You realize that's not name calling. It's an accurate descriptor of people who aggressively push "social justice" causes, and was in fact a term used in social justice circles to show how progressive they were. It didn't become the opposite until those people pushed so hard that it was effecting and affecting people in negative ways. It's a very well done and self-earned title.
Or you could turn around and stop being perpetually offended because someone said something you didn't like. And in turn, stop trying to force your rules on everyone else because you were offended by an off-colour joke, that everyone else but you found funny.
By that measure, a poor man sitting outside a comic convention in a makeshift costume with a cardboard sword and paper cup for alms is committing assault.
Except that by that statement, if they're 'sitting outside' they're not assaulting. If they however act in a manner to get those alms that's threatening per case law, that is assault.
No, apart from that gaffe, the above is not specific, it's deliberately vague, like "directly or indirectly".....
Except it's not vague, you've already answered your own question. This is where a persons knowledge of law fails because they see something and think "oh boy it's vague because that's what it says." That's not the case. Case law, and the criminal code per definitions clearly define what is "direct assault" and "indirect assault" in both of those cases. That's why there's an entire section of definitions, and in the annotated criminal code for example, explicitly spells out with case law what is direct or indirect assault.
Modern feminism acts in a way that's not egalitarian. If you're pushing for "more women in tech" and give massive handouts, and promote people without merit? You're not egalitarian. Feminists aren't lining up to get more miners, or women into trades. They are however fighting to demonize men in female dominated work spaces. The "males are pedophiles" if they want to teach k-6 is a good example of this though the 90's. They're sure not working to deal with specific male issues in family courts, sentencing disparities. They'll actively fight against it claiming that men aren't punished enough. It's not egalitarian to argue for the abolition of prisons for women and using the argument that it's because women are fragile. They've fought to shut down shelters for men, and using the claim that it would "take money away from women" as an argument.
Feminists will line up and screech #metoo, then circle the wagons if a darling feminist has engaged in the exact or worse behavior then what they're accusing a man of. If a male is abused by a female, whether it be harassment, sexual assault, or rape. Many will argue that he's just lucky for all that attention. Say that the 14yr old male teenager was "lucky" to have been having sex with that 30yr old female teacher. But turn around and screech that the 14yr old female teenager was raped/didn't know what she was doing/was being abused/etc by that 30yr old male teacher.
Well, by the text of the Code of Conduct, most SJWs will be immediately banned.
Well that's the funny thing isn't it. You'd think so, but it doesn't happen. It's kinda like the whole #metoo thing, except if you're not male and happen to be engaging in the same behavior. Those rules don't apply. Suddenly, the benefit of the doubt applies. You don't get railroaded out. There's no giant mass-media stories about it, even though you're in a position of power.
It's impossible to create any practical rule governing human behaviour that enumerates every specific bad action. Just look at the law of any country, none of them are very specific.
Really? Can you explain how this law isn't specific(keeping in mind that this is a law used on a regular basis). Remember that in law, you don't have to fulfill each subsection. But you do have to fulfill the specific section for it to apply.
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
Laws in most western countries are very specific. On top of that, countries who use common law the laws get progressively more specific as time goes on. It can actually become so specific with common law, that the existing law has to be refined because the original scope is no longer correct in the eyes of higher appeals courts.
Remember all those people who said the people speaking out against this were crazy that this type of creep was happening? Said it wouldn't happen, that it was only for the "greater good" and so on? Yeah, well buck the fuck up because this type of creep is happening all over the place in the tech world. And it almost always starts with people who have no actual programming/technical ability, who then worm their way into positions of power.
For FreeBSD, this will pretty much drive people out and kill it. It's no different then the people who pushed this crap in Overwatch(game) and people have been fleeing in droves because Blizzard has stated that they'll be looking through your social media to find out if you've been bad.
Well we don't know for sure on that one, there's indications that he did shop it to some media. But considering just how hard FusionGPS is digging in their heels and trying to refuse to answer anything, it might be a couple of more years before we find out just what the fuck is going on. As it stands now it all reeks of corruption.
