In my experience, it's just a class difference again. A quick arts degree isn't especially difficult for people who have good previous education and it's a way for people from a rich background to easily get a leg up, while poor people have to either not go to college or deal with loans.
People still see factory jobs as being for "stupid" people and they are generally looked down on, while even terrible office work is considered acceptable. This shouldn't be.
Also, seriously, it's implying that stopping radicalism is a good thing (which it is, from the perspective of elites who want to maintain power, I suppose).
It depends on what you consider a cause. The US government doesn't care about human rights abuses; that much is clear from its long, long foreign policy record. What the US government cares about is whether the Saudis will "play nice" and do what they want them to. The minute the Saudis don't, the Saudis become official enemies the same way Saddam Hussein did when he stopped "playing nice".
Because the Saudi regime hasn't given the US any cause to invade -- it already sells oil cheaply. Remember that the only oil-producing countries the US is unfriendly with are ones that hint that they won't follow every whim of US foreign policy (like Venezuela supplying oil to Cuba).
Whine all you want about the oddities of the electoral college (and it IS pretty messed up), but people vote and have an influence, no matter how small, over who leads them. If the USA isn't a democracy, what is?
It's simpler than that. People just want to use the word "revolution" to refer to something, regardless of its influence on society (which is what actually constitutes a revolution: a radical change in society).
The same could be applied to the United States and its own blocking provisions. The only difference is that the USA rules the rest of the world through fear and imperialist aggression, so I suppose you might understandably mistake it for the rest of the world entirely.
Hardly. I'm not from Iran, but I feel very much th same about the US. I also say: let 'm drown. They run a pretend democracy that still have at least half of the population keep the current set of fear-driven, fear-mongering elite in charge, They simply cannot be persuaded to not fund and otherwise stimulate all sorts of terror groups that do all sorts of stupid and dangerous shit all over the world. They purposely suppress women and gays and black people and working-class people... They do all that and still keep expecting to be treated with respect. I say: let 'em go under good this time. Relativism with respect to what Iran does *is* apples and oranges.
Fixed for you (with bonus spelling errors fixed as well!)
Astonishing but still within the copyright term length. Abhorrent? You bet. But I wouldn't go around attacking publishers and would instead focus on reducing the law that governs said term length.
Why do you think the laws exist, if not because of publishers wanting them?
Re:it already is socially unacceptable
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
I agree. Part of the problem is this myth that all of bigotry is contained in a few interpersonal interactions, such as calling people names. If this was so, it would be much less of a problem -- it would be easier to deal with because it would be so open, and it occurs much more rarely than pervasive systemic discrimination anyway. The chief problem is systemic discrimination, where the system of society (government, jobs and employment, and simply what people are permitted or not permitted to do) bars some people from certain activities based on a class, gender, or racial position, while others are fully allowed.
Generally these things aren't as clear-cut as sending black people to the back of the bus -- they are examples more like not adequately trying to prevent rape in certain places of a city, making those places more dangerous and effectively preventing many people from visiting those places for fear of attack. This might be downvoted by some people who tend to be inclined to rape apologia purely because they view rape as something that is strictly between two individuals, rather than a part of a societal whole, as those two individuals are. These things are more about complex social stances -- certain forms of rape being tolerated (as many of these individuals do, perpetuating the problem they are so against finding solutions for), or certain forms of abuse or discrimination being tolerated, are among them.
Ultimately, if you view these issues in the limited context of individual interpersonal interaction you will only just barely scrape the surface of the wider societal context of identity and permitted action. This can be reasoned through quite readily -- why are some things we view negatively more common than others? Why is, say, rape more common than murder? Because it's a question of what is permitted by society, and who can do what to whom. It is much easier for someone to rape the average woman and to rely on her (understandable) issues with discussing it with anyone and with a policing system that generally has more in common with the rapist than the raped, than it is to murder someone (especially a man, especially a white man, especially a rich white man) and get away with it. What individuals do is a result of the society that produced them; change society and you change individuals.
Re:i never understood this thinking
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
There are a number of underpinnings to what's broadly called anti-egalitarianism (which is a facet of the philosophies or schools of Fascism, the New Right, etc.). On one hand, there are the people who benefit from anti-egalitarianism and sponsor propaganda to that effect, similar to the anti-republican (in the "form of government" sense, not the "American political party" sense) and anti-democratic propaganda produced by aristocrats to discourage people from supporting democracy because of the "ignorant masses". The general basis for it is a nifty piece of circular reasoning where undereducated and ignorant people are derided for being undereducated and ignorant by the very people who have historically tried to ensure that they stayed undereducated and ignorant.
