For example, people with white skin run at most a third of the countries on the planet and maybe 10% of the businesses. They don't have the highest educational outcomes in the countries in which they're the majority. They're legally discriminated against in multiple countries.
Ah okay, you don't understand what privilege is in this context.
Think of it this way. If you are being lynched it's probably of little comfort to know that others of your $group on the other side of the world are doing rather well for themselves.
I'm not saying it's irrelevant, I'm saying it's not evidence of what you claim. In the context it was written it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means, and in court I'm sure that will be argued.
See, the law has this concept of a reasonable person, precisely to stop people making far fetched interpretations.
Oh I see, I didn't realize you meant the idea it's not okay to be white is mainstream is untrue. It was just a troll cooked up by 4chan, and most people recognized it as such. I didn't realize you were taking it seriously.
In any case, the opposition to it is because it's a racist troll designed to be diminish efforts to tackle actual racism. They don't think there is anything wrong with being white, they think there is a problem with racist trolls and the useful idiots who get used by them.
Soros seems to be the new default conspiracy now that Clinton has faded. Used to be that everything was the Clintons secretly orchestrating things, now it's always Soros.
In a majority of cases, the minors were not taken from mothers, but dubious/unverified family members
Citation very much needed.
Even if it were true, dubious/unverified by whom? Sounds very much like categorising anyone caught up in a drone strike as an enemy combatant because they happened to be near a bad guy.
I just checked those pages again. None of it contradicts what the CEO said. He said in his statement that they are tolerant of ideas as long as expressing them doesn't cause a Code of Conduct issue. Also, those emails are from individual employees and don't represent Google corporate policy.
I really can't wait for this lawsuit. The arguments are going to be fascinating. Doubtless this will come up and I expect these emails will be dismissed fairly quickly because no reasonable person would expect tolerance to extend to open intolerance of other employees.
It can be hard to follow threads on Slashdot... Anyway, I question the premise. People absolutely are complaining back lack of diversity in China, for example. Right now the front page of BBC News has a story about the oppression of Muslims in China. Last time I looked it was the top story.
You seem to be confused about what the White Privilege Conference is about. It's nothing to do with white people being inherently worse than anyone else, it's about understanding the ways in which history and current social structures benefit them in ways that non-white people aren't.
There is no blame, no racism, just an attempt to understand the world as it exists.
It's a well established form of protest. Most protest is some kind of denial of service attack, be it temporarily blocking a road as you march down it or peacefully sitting in an area. Other examples include paying fines in pennies and deliberately spoiling ballot papers.
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
They do care, that's why it doesn't make sense to you.
What they want is a system that manages immigration. A system that is humane and gives migrants a path to citizenship that rewards being a productive member of American society. They see that when immigrants are given the opportunity they are often hard working and valuable, and being economic benefits.
Of course there are some people with ill intent, but the same is true of society in general and it doesn't justify treating everybody badly.
And of course at the same time they want efforts to be made to improve the situations in the countries that migrants are coming from. Rather than trying to make them pay for a wall, help them fix their problems and build up their economies.
You may not agree with any of that, but if you can at least understand that they aren't saying just let everyone with no controls or intervention then it would be a better, less polarized discussion. They are actually not that far from you on that point.
It will start the next Soy Boy panic, Paul Joseph Watson will have to defend selling Brain Force Plus in plastic bottles, Reddit will be full of endless threads about the plastic content of anything you might conceivably ever put in your mouth.
Sure but it's not the iPhone that is good about fast charging, it's the chargers.
iPhones use a proprietary protocol to detect how much power the charger can deliver. Most of the USB charge regulator chips on the market support it, because it's very popular. Even the cheapest ones will support iPhone fast charging, if nothing else.
Some Android phones do actually measure how much current the charger can deliver and adjust automatically. In fact most of the mid to high end ones do. But not iPhones, they rely on the charger telling them.
Except they didn't, you are still getting security updates and updates to Google service apps to this day.
It's also worth noting that this was a $299 phone with decent hardware in 2012, which was rare. Considering you paid 1/3rd the price of an iPhone/Galaxy S you could afford to upgrade it twice (so total of 6 years of primary OS update support, plus hardware upgrades) compared to the competition.
You have a choice, either get OS updates for 5+ years but they make your phone slow and unusable, or stop after a couple of years but remain protected, or buy a cheaper phone every few years, or install a custom ROM...