Mental illness does. Firearms make the problem worse, but in Canada we see mass-stabbings. So does the UK, so does Australia. The UK and AUS have very restrictive gun rights. Switzerland on the otherhand has lax gunlaws compared to the rest of Europe. But also has a strong mental health system.
So, you're saying that depression is a major cause of shootings? Maybe we should try treating it more, then, instead of cheaping out and only providing meds.
It's already well known in psychology that people who are on a rebound are more likely to commit suicide after they start climbing out of the pit. That's because they don't want to re-enter that depressive pit again.
What I'm saying is SSRI's have several problems. One of which is being used in cases where it shouldn't be used. Improper dosing is another. On top of that there's no shortage of lawsuits and settled suits where people who were taking SSRI's simply 'snapped' and went on a killing spree either. As well, if you want to try "treating it" then you have to start bringing back mental health facilities, that the left and courts across the west basically killed off fully by the 1980's. Instead of the revolving door system we have now, where police are generally the first line of response to someone wigging the fuck out.
Also, Rhodesia never existed outside of the fantasies of a bunch of fragile whites who knew they couldn't compete against other folks, so had to try and set up an ethnostate to preserve their fragility. Nobody recognizes it anymore.
You should tell that to Ian Smith then, who over those 10 years managed to make the country into something which was fully destroyed by the ZANU, and is now yet another landlocked country which is an effective 3rd world shithole that once produced so much raw food that it fed Africa and part of Europe.
IRA among the various splinter branches for one thing. Former USSR states? Kazakhstan, Lithuania(limited) both had factional fighting between the military, public, and governments trying to force in a new communist government. I think Warsaw did, but again limited. The transitional phase from the collapse of the USSR wasn't smooth despite what they try to push in western history classes.
Um, so far this year we're running something like an average of two school mass shootings a week. If we had to wait two weeks before a school shooting to say anything about it, we'd never get a chance.
No, you've had two. That's it, one involving 4 people. The other yesterday.
What the pro-gun types need to do is come up with something halfway reasonable to do about the shootings, and push it. What people are seeing is children being murdered in schools, and pro-gun people being afraid for their guns rather than trying to help. The NRA could earn a lot of good karma right now by pushing for restrictions that would cut down on mass shootings.
Sure, but you're not going to like it. Because we're now going to bring back the mental health hospitals that the left started destroying and fully destroyed by the 1980's. We're also going to revoke the rights of individuals to refuse medication, this is where most of the problem stems from. The complete destruction of mental health care in the west. In Canada we have stabbings, the US it's guns. UK stabbings. Aus stabbings. And so on, it all falls into the same category as to why these people snap in a particular direction.
Sure they didn't. That's why they were talking with the Trump campaign and trying to get him to drop the Maginitsky act after being elected, and why Trump isn't enforcing the sanctions. I'm suuuure that Clinton would have acted exactly the same.
That sure explains why the Obama administration gave explicit permission for that lawyer to enter the US without going through the usual channels huh?
Fusion GPS directly shopped it to the media, that one has already come out of the declassified info from when they were directly investigated by the SIC. They also paid particular reporters money after shopping the story, which came out after the SIC managed to get their banking records from TD-Ameritrade.
Everyone saw something, everyone said something- to the police, to the FBI, to the school administrators- and nobody did anything. They just let it happen.
So where would you like to place blame? The police didn't have anything to go on because it apparently wasn't reported to them. The school suspended, then expelled him. But that could also have been a trigger for it. Let's not forget that the school was in an upper-class area, so you should think on that one a little bit too. He however wasn't in the same social/financial standing. The FBI didn't do any followup apparently, possibly because the regulations internally didn't allow for it. The person he was staying with, who kicked him out after his parents died didn't do anything on the other hand. Seems to be a case of overlapping bystander effects doesn't it?
Of course you can't forget that he was also on SSRI's apparently, which seems to be an overlapping theme in many of these cases too.
One can read prior case law and see the precedents are already there. The only real question, if you've read it and can see the violations is "why isn't the government acting on it?"
Huh? The only group shrieking about politicizing a tragedy after a shooting is the gun lobby and their buddies on the right.
