If you're a human being working as productively as you're capable of, you deserve food, shelter, and health care. I didn't say it was a "right"; it's just the right thing to do. Some people are born simple and will never make it beyond "burger flipper." They shouldn't be left hungry or have to splint their own broken arm. Like I said, this support doesn't have to be 100% borne by the employer. Leaving the weak to die isn't something a civilized society should do.
If I had cancer I would stop giving a shit about working or anything else and live the small rest of my life peacefully, doing what I want to do for a change. Must be my chronic depression saying that, but I indeed like the idea.
Since I work until 2 AM, I must have been in the office, and I do have several female co-workers, none of which are my wife. It's an open space office so... does it count as "one room"?
That's fine, just say "don't say that word because we're educated to believe it has negative connotations" instead of making up illogical reasons. As I was saying, my culture did not educate me to assign negative connotations to the word, so I had to make a conscious effort to put it into that category. I was also educated in such a way that I believe that a bad word is a bad word regardless who says it. Furthermore it could be acceptable to say a bad word among friends, for example, but that solely depends on how well you know that person, not what color their skin is.
To me, skin color is totally irrelevant. It's how you behave that matters.
Really? So you're saying that if the unarmed skinny white me goes to a group of BIG black fellas who play basketball and says the N-word, they're going to have "a legitimate fear of being in a dangerous situation"? Again, I'm not an American, but I have a really hard time believing this.
That wasn't my point. I wasn't talking about any particular group specifically, I was challenging the mindset saying "group A is not as bad as group B because it didn't have the time, the means or the success in doing as much harm as group A".
If group A says "kill people because X" and group B says "kill people because Y", and group A is less successful than group B, in my opinion it makes them equally bad.
What should we be doing about hate groups? Perhaps more related to the topic at hand, why does a private company, let's say Twitter, need to accommodate them? (Note: Personally I don't care about Twitter all that much - I struggle to figure out why others do or what blocking achieves)
That's exactly the point, it doesn't need to accommodate them, quite the contrary. I think I haven't explained my point well enough, so here goes: I don't think there are "degrees of hate" in a hate group. The real question is what's the definition of a hate group, or what's the definition of hate speech? For a privately owned company hosting public data (such as Twitter, Facebook, etc) my opinion is they can define these things as they see fit and establish their own policies, as long as the hosted data is law-abiding, of course.
I think you need the term "radical" defined.
My personal favorite. We're going to to co-opt the term radical to point to terrorism. Why not just call it terrorism, or... something more focused? I'm not a fan of any religion, but I'm also not naive enough to point to any of them and put them all in the same bucket. I think we've all had our share of people perceiving themselves as being persecuted for their religious beliefs.
They don't fully overlap, or to be more precise in my opinion "radical" completely engulfs "terrorist" but not the other way around. There are radical people who never become terrorists. Many, many people do have radical views on various things but that doesn't make them terrorists. But I'm hard pressed to find any terrorist whatsoever who doesn't have radical views of some sort, some insanity-induced but radical nevertheless.
The local hackerspace has trained personnel who would happily help you and guide you in using and producing stuff from those special machines such as CNC and lathe. They don't force you to take classes. If you need something laser-etched, you just holler and someone who is trained into using that thing would come and help you with getting it done.
I've only played a little LoL, but it is effectively abstract too. You have a pool of characters to choose from with special powers which compliment or contradict each other (think paper/scissors/rock on steroids). The people who do well are able to process the various combinations more quickly than others, which is effectively is the same as an IQ test.
Or they care more about the game and went through the pains to learn nooks and crannies. Or they played a LOT and managed to become proficient through repetition. Or they learned some cookie cutter strategies by heart, effectively knowing nothing about anything else.
If those stats are true, then look no further for proto-Einsteins, just pick the LoL world champions and call it a day.
Antifa certainly doesn't shy from low-level violence like punching and vandalism, and it's something I deeply abhor about them. But if you compare all the low-level violence from both sides I'm honestly not sure who is worse.
