherhood advising them on policy (want to know more? go to Frank Gaffney's MuslimBrotherhoodInAmerica.com for the facts).
And don't forget the half-million kids we killed with sanctions in the 90's.
Yes. Sanctions are bad - but most of the world backed them as an alternative to war. A war to remove Saddam should have been conducted sooner and it would have saved millions of lives. In fact, he should have been removed in the First Gulf War. That was a strategic mistake (they were worried about some one strong enough to oppose Iran).
But, you're ignoring the mountain to focus on the molehill. Still.
The invasion of Iraq was one of the greatest war crimes in the history of the human race. You're trying to defend the indefensible.
You jest, right? Islam has killed 270 million people. The Iraq War is nothing on that scale. As the West wakes up to the existential threat from Islam the coming war is going to be far far worse. Fortunately Saddam has been neutralized already. However, it was a crime in that the US made a strategic mistake by not enforcing secular democracy when it had the chance (and using a lot larger force to begin with). The invasion of Iraq is completely defensible once you adopt a long-term geopolitical view. Unfortunately, your soft bigotry against the US has made you blind to what is really going on in the world. Iraq is far less a threat to the rest of the world than it was (and it was a threat, exporting jihadis as I have cited), and while far from perfect (Islamic countries are always basket cases, of their *own making*, not due to the US as your bigotry would have you believe) it is better than it was in many regards. Just because your view is popular and trumpeted by the anti-scientific ignoramuses of the political Left does not make it correct. Take the long-term geopolitical view instead.
The official figure of casualties for the invasion and aftermath is around 66 thousand (according to wikipedia). There are hundreds of thousands more killed by Sunni and Shia militias (not the Americans). There are all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated estimates from politically motivated anti-war pundits from their comfy armchairs in London, but these are clearly hokum (compared to the counts from military intelligence actually on the ground).
Now, let's see, Saddam killed between 3 to 5 thousand with a chemical WMD attack in one afternoon in Halabja (with around twice that number maimed/injured). Then we have the war he started with Iran where the combined casualties were around 1 million. Then we have the invasion of Kuwait and subsequent loss of life. Then we have his vicious war against the marsh Shia that caused thousands more dead and an environmental catastrophe. Then we have the Anfal campaign with around 182000 Iraqis killed by Saddam. Then we have the continuous daily tortures and killings by his secret police. http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm
So you still want to defend that monster? you think it was wrong for the Coalition to remove that evil evil man who caused millions of deaths? you think that the evil of the war to remove Saddam compares anything to the utter evil of leaving him to scourge his people and neighbours? once you get numerical about it you can see that your position (and the position of the clueless Left in general) is counter factual and as a consequence, immoral. You have the soft racism that it is only bad if white people kill - it's okay for non-whites to slaughter as many people as they like and we have no say in it (especially those with the courage to prevent it, like the Americans). You racism and supporting of evil tyrants is disgusting to anyone who supports liberation of everyone, regardless of creed, gender or color. Supporting tyrants and opposing those who would remove them is an immoral position to have - yet that is the position your argument supports.
Why lie about how the evil Saddam was just about to nuke us into oblivion?
I never heard that Saddam was "just about to nuke us into oblivion". This is a fiction of the ignorant. Saddam's Iraq was working to reacquire WMDs if he could get them. He has already uses them both on the Iranians and on his own population. He also supported and exported a great deal of terrorism (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/). It was suspected he still had his WMD programme (which he certainly did not deny when questioned directly), what was not know at the time is that he had moved much of his programme to Syria. There were a bunch of reasons to get rid of him. The narrative of the political Left is that because WMDs were not found in Iraq then the whole war and reason for war was a sham and a lie - this is simply untrue. There were multiple good reasons for removing Saddam. The war was both justified and effective in a strategic sense (although could have been handled better in the initial stages).
Here's and interesting article that came out today clearly showing that oil was not the single factor in the decision to remove Saddam, "The War for Oil Myth" http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-war-for-oil-myth/
So please stop repeating the falsehoods invented by the political Left.