What western media outlets have you been watching/reading? It's been wall-to-wall coverage on every media outlet trying to politicize it. Vox, mic, nyt, wapo, usatoday, cnn, nbc, cbs, pbs, fox, etc were all the fuck over it. The first groups to jump up and down and screech were democrats demanding gun restrictions. The first groups to tell them to shut the hell up and the bodies weren't even cold were conservatives - not republicans.
They also train their police and various other people who are in sensitive areas with kinesics. There are tells when a person is going to be violent, agitated, and so on. Police in Canada get a crash course in it, which has helped lower police shootings across the board for example. But in the US, using kinesics to "single out individuals" is considered racist or some other bullshit. Which is why democrats fought so damned hard against TSA agents having it as a requirement to be hired.
You do know that Germany had censorship like that *prior* to the rise of the Nazi's right? And it was the censorship, hate speech laws and blocking of their speech that helped them gain a foothold in the first place.
It's like you want to recreate the past, and refuse to learn anything.
Since the advent of the modern military, can you think of a single instance where armed civilians freed themselves from tyranny using their firearms?
Ireland? How about the cases when the USSR fell and people formed militias to fight back against new communist governments trying to setup? Of course, sometimes they also "free themselves" into tyranny. See the fall of Rhodesia, and the rise of Zimbabwe. You can also see it in South Africa, prior to the end of apartheid, and now you can see the fast-rush of people trying to defend against the new anti-white apartheid.
Better read those 'indepth' facts before trying to push anything, you misread it. On top of that, you fail to understand that the people teaching 'social justice rhetoric' has long since moved out of women's studies and so on. You can find it being pushed in even STEM courses. You remember that professor at yale that was driven out of his job by the little socjus kids over him telling them to grow the fuck up on halloween costumes? Yeah...bet you didn't remember until I reminded you.
Chrome is the only default browser available. Android holds a monopoly position in the mobile OS market. Google also holds a large section of the advertising market.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that's not name calling. It's an accurate descriptor of people who aggressively push "social justice" causes, and was in fact a term used in social justice circles to show how progressive they were. It didn't become the opposite until those people pushed so hard that it was effecting and affecting people in negative ways. It's a very well done and self-earned title.
Or you could turn around and stop being perpetually offended because someone said something you didn't like. And in turn, stop trying to force your rules on everyone else because you were offended by an off-colour joke, that everyone else but you found funny.
By that measure, a poor man sitting outside a comic convention in a makeshift costume with a cardboard sword and paper cup for alms is committing assault.
Except that by that statement, if they're 'sitting outside' they're not assaulting. If they however act in a manner to get those alms that's threatening per case law, that is assault.
No, apart from that gaffe, the above is not specific, it's deliberately vague, like "directly or indirectly". ....
Except it's not vague, you've already answered your own question. This is where a persons knowledge of law fails because they see something and think "oh boy it's vague because that's what it says." That's not the case. Case law, and the criminal code per definitions clearly define what is "direct assault" and "indirect assault" in both of those cases. That's why there's an entire section of definitions, and in the annotated criminal code for example, explicitly spells out with case law what is direct or indirect assault.
Modern feminism acts in a way that's not egalitarian. If you're pushing for "more women in tech" and give massive handouts, and promote people without merit? You're not egalitarian. Feminists aren't lining up to get more miners, or women into trades. They are however fighting to demonize men in female dominated work spaces. The "males are pedophiles" if they want to teach k-6 is a good example of this though the 90's. They're sure not working to deal with specific male issues in family courts, sentencing disparities. They'll actively fight against it claiming that men aren't punished enough. It's not egalitarian to argue for the abolition of prisons for women and using the argument that it's because women are fragile. They've fought to shut down shelters for men, and using the claim that it would "take money away from women" as an argument.
Feminists will line up and screech #metoo, then circle the wagons if a darling feminist has engaged in the exact or worse behavior then what they're accusing a man of. If a male is abused by a female, whether it be harassment, sexual assault, or rape. Many will argue that he's just lucky for all that attention. Say that the 14yr old male teenager was "lucky" to have been having sex with that 30yr old female teacher. But turn around and screech that the 14yr old female teenager was raped/didn't know what she was doing/was being abused/etc by that 30yr old male teacher.