But the white supremacists have a literal and extensive body count. Here Antifa isn't even close.
So what you're proposing is to wait until they're tied in this metric? "Oh, they're not that bad... yet. We should wait until they are!"
The problem with talking about "radical Islam" is it's usually done in the context of talking about terrorism, and it implies that terrorism is caused by being really Muslim.
But there you can be a really, really devout Muslim and be totally opposed to violence. And you can be a really crappy non-devout Muslim and be a terrorist. It's not a great correlation.
I think you need the term "radical" defined.
So this ends up causing a bunch of really peaceful non-terrorist Muslims to be unfairly suspected of terrorism and exposes them to all sorts of harassment.
Look, if you have a huge festering would on your arm and don't take care of it, you'll be perceived as being sick. Everyone's going to say "quantaman is sick", not "quantaman's festered wound on his arm is sick". Yes, a disease which is being not taken care of will make the whole person be defined as sick.
No because it's a complete non-sequitur. The problem with "radical Islam" is it easily applied to all Muslims because it basically means someone who is really Muslim.
"White supremacist" doesn't generalize about white people, it specifically identifies the group of people who think that whites should be supreme.
Maybe you see it that way. Ask a black person though, you'll be surprised by their response. Those white supremacists are a festering wound much like radical Islamist types and generally any other racist, hate-ist etc. group.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude. I know. I'm Romanian :)
It was a joke.
I didn't say "you deserve food, shelter, and health care from the government".
Doorn, not Doom.
DOORN.
He would go to jail based on what?
Romance languages...
Also known as languages of love.
No wonder people got fucked.
Looks like it's equally hard to enforce within the borders as well...
If you're a human being working as productively as you're capable of, you deserve food, shelter, and health care. I didn't say it was a "right"; it's just the right thing to do. Some people are born simple and will never make it beyond "burger flipper." They shouldn't be left hungry or have to splint their own broken arm. Like I said, this support doesn't have to be 100% borne by the employer. Leaving the weak to die isn't something a civilized society should do.
Fixed that for you.
Should I have to pay $15/hr to get one of the neighborhood kids to pull weeds in my garden one weekend?
Yes. But right now you don't have to, so you're good.
If I had cancer I would stop giving a shit about working or anything else and live the small rest of my life peacefully, doing what I want to do for a change. Must be my chronic depression saying that, but I indeed like the idea.
So... from what you'+re saying I understand that if Apple does it, you don't need a law about it.
Since I work until 2 AM, I must have been in the office, and I do have several female co-workers, none of which are my wife. It's an open space office so... does it count as "one room"?
Having something to hide doesn't make it private either :)
That's fine, just say "don't say that word because we're educated to believe it has negative connotations" instead of making up illogical reasons.
As I was saying, my culture did not educate me to assign negative connotations to the word, so I had to make a conscious effort to put it into that category. I was also educated in such a way that I believe that a bad word is a bad word regardless who says it. Furthermore it could be acceptable to say a bad word among friends, for example, but that solely depends on how well you know that person, not what color their skin is.
To me, skin color is totally irrelevant. It's how you behave that matters.
Really? So you're saying that if the unarmed skinny white me goes to a group of BIG black fellas who play basketball and says the N-word, they're going to have "a legitimate fear of being in a dangerous situation"? Again, I'm not an American, but I have a really hard time believing this.
That wasn't my point. I wasn't talking about any particular group specifically, I was challenging the mindset saying "group A is not as bad as group B because it didn't have the time, the means or the success in doing as much harm as group A".
If group A says "kill people because X" and group B says "kill people because Y", and group A is less successful than group B, in my opinion it makes them equally bad.
What should we be doing about hate groups? Perhaps more related to the topic at hand, why does a private company, let's say Twitter, need to accommodate them?
(Note: Personally I don't care about Twitter all that much - I struggle to figure out why others do or what blocking achieves)
That's exactly the point, it doesn't need to accommodate them, quite the contrary.