So, you are saying that Saddam was a good guy then? What's your point? Saddam didn't need chemical weapons, he murdered hundreds of thousands of Shia even without the chemical weapons. What was clear that if he got himself WMDs he would not hesitate to use them on his own citizens or the citizens of surrounding countries. Removing him was completely justified.
No-one is debating whether a company has rights to hire and fire at will. What is being debated is whether the company shows even worse judgement by enacting the very harsh response of immediate dismissal (instead of say, a private warning). Does a company have the right to dictate the lame jokes of its employees? perhaps, but who with any talent would work for such tyrants?
It is up to the employer's discretion. Employers who value their employees and understand that employees will have diverse views and tastes would show toleration. Employers who believe they 'own' their employees will not show understanding, will have the wrong corporate culture, and will never get or keep top class talent.
I am pro-free speech, and I am also pro-employers being allowed to fire employees who screw up.
The employees did not screw up. Someone with an axe to grind deliberately decided to take umbrage at some light-hearted jest. Perhaps you ought to reflect on your own values if you think the harsh punishment of immediate dismissal was in order (rather than say a private or maybe formal warning). No one is suggesting that a company can't hire and fire at will - however, we are suggesting that the company is showing even worse judgement in its handling of the matter. That is what is in dispute. Please stop trying to misdirect the topic of debate with your talk of corporate rights (they were not being questioned).
Please read the following. While Saddam was not involved with 9/11 (I never said he was), he was *heavily* involved with financing, arming, supporting, and giving a based for terrorist operations (which is what I said when I said 'exporting'): http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
I trivial Google search would have found this information and many like it - but you couldn't even be bothered to check your facts. Instead you lazily assume that of Saddam was not involved in 9/11 then he never supported terrorism. Ridiculous and false. Please consider yourself shamed and do your research next time. The war against Saddam was justified for many reasons, and this is one of them!
A rather extraordinary claim, do you have a citation for this?
There are plenty of references, eg: http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
What people are confused about is whether Saddam was complicit in 9/11. The answer to that is no, so people take that as Saddam not being involved in terrorism at all - which is patently untrue. The countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria pretty much all had the same policy: harbor jihadis and export them. If they ever try make trouble on your soil - be absolutely ruthless (eg. the complete destruction of Hama in Syria in 1982). Saddam was the same, slaughtering the Kurds and then the southern Shia on a scale vastly greater than the 66 thousand casualties from the US invasion and aftermath (note: the Coalition caused about 66 thousand casualties [see wikipedia for the official, and best estimate - along with some wild speculation from armchair critics]; hundreds of thousands more were killed by the warring Sunni and Shia militia). So, my point is correct, Saddam was a major supporter and exporter of terrorism.
Can you expound upon the ideology of Islam? There are just as many Mulims as Catholics in this world (just over a billion). If they as a group truly wanted to "destroy the infidels", they would have more damage than WW2 by now. Don't confuse the extremists with majority...just as you would not consider the IRA representative of all Catholics nor the Branch Davidians as representative of all Protestants.
First thing. Most Muslims are good people. The correct analogy is that in the 1940s most Germans were also good people, it was the ideology of National Socialism (Naziism) that was evil. Germans were good *despite* the teachings of Naziism, but that doesn't make Naziism less evil. Similarly the Muslims may be good human beings *despite* the teachings of the totalitarian political ideology called Islam. It is *mainstream* Islam that requires able males to wage jihad against unbelievers (that's you an me). The whole "narrative" about it only being extremists who want to impose the Islamic political/social order on the globe is simply wrong - it is lie that the Islamists and their allies on the political Left perpetuate. The left-leaning media are either too ignorant or complicit in using the term "extremist" when in fact it is mainstream Islam that is supremacist and seeks world domination. This is easy to see for yourself, look for Islamicist statements not intended for consumption by Westerners (Islam mandates they lie to us to advance Islam, a doctrine called 'taqiyya'). Look for what the Muslims say for the consumption of other Muslims (eg. the racist and genocidal statements the Palestinians say in Arabic; the continual talk about the blood of Westerners they wish to spill to bring about the conquest of the whole world by Islam).