Well, by the text of the Code of Conduct, most SJWs will be immediately banned.
Well that's the funny thing isn't it. You'd think so, but it doesn't happen. It's kinda like the whole #metoo thing, except if you're not male and happen to be engaging in the same behavior. Those rules don't apply. Suddenly, the benefit of the doubt applies. You don't get railroaded out. There's no giant mass-media stories about it, even though you're in a position of power.
It's impossible to create any practical rule governing human behaviour that enumerates every specific bad action. Just look at the law of any country, none of them are very specific.
Really? Can you explain how this law isn't specific(keeping in mind that this is a law used on a regular basis). Remember that in law, you don't have to fulfill each subsection. But you do have to fulfill the specific section for it to apply.
Assault
265 (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
Laws in most western countries are very specific. On top of that, countries who use common law the laws get progressively more specific as time goes on. It can actually become so specific with common law, that the existing law has to be refined because the original scope is no longer correct in the eyes of higher appeals courts.
Remember all those people who said the people speaking out against this were crazy that this type of creep was happening? Said it wouldn't happen, that it was only for the "greater good" and so on? Yeah, well buck the fuck up because this type of creep is happening all over the place in the tech world. And it almost always starts with people who have no actual programming/technical ability, who then worm their way into positions of power.
For FreeBSD, this will pretty much drive people out and kill it. It's no different then the people who pushed this crap in Overwatch(game) and people have been fleeing in droves because Blizzard has stated that they'll be looking through your social media to find out if you've been bad.
But that was not steele's actions to shop that.
Well we don't know for sure on that one, there's indications that he did shop it to some media. But considering just how hard FusionGPS is digging in their heels and trying to refuse to answer anything, it might be a couple of more years before we find out just what the fuck is going on. As it stands now it all reeks of corruption.
Mental illness does. Firearms make the problem worse, but in Canada we see mass-stabbings. So does the UK, so does Australia. The UK and AUS have very restrictive gun rights. Switzerland on the otherhand has lax gunlaws compared to the rest of Europe. But also has a strong mental health system.
So, you're saying that depression is a major cause of shootings? Maybe we should try treating it more, then, instead of cheaping out and only providing meds.
It's already well known in psychology that people who are on a rebound are more likely to commit suicide after they start climbing out of the pit. That's because they don't want to re-enter that depressive pit again.
What I'm saying is SSRI's have several problems. One of which is being used in cases where it shouldn't be used. Improper dosing is another. On top of that there's no shortage of lawsuits and settled suits where people who were taking SSRI's simply 'snapped' and went on a killing spree either. As well, if you want to try "treating it" then you have to start bringing back mental health facilities, that the left and courts across the west basically killed off fully by the 1980's. Instead of the revolving door system we have now, where police are generally the first line of response to someone wigging the fuck out.
You do realize that you're agreeing with him, and reinforcing his point, right?
Re-read what I wrote in context, you're only half-right.
Also, Rhodesia never existed outside of the fantasies of a bunch of fragile whites who knew they couldn't compete against other folks, so had to try and set up an ethnostate to preserve their fragility. Nobody recognizes it anymore.
You should tell that to Ian Smith then, who over those 10 years managed to make the country into something which was fully destroyed by the ZANU, and is now yet another landlocked country which is an effective 3rd world shithole that once produced so much raw food that it fed Africa and part of Europe.
IRA among the various splinter branches for one thing. Former USSR states? Kazakhstan, Lithuania(limited) both had factional fighting between the military, public, and governments trying to force in a new communist government. I think Warsaw did, but again limited. The transitional phase from the collapse of the USSR wasn't smooth despite what they try to push in western history classes.
Um, so far this year we're running something like an average of two school mass shootings a week. If we had to wait two weeks before a school shooting to say anything about it, we'd never get a chance.
No, you've had two. That's it, one involving 4 people. The other yesterday.