I think I haven't explained my point well enough, so here goes: I don't think there are "degrees of hate" in a hate group. The real question is what's the definition of a hate group, or what's the definition of hate speech? For a privately owned company hosting public data (such as Twitter, Facebook, etc) my opinion is they can define these things as they see fit and establish their own policies, as long as the hosted data is law-abiding, of course.
I think you need the term "radical" defined.
My personal favorite. We're going to to co-opt the term radical to point to terrorism. Why not just call it terrorism, or... something more focused? I'm not a fan of any religion, but I'm also not naive enough to point to any of them and put them all in the same bucket. I think we've all had our share of people perceiving themselves as being persecuted for their religious beliefs.
They don't fully overlap, or to be more precise in my opinion "radical" completely engulfs "terrorist" but not the other way around. There are radical people who never become terrorists. Many, many people do have radical views on various things but that doesn't make them terrorists. But I'm hard pressed to find any terrorist whatsoever who doesn't have radical views of some sort, some insanity-induced but radical nevertheless.
The local hackerspace has trained personnel who would happily help you and guide you in using and producing stuff from those special machines such as CNC and lathe. They don't force you to take classes. If you need something laser-etched, you just holler and someone who is trained into using that thing would come and help you with getting it done.
...gamer, pornstar, florist. One's a LoL genius, the other's a dick genius, the other's a... scissor genius?
I've only played a little LoL, but it is effectively abstract too. You have a pool of characters to choose from with special powers which compliment or contradict each other (think paper/scissors/rock on steroids). The people who do well are able to process the various combinations more quickly than others, which is effectively is the same as an IQ test.
Or they care more about the game and went through the pains to learn nooks and crannies.
Or they played a LOT and managed to become proficient through repetition.
Or they learned some cookie cutter strategies by heart, effectively knowing nothing about anything else.
If those stats are true, then look no further for proto-Einsteins, just pick the LoL world champions and call it a day.
Antifa certainly doesn't shy from low-level violence like punching and vandalism, and it's something I deeply abhor about them. But if you compare all the low-level violence from both sides I'm honestly not sure who is worse.
But the white supremacists have a literal and extensive body count. Here Antifa isn't even close.
So what you're proposing is to wait until they're tied in this metric? "Oh, they're not that bad... yet. We should wait until they are!"
The problem with talking about "radical Islam" is it's usually done in the context of talking about terrorism, and it implies that terrorism is caused by being really Muslim.
But there you can be a really, really devout Muslim and be totally opposed to violence. And you can be a really crappy non-devout Muslim and be a terrorist. It's not a great correlation.
I think you need the term "radical" defined.
So this ends up causing a bunch of really peaceful non-terrorist Muslims to be unfairly suspected of terrorism and exposes them to all sorts of harassment.
Look, if you have a huge festering would on your arm and don't take care of it, you'll be perceived as being sick. Everyone's going to say "quantaman is sick", not "quantaman's festered wound on his arm is sick". Yes, a disease which is being not taken care of will make the whole person be defined as sick.
No because it's a complete non-sequitur. The problem with "radical Islam" is it easily applied to all Muslims because it basically means someone who is really Muslim.
"White supremacist" doesn't generalize about white people, it specifically identifies the group of people who think that whites should be supreme.
Maybe you see it that way. Ask a black person though, you'll be surprised by their response.
Those white supremacists are a festering wound much like radical Islamist types and generally any other racist, hate-ist etc. group.
They are but they lost their Verified Grammar Status...
The definition of "bullying" apparently meaning "being treated rudely at least once a month", with "rudely" apparently meaning "not saying thank you".
Like... "if I can't have the house you have, then you can't have the car I have" kind of thing.
Yes, its illogical.
Don't we humans have a crooked majority?
If my memory serves me correctly this company called Micro-Soft or something was in dutch for pulling shenanigans like this, and paid a hefty fine.
I guess the Dutch didn't like it...