What is important to know is the Islamic doctrine of "abrogation". This means that all the early, nice verses of the Qur'an (the oft quoted "there is no compulsion in religion") have been replaced by the later and much, much more violent passages, such as the notorious "Verse of the Sword": Sura 9:5 and surrounding verses. These violent verses are the last words of Mohammed, and have not been abrogated by any other verses (but do abrogate the nicer verses). Anyone who brings out the "There is no compulsion in religion" quote is either ignorant of Islamic doctrine (particularly the core of abrogation, which means you must question their judgement about the rest of their Islamic knowledge), or they are lying to you (practicing 'taqiyya' to lull you into a false sense of security).
Another major lie (particularly from the political Left) is that if we show tolerance and appease Muslims they will show similar tolerance and the result will be two communities living peacefully side-by-side. This shows a criminal ignorance o
There is *no* right not to be offended. US case law (and the First Amendment) is clear on this.
If the guys are being inappropriate, that is one thing, but no-one ought to claim they have a right to not be offended. What was offensive to Richards was clearly not offensive to many other people. Personally I find hyper-sensitivity to be somewhat offensive, yet I don't feel the need to wage jihad against her. I've seen this behavior before from women (including getting guys chucked out of university for chuckling at inappropriate jokes). If *she* was offended then it is up to *her* to point this out to the culprits - without doing so in an offensive way herself. That's what a mature person would do. She can't claim they were threatening in any way, because their apologetic posture shows they were probably approachable for a mature person to make their point to.
Furthermore, there are a number of troubling aspects to Richards' claim (and those that support her narrow-minded point-of-view):
Who gets to decide what is offensive or not?
Should government, the legal profession, or business decide what is an appropriate joke or not?
There is only one solution, Free Speech. Free Speech is not about stuff you agree with - it is a principle that protected stuff you don't agree with (provided it is not out-and-out hate speech; eg. such as the racist and anti-Semitic core doctrines of the political ideology called Islam).
The solution is for companies to say, "We did not mean to offend you. However, we stand up for Free Speech for all out employees and don't believe we have the right to dictate what they can think or say, provided it is legal.". Too bad the World is full of beta personalities who cower at the thought of causing offense, rather than alpha personalities who may be brusque, but at least they stand up for moral principals (even if this is unpopular).
So grow some 'nads by fellow Slashdotters. You are either for Free Speech, and would not fire these guys (even if you would take them aside in private to tell them to cool it off a bit), or you believe in Political Correctness where someone else may dictate what you can say, hear and think. The real problem with PC is not that it dictates and denies what people can say, it denies that multitude of other people the right to hear (what can often be unpleasant but truthful).
So you're saying that Venezuela deserves the shock and awe treatment, a bit of the old ultra violence?
Nope. Please re-read my post. What I'm saying is that the Iranian Government are clearly preparing to give the US some shock and awe. Nuclear deterrence worked against the rational Russians. There are factions with the (very factional) Iranian Government for which a nuclear exchange is an incentive, not a deterrent (as they will believe it will bring the return of the 12th "Hidden" imam, called the "Mahdi"). If you are a US citizen (or care about the lives of US citizens) then this should be very troubling.
Bullshit it was "purely for oil". Oil was surely a factor but there were many more factors in play - only a muppet would suggest otherwise. By your own standards I guess your position is, "insane". How about you look at the bigger picture - there was a lot of factors involved in the decision making (as much as you would *love* to pretend it was just some rednecked cowboy shootin off his guns; it wasn't).
Slashdot Mirror
I know smart folks like you do. I was responding to the whinger who insulted our intelligence by complaining about the submitter's attempt at levity.
The Democratic message is that <sarcasm>white people have raped the planet can created instituions that instill "structural violence" on non-whites, women and poor little innocent children. All these greedy people care about is making themselves rich and exploiting others. They should and do pay nearly all the tax and everyone else is *entitled* to spend it even if they didn't pay any tax on their own income. All of history is bad white people and Jews enslaving and exploiting non-whites with their mysterious and noble primitive ways</sarcasm> Even on Slashdot you see otherwise intelligent people ignore (or be ignorant of) historical facts and come out with this message. So they support a party that wants to spend an eventual factor of ten times what the US earns on *optional* 'entitlement' programmes. Meanwhile demonize the defence force and point to that as the expense when the unfunded liabilities of entitlements is nearly 100 times larger.