One way to think of it is a bit like a murder investigation -- look for motive. The very people who benefit most from anti-egalitarianism are people who occupy privileged positions which would vanish in a more egalitarian society -- the wealthy CEOs, princes, and oligarchs of all forms. Thus, they have the greatest incentive (and are in fact pretty much the only ones who have an incentive at all) to promote anti-egalitarian sentiment. It is, however, easy to promote simply because people, especially in the middle of the economic spectrum (petit-bourgeoisie, or the "small business owner" in many cases), occupy a precarious class position which they are constantly having to fight to maintain. Part of the result of this is a general social separation from the people directly below them (the working class), which is a natural result of fighting hard to stay above working-class people and to live out, in the USA, the myths of the American Dream and social advancement. Thus, while they might not instigate anti-egalitarian classism, they are more susceptible to aiding those who do instigate it and becoming the lackeys of the very group above them which utilizes them as a shield.
One way to consider this is to imagine three people, A, B, and C. Person A is a slave, Person B is a servant, and Person C is a master. In this situation, Person C might use Person B to keep Person A in bondage by threatening to eliminate Person B's (relatively more) privileged position. Even if it would be more advantageous for A and B to unite against C, this seldom happens, for a variety of reasons, often related to the machinations of Person C.
Even more insidious, especially in the cases of sexism and racism, is when people who occupy roughly the same class position are pitted against each other. It is advantageous to rulers for a permanent underclass to exist (as black people and women have been throughout the history of the United States, often the lowest of the low) because they can be exploited most readily. The easiest way to maintain this is to sponsor bigotry that will keep this group separated from other groups -- black from white, for instance. Then, this underclass will have to fight almost entirely alone to gain even a modicum of freedom, rather than being helped by their brothers and sisters to gain it. Why? Because our society today forces people to be competitive or be destroyed, rather than to unite in a non-competitive way. Thus, black workers gaining more rights could be seen as a threat to the privileged position of some white workers, and so forth. The easiest way to sustain a system is to throw a few scraps to a few select groups, and in doing that to turn them into defenders of the system for fear of losing their privileges.
Virtually all of these complaints are about kernel drivers or software distros have little to no control over. I am not defending Canonical, just saying that any change to these changes things for distros everywhere.
I agree. The GP basically presents two options: either a world of "untargeted" advertising (where everyone is annoyed by ads, but less swayed by them) and an insidious, manipulative, exploitative world of targeted ads. I'd prefer a third option.
Their behaviour isn't without precedent. It's similar to the "company town" mentality where companies would force workers to live in a locked-down town with limited access to alcohol, carefully limited access to media such as books and newspapers (this before the time of television), workers would be paid in company scrip, church attendance was compulsory, etc. It was incredibly effective at isolating the workers, pitting them against each other, and making them less reluctant to engage in labour disputes like going on strike, since that would lead to a quick eviction where them and their families would be left with a few possessions and pockets full of worthless company IOUs that could only be used at the company store. The same kind of thinking is observable in the widespread drug testing that began in the 90s.
The idea is twofold. They must both have the "perfect worker" (one who is entirely socially normalized and one who doesn't engage in any behaviours, or have an positions or beliefs the company disapproves of, two things which are mutually contradictory in many cases) and they must also have the controllable worker, who is willing to live according to company diktat. It's similar to the common demonization of anti-authoritarianism by, of course, authorities. Constantly monitoring employees for non-approved behaviours, on or off the job, is par for the course if you accept the idea that the employer has de facto ownership of the employee.
This will also apply to arrested and "detained" people, not just convicts. What this means (and how this will be used) is a form of harassment of protestors, especially when their more expensive personal goods "go missing" into a cop's pocket.
Or perhaps they liked it, given that Spain has always had an uncomfortable relationship with its monarchy and the fascists who propped it up for decades.
Why not both? Resisting (and teaching others to resist) helps to keep people from beginning to take these things in as normal and supposedly necessary. Second, even in countries with good electoral systems, voting someone out isn't always easy -- unless people strongly favour another cand
In questions like this it's basically a form of people simply being used to the old lights. Even if CFLs put out cleaner light that is easier to see by, they still prefer the dim, yellowish incandescents simply because that's what they are used to and, dammit, all these durn kids should get off their lawn!
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience, it's just a class difference again. A quick arts degree isn't especially difficult for people who have good previous education and it's a way for people from a rich background to easily get a leg up, while poor people have to either not go to college or deal with loans.
People still see factory jobs as being for "stupid" people and they are generally looked down on, while even terrible office work is considered acceptable. This shouldn't be.