What the pro-gun types need to do is come up with something halfway reasonable to do about the shootings, and push it. What people are seeing is children being murdered in schools, and pro-gun people being afraid for their guns rather than trying to help. The NRA could earn a lot of good karma right now by pushing for restrictions that would cut down on mass shootings.
Sure, but you're not going to like it. Because we're now going to bring back the mental health hospitals that the left started destroying and fully destroyed by the 1980's. We're also going to revoke the rights of individuals to refuse medication, this is where most of the problem stems from. The complete destruction of mental health care in the west. In Canada we have stabbings, the US it's guns. UK stabbings. Aus stabbings. And so on, it all falls into the same category as to why these people snap in a particular direction.
Sure they didn't. That's why they were talking with the Trump campaign and trying to get him to drop the Maginitsky act after being elected, and why Trump isn't enforcing the sanctions. I'm suuuure that Clinton would have acted exactly the same.
That sure explains why the Obama administration gave explicit permission for that lawyer to enter the US without going through the usual channels huh?
Fusion GPS directly shopped it to the media, that one has already come out of the declassified info from when they were directly investigated by the SIC. They also paid particular reporters money after shopping the story, which came out after the SIC managed to get their banking records from TD-Ameritrade.
Everyone saw something, everyone said something- to the police, to the FBI, to the school administrators- and nobody did anything. They just let it happen.
So where would you like to place blame? The police didn't have anything to go on because it apparently wasn't reported to them. The school suspended, then expelled him. But that could also have been a trigger for it. Let's not forget that the school was in an upper-class area, so you should think on that one a little bit too. He however wasn't in the same social/financial standing. The FBI didn't do any followup apparently, possibly because the regulations internally didn't allow for it. The person he was staying with, who kicked him out after his parents died didn't do anything on the other hand. Seems to be a case of overlapping bystander effects doesn't it?
Of course you can't forget that he was also on SSRI's apparently, which seems to be an overlapping theme in many of these cases too.
One can read prior case law and see the precedents are already there. The only real question, if you've read it and can see the violations is "why isn't the government acting on it?"
Huh? The only group shrieking about politicizing a tragedy after a shooting is the gun lobby and their buddies on the right.
What western media outlets have you been watching/reading? It's been wall-to-wall coverage on every media outlet trying to politicize it. Vox, mic, nyt, wapo, usatoday, cnn, nbc, cbs, pbs, fox, etc were all the fuck over it. The first groups to jump up and down and screech were democrats demanding gun restrictions. The first groups to tell them to shut the hell up and the bodies weren't even cold were conservatives - not republicans.
They also train their police and various other people who are in sensitive areas with kinesics. There are tells when a person is going to be violent, agitated, and so on. Police in Canada get a crash course in it, which has helped lower police shootings across the board for example. But in the US, using kinesics to "single out individuals" is considered racist or some other bullshit. Which is why democrats fought so damned hard against TSA agents having it as a requirement to be hired.
You do know that Germany had censorship like that *prior* to the rise of the Nazi's right? And it was the censorship, hate speech laws and blocking of their speech that helped them gain a foothold in the first place.
It's like you want to recreate the past, and refuse to learn anything.
Since the advent of the modern military, can you think of a single instance where armed civilians freed themselves from tyranny using their firearms?
Ireland? How about the cases when the USSR fell and people formed militias to fight back against new communist governments trying to setup? Of course, sometimes they also "free themselves" into tyranny. See the fall of Rhodesia, and the rise of Zimbabwe. You can also see it in South Africa, prior to the end of apartheid, and now you can see the fast-rush of people trying to defend against the new anti-white apartheid.
Just study some damn history once and awhile.
Have you learned anything yet? Why do you think 4chan keeps trolling the media like this.
Better read those 'indepth' facts before trying to push anything, you misread it. On top of that, you fail to understand that the people teaching 'social justice rhetoric' has long since moved out of women's studies and so on. You can find it being pushed in even STEM courses. You remember that professor at yale that was driven out of his job by the little socjus kids over him telling them to grow the fuck up on halloween costumes? Yeah...bet you didn't remember until I reminded you.
Chrome is the only default browser available. Android holds a monopoly position in the mobile OS market. Google also holds a large section of the advertising market.