Or the pro-Islam curricums that US schools now have to wear. The Democrats have a soft racism that many miss: if you are white you are guilty of all the crimes in history and today; if you are non-white you are a victim of the whites and are absolved of blame for your actions. Compared that to the conservative message, "Every person is equal; if you make the personal choice to work hard you will benefit yourself as well as benefitting others". Can you spot the difference in these messages?
BBC used to be impartial. Comparing BBC to news on the Internet it is clear the BBC now has a political Left bias that is anti-Israel (if it is anti-Israeli they always go with it, they don't fact check: eg. their reporting on their associate's child tragically killed in Gaza and accused the Israelis when in fact it was a Hamas rocket that killed her - proper journalists don't make up stuff to match their narrative like the BBC do). BBC News is politically correct mash by wimps for wimps.
Al Jazeera isn't too bad for non-critical stuff but it *always* has a pro-Islam pro-Qatar slant (no suprise, considering who bankrolls it). If their whitewashing of Qur'an inspired terror is palatable to you then you are already a lost soul. The fact you can't see the bias in the BBC and Al Jazeera means you need to get out an consider more divergent news sources (something I try and do: look at news from multiple sources and known biases and try and pick out the facts before drawing any conclusions).
Then don't be afraid. Try not to insult anyone, but if you do, simply point out you didn't mean offence and move on.
Fellow Slashdotters we have to stop cringing for our values ("beta" behaviour) and be proud of what we believe in ("alpha" behaviour). If you believe in something then stand up for it. I believe in Enlightenment values; I believe in the values of the US Constitution (and I am not even a US citizen); I believe that Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself from jihadis whose stated goal is genocide; I believe in small government and economic prudence (if your tax revenue can't afford it, don't fsking keep borrowing for *optional* social programmes); I believe in nations working together in mutal defence; I believe that there is no substitute for victory, of you start a war you do *everything* in your power to win; I believe that Scientific Method gives Truth and religions once served a purpose but no longer do; I believe that Enlightenment values are superior to Islamic Sharia; I believe that the collective good should not override personal freedom; I believe nuclear weapons serve a purpose (deterrence of rational actors); I believe in working hard so that I have a surplus for others; I believe racism is wrong - although criticism of cultural characteristics is a Free Speech right; I believe political correctness and the political ideology called Islam are the enemy of liberty and free men; I believe in self-pride in backing yourself, but not to the point of arrogance or closed-mindedness;
In the modern progressive man they would not promote those views because they would be afraid of being criticised. I am not afraid of being criticised. No matter what point of view you take someone will dispute it and may even (childishly) not like you as a result. That's ok. I may be wrong, and if I do I accept the new data and change my mind (that's the Scientific Method in action).
Because of these views I live for my fellow man and please myself. Be confident Slashdotters! Stop apologising for who you are or the values you hold. Let no one tell you what you can or can't say (although always use personal discretion - don't be a jerk, k?); not your Government, not your employeer, not your wife, and certainly not some ill-informed muppet with an axe to grind (as Richard's was).
I hope that helps some folks out there. The fatal weakness of the current US President is he is trying to be liked and wants the US to be liked. So he apologises to enemies and betrays allies (eg. missile shield sell out etc.). He, and every US President should stand up for the values of liberty and justice for all - and make it clear that the US will always back those who seek the same values. Instead we get simpering where the US backs down all the time and even opposes Free Speech (eg. Hillary Clinton's utterly immoral co-sponsoring of anti-Free Speech UN HRC Resolution 16/18) and doesn't even rescue US citizens under fire from Al Qaeda for *eight hours* despite having aircraft based nearby (eg. the shame of Benghazi). Stand up for what the Enlightened World believes in! Do not vote for a politician of any party anywhere until they sound like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgxlp2UJI5I
Once upon a time the West felt it could do achieve any goal - at it nearly could. We have lost our mojo because we keep listening to the "beta" message: be nice, make everyoine like you, get along. Well, we can and should still do that - but let's set our horizons a little bigger. Per Ardua Ad Astra.
Lol. Brilliant!