Also, seriously, it's implying that stopping radicalism is a good thing (which it is, from the perspective of elites who want to maintain power, I suppose).
It depends on what you consider a cause. The US government doesn't care about human rights abuses; that much is clear from its long, long foreign policy record. What the US government cares about is whether the Saudis will "play nice" and do what they want them to. The minute the Saudis don't, the Saudis become official enemies the same way Saddam Hussein did when he stopped "playing nice".
Because the Saudi regime hasn't given the US any cause to invade -- it already sells oil cheaply. Remember that the only oil-producing countries the US is unfriendly with are ones that hint that they won't follow every whim of US foreign policy (like Venezuela supplying oil to Cuba).
Whine all you want about the oddities of the electoral college (and it IS pretty messed up), but people vote and have an influence, no matter how small, over who leads them. If the USA isn't a democracy, what is?
No existing state is a democracy.
It's simpler than that. People just want to use the word "revolution" to refer to something, regardless of its influence on society (which is what actually constitutes a revolution: a radical change in society).
The same could be applied to the United States and its own blocking provisions. The only difference is that the USA rules the rest of the world through fear and imperialist aggression, so I suppose you might understandably mistake it for the rest of the world entirely.
Americans, and really everyone in western style democracies
The United States is not a democracy.
are free to criticize and judge any government, religion, or belief they want to in a public forum.
But not to do anything beyond criticism, in which case, what is the point of criticism?
Well, it's a fact. If you can't deal in facts, you shouldn't be working where you claim to be.
I disagree. Dealing with facts would probably be an impediment to his job.
Ignoring that the "Republic of China" and "Republic of Korea" were both military dictatorships at various times.
Hardly. I'm not from Iran, but I feel very much th same about the US. I also say: let 'm drown. They run a pretend democracy that still have at least half of the population keep the current set of fear-driven, fear-mongering elite in charge, They simply cannot be persuaded to not fund and otherwise stimulate all sorts of terror groups that do all sorts of stupid and dangerous shit all over the world. They purposely suppress women and gays and black people and working-class people... They do all that and still keep expecting to be treated with respect. I say: let 'em go under good this time. Relativism with respect to what Iran does *is* apples and oranges.
Fixed for you (with bonus spelling errors fixed as well!)
Astonishing but still within the copyright term length. Abhorrent? You bet. But I wouldn't go around attacking publishers and would instead focus on reducing the law that governs said term length.
Why do you think the laws exist, if not because of publishers wanting them?
I agree. Part of the problem is this myth that all of bigotry is contained in a few interpersonal interactions, such as calling people names. If this was so, it would be much less of a problem -- it would be easier to deal with because it would be so open, and it occurs much more rarely than pervasive systemic discrimination anyway. The chief problem is systemic discrimination, where the system of society (government, jobs and employment, and simply what people are permitted or not permitted to do) bars some people from certain activities based on a class, gender, or racial position, while others are fully allowed.
Generally these things aren't as clear-cut as sending black people to the back of the bus -- they are examples more like not adequately trying to prevent rape in certain places of a city, making those places more dangerous and effectively preventing many people from visiting those places for fear of attack. This might be downvoted by some people who tend to be inclined to rape apologia purely because they view rape as something that is strictly between two individuals, rather than a part of a societal whole, as those two individuals are. These things are more about complex social stances -- certain forms of rape being tolerated (as many of these individuals do, perpetuating the problem they are so against finding solutions for), or certain forms of abuse or discrimination being tolerated, are among them.
Ultimately, if you view these issues in the limited context of individual interpersonal interaction you will only just barely scrape the surface of the wider societal context of identity and permitted action. This can be reasoned through quite readily -- why are some things we view negatively more common than others? Why is, say, rape more common than murder? Because it's a question of what is permitted by society, and who can do what to whom. It is much easier for someone to rape the average woman and to rely on her (understandable) issues with discussing it with anyone and with a policing system that generally has more in common with the rapist than the raped, than it is to murder someone (especially a man, especially a white man, especially a rich white man) and get away with it. What individuals do is a result of the society that produced them; change society and you change individuals.
There are a number of underpinnings to what's broadly called anti-egalitarianism (which is a facet of the philosophies or schools of Fascism, the New Right, etc.). On one hand, there are the people who benefit from anti-egalitarianism and sponsor propaganda to that effect, similar to the anti-republican (in the "form of government" sense, not the "American political party" sense) and anti-democratic propaganda produced by aristocrats to discourage people from supporting democracy because of the "ignorant masses". The general basis for it is a nifty piece of circular reasoning where undereducated and ignorant people are derided for being undereducated and ignorant by the very people who have historically tried to ensure that they stayed undereducated and ignorant.