I thought this was "News for Nerds", not "News for sub-average IQs that can't figure out a pretty obvious play on historical scandal sobriquets". The summary is fine.
Her job was to evangelize for the community. Instead she decided to wage jihad against jokes she didn't like. She was a fool and her company was right that she was working against the goal they hired her for.
I find it funny that she disliked the way the men were talking loudly in their private conversation and could be overheard. Those guys must have been *loud*. I say this because as a Bloody Foreigner I find that all (US) Americans are enormously loud when they talk - all sorts of details of their private lives are shouted at each other at maximum decibels. However, as a quiet foreigner I don't feel the need to change their culture, I just mock instead :) Perhaps Richards should have been a bit more accepting of geek culture *while at a PyCon Conference*. Perhaps if the guys had been at a "Women against Domestic Violence" rally instead she would have been appropriate.
Incidentally, why do we need more women in programming? The ones that are there do a great job. The guys that do it also do a great job. So why do we need to change the entire technology culture to get a few reluctant girls to try it out? for what end? what is the problem we are trying to solve? is it just so we can satisfy some academic theory that there is equality in programing because the numbers by gender are more equal? well, that doesn't solve the problem that many girls at the start of their work career choose to things that they like - which is not creating hardware or software. Apart from a few ideologues one has a serious problem with the gender imbalance in nursing or teaching - so why should the gender imbalance in tech be a problem that requires warping the existing tech culture conform to their ideological wishes? If tech culture was "No girls allowed" then there would be a problem. If it was structurally sexist then there would be a problem - but to complain about tech culture (to the point of loss of livelihood) because some loud-mouthed guys make a joke intended to be kinda private too loudly? That is just silly.
Good point. She's obviously of the "Do as I say, not as I do" strain of self-righteous hypocritical wankers.
Well said. However the political correctness assault on free speech does need to be identified and talked about. Free Speech is being prorgressively eroded (mostly by the "Progressives", ironiclly).
You may think you have Free Speech but what happens if you talk about something generally held to be inappropriate in public? people try and stop you talking (as Richards did). If the legal system backs that suppression up then you don't have Free Speech now, do you?
That said, the geek community is full of sexually inexperienced and frustrated people who say stupid and immature things.
That's a steorotype about 'geek culture'. The reality is that the majority of 'geeks' are past their twenties and get plenty of action (with real women, mostly). It's just demographics. From the ages 15-30 is only a third of the time from 30-60, and IT has been around long enough that there are still plenty of greybeards out there. So let's get real - 'geek culture' is a handy stereotype, but a stereotype nonetheless. Decisions based on a stereotype will always carry some degree of inaccuracy.
As an aside. What is interesting that the biggest promoters of the stereotype are marketing outfits that see the chique of geek and want to cash in. All sorts of outfits used to do this in the past too with science - from detergent ads where 'scientists' only wear white lab coats to 'Christian Science' that is anti-scientific superstition but appends the word 'science' to benefit from the cachet of the triumphs of reason. So, it's ok to accept the 'geek stereotype' as long as you also make a mental note that this is an approximation of reality and really only covers the 1/3 of 'new' geeks (those still excited about 'coming out' to self-identify as a geek comfortable with the label).
At least a million have died between the invasion and the civil war.
Citation please with *counts* not *estimates*. You are just repeating the propaganda of the anti-war movement (where no war is ever just).
Millions more have been made refugees.
Citation please. Most Iraqis appear to have returned (apart from the Assyrians who have been ethnically cleansed by the Islamists).
Thousands are being effected by the shit we dropped there, including severe birth defects from depleted uranium.
Citation from a reputable medical journal please. There have been numerous allegations in the past, however depleted uranium was not the cause. Otherwise you are just spewing popular, but false, propaganda. I used to also believe that depleted uranium and 'Gulf War' syndrome were real, but the medical studies have shown this not to be the case. You do know that depleted uranium is a very common substance that occurs naturally in low concentrations in the earth/soil and our concrete structures, right? from a scientific point of view it has been turned into a bogeyman by those with a poor scientific knowledge (and who equate uranium in any form as directly equivalent to enriched uranium of weapon and reactor cores). Now, depleted uranium could be a possible factor, but there are are more likely factors too (eg. toxic oil well fires, polluted sanitation and water) that could also be factors in maternity problems. So let's just stick with the science, please.
Civil rights for women have been set back centuries.
I agree with you wholeheartedly here. The problem is not the invasion though. The problem was the clueless US allowing an Iraqi Constitution to be drafted that explicitly included Sharia. They made the exact same mistake in Afghanistan. The US should have been more muscular in enforcing secular democratic values to improve the long-term outlook of both countries. The US paid the price to give themselves the chance but they totally blew it. It is no wonder, two clueless presidents who have the Muslim Brotherhood advising them on policy (want to know more? go to Frank Gaffney's MuslimBrotherhoodInAmerica.com for the facts).
And don't forget the half-million kids we killed with sanctions in the 90's.
Yes. Sanctions are bad - but most of the world backed them as an alternative to war. A war to remove Saddam should have been conducted sooner and it would have saved millions of lives. In fact, he should have been removed in the First Gulf War. That was a strategic mistake (they were worried about some one strong enough to oppose Iran).
But, you're ignoring the mountain to focus on the molehill. Still. The invasion of Iraq was one of the greatest war crimes in the history of the human race. You're trying to defend the indefensible.
You jest, right? Islam has killed 270 million people. The Iraq War is nothing on that scale. As the West wakes up to the existential threat from Islam the coming war is going to be far far worse. Fortunately Saddam has been neutralized already. However, it was a crime in that the US made a strategic mistake by not enforcing secular democracy when it had the chance (and using a lot larger force to begin with). The invasion of Iraq is completely defensible once you adopt a long-term geopolitical view. Unfortunately, your soft bigotry against the US has made you blind to what is really going on in the world. Iraq is far less a threat to the rest of the world than it was (and it was a threat, exporting jihadis as I have cited), and while far from perfect (Islamic countries are always basket cases, of their *own making*, not due to the US as your bigotry would have you believe) it is better than it was in many regards. Just because your view is popular and trumpeted by the anti-scientific ignoramuses of the political Left does not make it correct. Take the long-term geopolitical view instead.
The official figure of casualties for the invasion and aftermath is around 66 thousand (according to wikipedia). There are hundreds of thousands more killed by Sunni and Shia militias (not the Americans). There are all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated estimates from politically motivated anti-war pundits from their comfy armchairs in London, but these are clearly hokum (compared to the counts from military intelligence actually on the ground).
Now, let's see, Saddam killed between 3 to 5 thousand with a chemical WMD attack in one afternoon in Halabja (with around twice that number maimed/injured). Then we have the war he started with Iran where the combined casualties were around 1 million. Then we have the invasion of Kuwait and subsequent loss of life. Then we have his vicious war against the marsh Shia that caused thousands more dead and an environmental catastrophe. Then we have the Anfal campaign with around 182000 Iraqis killed by Saddam. Then we have the continuous daily tortures and killings by his secret police. http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm
So you still want to defend that monster? you think it was wrong for the Coalition to remove that evil evil man who caused millions of deaths? you think that the evil of the war to remove Saddam compares anything to the utter evil of leaving him to scourge his people and neighbours? once you get numerical about it you can see that your position (and the position of the clueless Left in general) is counter factual and as a consequence, immoral. You have the soft racism that it is only bad if white people kill - it's okay for non-whites to slaughter as many people as they like and we have no say in it (especially those with the courage to prevent it, like the Americans). You racism and supporting of evil tyrants is disgusting to anyone who supports liberation of everyone, regardless of creed, gender or color. Supporting tyrants and opposing those who would remove them is an immoral position to have - yet that is the position your argument supports.
Why lie about how the evil Saddam was just about to nuke us into oblivion?
I never heard that Saddam was "just about to nuke us into oblivion". This is a fiction of the ignorant. Saddam's Iraq was working to reacquire WMDs if he could get them. He has already uses them both on the Iranians and on his own population. He also supported and exported a great deal of terrorism (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/). It was suspected he still had his WMD programme (which he certainly did not deny when questioned directly), what was not know at the time is that he had moved much of his programme to Syria. There were a bunch of reasons to get rid of him. The narrative of the political Left is that because WMDs were not found in Iraq then the whole war and reason for war was a sham and a lie - this is simply untrue. There were multiple good reasons for removing Saddam. The war was both justified and effective in a strategic sense (although could have been handled better in the initial stages).