One way to think of it is a bit like a murder investigation -- look for motive. The very people who benefit most from anti-egalitarianism are people who occupy privileged positions which would vanish in a more egalitarian society -- the wealthy CEOs, princes, and oligarchs of all forms. Thus, they have the greatest incentive (and are in fact pretty much the only ones who have an incentive at all) to promote anti-egalitarian sentiment. It is, however, easy to promote simply because people, especially in the middle of the economic spectrum (petit-bourgeoisie, or the "small business owner" in many cases), occupy a precarious class position which they are constantly having to fight to maintain. Part of the result of this is a general social separation from the people directly below them (the working class), which is a natural result of fighting hard to stay above working-class people and to live out, in the USA, the myths of the American Dream and social advancement. Thus, while they might not instigate anti-egalitarian classism, they are more susceptible to aiding those who do instigate it and becoming the lackeys of the very group above them which utilizes them as a shield.
One way to consider this is to imagine three people, A, B, and C. Person A is a slave, Person B is a servant, and Person C is a master. In this situation, Person C might use Person B to keep Person A in bondage by threatening to eliminate Person B's (relatively more) privileged position. Even if it would be more advantageous for A and B to unite against C, this seldom happens, for a variety of reasons, often related to the machinations of Person C.
Even more insidious, especially in the cases of sexism and racism, is when people who occupy roughly the same class position are pitted against each other. It is advantageous to rulers for a permanent underclass to exist (as black people and women have been throughout the history of the United States, often the lowest of the low) because they can be exploited most readily. The easiest way to maintain this is to sponsor bigotry that will keep this group separated from other groups -- black from white, for instance. Then, this underclass will have to fight almost entirely alone to gain even a modicum of freedom, rather than being helped by their brothers and sisters to gain it. Why? Because our society today forces people to be competitive or be destroyed, rather than to unite in a non-competitive way. Thus, black workers gaining more rights could be seen as a threat to the privileged position of some white workers, and so forth. The easiest way to sustain a system is to throw a few scraps to a few select groups, and in doing that to turn them into defenders of the system for fear of losing their privileges.
Virtually all of these complaints are about kernel drivers or software distros have little to no control over. I am not defending Canonical, just saying that any change to these changes things for distros everywhere.
I agree. The GP basically presents two options: either a world of "untargeted" advertising (where everyone is annoyed by ads, but less swayed by them) and an insidious, manipulative, exploitative world of targeted ads. I'd prefer a third option.
Their behaviour isn't without precedent. It's similar to the "company town" mentality where companies would force workers to live in a locked-down town with limited access to alcohol, carefully limited access to media such as books and newspapers (this before the time of television), workers would be paid in company scrip, church attendance was compulsory, etc. It was incredibly effective at isolating the workers, pitting them against each other, and making them less reluctant to engage in labour disputes like going on strike, since that would lead to a quick eviction where them and their families would be left with a few possessions and pockets full of worthless company IOUs that could only be used at the company store. The same kind of thinking is observable in the widespread drug testing that began in the 90s. The idea is twofold. They must both have the "perfect worker" (one who is entirely socially normalized and one who doesn't engage in any behaviours, or have an positions or beliefs the company disapproves of, two things which are mutually contradictory in many cases) and they must also have the controllable worker, who is willing to live according to company diktat. It's similar to the common demonization of anti-authoritarianism by, of course, authorities. Constantly monitoring employees for non-approved behaviours, on or off the job, is par for the course if you accept the idea that the employer has de facto ownership of the employee.
I've had libertarians proclaim the company to be an example of the value of the free market
They are an example of the free market. Just not the kind of example libertarians intend.
This will also apply to arrested and "detained" people, not just convicts. What this means (and how this will be used) is a form of harassment of protestors, especially when their more expensive personal goods "go missing" into a cop's pocket.
Or perhaps they liked it, given that Spain has always had an uncomfortable relationship with its monarchy and the fascists who propped it up for decades.
Why not both? Resisting (and teaching others to resist) helps to keep people from beginning to take these things in as normal and supposedly necessary. Second, even in countries with good electoral systems, voting someone out isn't always easy -- unless people strongly favour another cand
In questions like this it's basically a form of people simply being used to the old lights. Even if CFLs put out cleaner light that is easier to see by, they still prefer the dim, yellowish incandescents simply because that's what they are used to and, dammit, all these durn kids should get off their lawn!
That's because his goal is to erode copyright. The GPL is only part of it. Understand that and you will understand more of why he does what he does.
Where would you go?