Here's and interesting article that came out today clearly showing that oil was not the single factor in the decision to remove Saddam, "The War for Oil Myth"
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-war-for-oil-myth/
So please stop repeating the falsehoods invented by the political Left.
So, you are saying that Saddam was a good guy then? What's your point? Saddam didn't need chemical weapons, he murdered hundreds of thousands of Shia even without the chemical weapons. What was clear that if he got himself WMDs he would not hesitate to use them on his own citizens or the citizens of surrounding countries. Removing him was completely justified.
No-one is debating whether a company has rights to hire and fire at will. What is being debated is whether the company shows even worse judgement by enacting the very harsh response of immediate dismissal (instead of say, a private warning). Does a company have the right to dictate the lame jokes of its employees? perhaps, but who with any talent would work for such tyrants?
It is up to the employer's discretion. Employers who value their employees and understand that employees will have diverse views and tastes would show toleration. Employers who believe they 'own' their employees will not show understanding, will have the wrong corporate culture, and will never get or keep top class talent.
I am pro-free speech, and I am also pro-employers being allowed to fire employees who screw up.
The employees did not screw up. Someone with an axe to grind deliberately decided to take umbrage at some light-hearted jest. Perhaps you ought to reflect on your own values if you think the harsh punishment of immediate dismissal was in order (rather than say a private or maybe formal warning). No one is suggesting that a company can't hire and fire at will - however, we are suggesting that the company is showing even worse judgement in its handling of the matter. That is what is in dispute. Please stop trying to misdirect the topic of debate with your talk of corporate rights (they were not being questioned).
Please read the following. While Saddam was not involved with 9/11 (I never said he was), he was *heavily* involved with financing, arming, supporting, and giving a based for terrorist operations (which is what I said when I said 'exporting'):
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
I trivial Google search would have found this information and many like it - but you couldn't even be bothered to check your facts. Instead you lazily assume that of Saddam was not involved in 9/11 then he never supported terrorism. Ridiculous and false. Please consider yourself shamed and do your research next time. The war against Saddam was justified for many reasons, and this is one of them!
Hi.
A rather extraordinary claim, do you have a citation for this?
There are plenty of references, eg:
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
What people are confused about is whether Saddam was complicit in 9/11. The answer to that is no, so people take that as Saddam not being involved in terrorism at all - which is patently untrue. The countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria pretty much all had the same policy: harbor jihadis and export them. If they ever try make trouble on your soil - be absolutely ruthless (eg. the complete destruction of Hama in Syria in 1982). Saddam was the same, slaughtering the Kurds and then the southern Shia on a scale vastly greater than the 66 thousand casualties from the US invasion and aftermath (note: the Coalition caused about 66 thousand casualties [see wikipedia for the official, and best estimate - along with some wild speculation from armchair critics]; hundreds of thousands more were killed by the warring Sunni and Shia militia). So, my point is correct, Saddam was a major supporter and exporter of terrorism.
Can you expound upon the ideology of Islam? There are just as many Mulims as Catholics in this world (just over a billion). If they as a group truly wanted to "destroy the infidels", they would have more damage than WW2 by now. Don't confuse the extremists with majority...just as you would not consider the IRA representative of all Catholics nor the Branch Davidians as representative of all Protestants.
First thing. Most Muslims are good people. The correct analogy is that in the 1940s most Germans were also good people, it was the ideology of National Socialism (Naziism) that was evil. Germans were good *despite* the teachings of Naziism, but that doesn't make Naziism less evil. Similarly the Muslims may be good human beings *despite* the teachings of the totalitarian political ideology called Islam. It is *mainstream* Islam that requires able males to wage jihad against unbelievers (that's you an me). The whole "narrative" about it only being extremists who want to impose the Islamic political/social order on the globe is simply wrong - it is lie that the Islamists and their allies on the political Left perpetuate. The left-leaning media are either too ignorant or complicit in using the term "extremist" when in fact it is mainstream Islam that is supremacist and seeks world domination. This is easy to see for yourself, look for Islamicist statements not intended for consumption by Westerners (Islam mandates they lie to us to advance Islam, a doctrine called 'taqiyya'). Look for what the Muslims say for the consumption of other Muslims (eg. the racist and genocidal statements the Palestinians say in Arabic; the continual talk about the blood of Westerners they wish to spill to bring about the conquest of the whole world by Islam).
What is important to know is the Islamic doctrine of "abrogation". This means that all the early, nice verses of the Qur'an (the oft quoted "there is no compulsion in religion") have been replaced by the later and much, much more violent passages, such as the notorious "Verse of the Sword": Sura 9:5 and surrounding verses. These violent verses are the last words of Mohammed, and have not been abrogated by any other verses (but do abrogate the nicer verses). Anyone who brings out the "There is no compulsion in religion" quote is either ignorant of Islamic doctrine (particularly the core of abrogation, which means you must question their judgement about the rest of their Islamic knowledge), or they are lying to you (practicing 'taqiyya' to lull you into a false sense of security).
Another major lie (particularly from the political Left) is that if we show tolerance and appease Muslims they will show similar tolerance and the result will be two communities living peacefully side-by-side. This shows a criminal ignorance o
There is *no* right not to be offended. US case law (and the First Amendment) is clear on this.
If the guys are being inappropriate, that is one thing, but no-one ought to claim they have a right to not be offended. What was offensive to Richards was clearly not offensive to many other people. Personally I find hyper-sensitivity to be somewhat offensive, yet I don't feel the need to wage jihad against her. I've seen this behavior before from women (including getting guys chucked out of university for chuckling at inappropriate jokes). If *she* was offended then it is up to *her* to point this out to the culprits - without doing so in an offensive way herself. That's what a mature person would do. She can't claim they were threatening in any way, because their apologetic posture shows they were probably approachable for a mature person to make their point to.
Furthermore, there are a number of troubling aspects to Richards' claim (and those that support her narrow-minded point-of-view):
Who gets to decide what is offensive or not?
Should government, the legal profession, or business decide what is an appropriate joke or not?
There is only one solution, Free Speech. Free Speech is not about stuff you agree with - it is a principle that protected stuff you don't agree with (provided it is not out-and-out hate speech; eg. such as the racist and anti-Semitic core doctrines of the political ideology called Islam).
The solution is for companies to say, "We did not mean to offend you. However, we stand up for Free Speech for all out employees and don't believe we have the right to dictate what they can think or say, provided it is legal.". Too bad the World is full of beta personalities who cower at the thought of causing offense, rather than alpha personalities who may be brusque, but at least they stand up for moral principals (even if this is unpopular).
So grow some 'nads by fellow Slashdotters. You are either for Free Speech, and would not fire these guys (even if you would take them aside in private to tell them to cool it off a bit), or you believe in Political Correctness where someone else may dictate what you can say, hear and think. The real problem with PC is not that it dictates and denies what people can say, it denies that multitude of other people the right to hear (what can often be unpleasant but truthful).
Yes. Political Correctness is the *mortal enemy* of Free Speech.
That would be its WMD programme like Iraq didn't have?
You are forgetting the stuff that Iraq apparently shipped to Syria for safe keeping, right? Do you think Saddam didn't want to get more WMD?
So you're saying that Venezuela deserves the shock and awe treatment, a bit of the old ultra violence?
Nope. Please re-read my post. What I'm saying is that the Iranian Government are clearly preparing to give the US some shock and awe. Nuclear deterrence worked against the rational Russians. There are factions with the (very factional) Iranian Government for which a nuclear exchange is an incentive, not a deterrent (as they will believe it will bring the return of the 12th "Hidden" imam, called the "Mahdi"). If you are a US citizen (or care about the lives of US citizens) then this should be very troubling.
Bullshit it was "purely for oil". Oil was surely a factor but there were many more factors in play - only a muppet would suggest otherwise. By your own standards I guess your position is, "insane". How about you look at the bigger picture - there was a lot of factors involved in the decision making (as much as you would *love* to pretend it was just some rednecked cowboy shootin off his guns; it wasn't).