At some point you have to take a stand against the government doing things you don't agree with, or you become like IBM supporting the Nazis. IBM equipment was used to conduct censuses and round up people to be sent to concentration camps and be murdered. If the Nazis had not had access to that technology their operation would not have been so efficient, and their victims fewer in number. It's as black and white as that.
Doubtless IBM didn't know or suspect that was going to happen, but we can learn from their mistake. We can recognize when organizations are exhibiting behaviour that should worry us.
As for your Obama quote, you are right that it could almost have come from Trump's mouth. The difference is that when either president speaks in those general terms people put them in the context of their actual policies. For Obama that would be things like the amnesty and trying to address the problems at source, for Trump the focus would be on building a wall and harshly enforcing laws.
I'm gonna add Stallman's Kind Communications guidelines to my sig. You clearly need reminding of basic stuff like only addressing things people actually say, not things you imagine they would say.
Interesting. So how about regulations on the use of the phone network? It's privately owned by heavily regulated, e.g. universal service requirements and the Do Not Call list. That would seem to be more relevant to regulating platforms like Facebook.
I see Mashiki's sock puppets have mod points again, but how the hell does this add up?
30% Informative 20% Troll 20% Insightful
Starting score 1, excellent karma, and it's now at +1 Insightful. Surely it should be at least +2. The mysteries of the Slashdot moderation system I guess.
That's because victim culture isn't part of their ethos.
It's because their history is different. As an example of that, Chinese Americans were not considered "coloured" for the purposes of having to sit at the back of the bus. Their kids could go to white only schools. So they were not being oppressed in the same way or as recently as black people.
On the other hand, we have had films with black leads and majority black casts for a while now, and quite a few big ones lately. Yet Crazy Rich Asians was seen as something of a milestone, a major film with a majority Asian cast and Asian leads. So while economically and socially Asian Americans tend to be in a better position than African Americans, in some ways they are actually doing a little less well.
For example there are various pride organizations for every ethnicity, sans white. Why can't we have a white scholarship?
Imagine you saw a homeless guy on the street, and a bloke in a Porsche rolled up beside him. You dug into your pocket and gave your loose change to the guy in the Porsche. People might think you were a bit of an arsehole.
Obviously that's exaggerated but if you are helping out underprivileged white kids somewhere I don't think anyone will mind.
On the other hand I don't think the idea that it's not okay to be white is in any way common or visible in popular culture etc. so it would be kind of odd to have a white pride parade. In fact people would probably assume you were some kind of white supremacist, since they are the only ones who do that kind of thing. That's just how it is.
If you think there is a problem you can work to do something about it, but gay people didn't go right from illegal to gay pride overnight either so maybe come up with a plan first.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, people with white skin run at most a third of the countries on the planet and maybe 10% of the businesses. They don't have the highest educational outcomes in the countries in which they're the majority. They're legally discriminated against in multiple countries.
Ah okay, you don't understand what privilege is in this context.
Think of it this way. If you are being lynched it's probably of little comfort to know that others of your $group on the other side of the world are doing rather well for themselves.
I'm not saying it's irrelevant, I'm saying it's not evidence of what you claim. In the context it was written it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means, and in court I'm sure that will be argued.
See, the law has this concept of a reasonable person, precisely to stop people making far fetched interpretations.
Oh I see, I didn't realize you meant the idea it's not okay to be white is mainstream is untrue. It was just a troll cooked up by 4chan, and most people recognized it as such. I didn't realize you were taking it seriously.
In any case, the opposition to it is because it's a racist troll designed to be diminish efforts to tackle actual racism. They don't think there is anything wrong with being white, they think there is a problem with racist trolls and the useful idiots who get used by them.
Soros seems to be the new default conspiracy now that Clinton has faded. Used to be that everything was the Clintons secretly orchestrating things, now it's always Soros.
In a majority of cases, the minors were not taken from mothers, but dubious/unverified family members
Citation very much needed.
Even if it were true, dubious/unverified by whom? Sounds very much like categorising anyone caught up in a drone strike as an enemy combatant because they happened to be near a bad guy.
I just checked those pages again. None of it contradicts what the CEO said. He said in his statement that they are tolerant of ideas as long as expressing them doesn't cause a Code of Conduct issue. Also, those emails are from individual employees and don't represent Google corporate policy.
I really can't wait for this lawsuit. The arguments are going to be fascinating. Doubtless this will come up and I expect these emails will be dismissed fairly quickly because no reasonable person would expect tolerance to extend to open intolerance of other employees.
It can be hard to follow threads on Slashdot... Anyway, I question the premise. People absolutely are complaining back lack of diversity in China, for example. Right now the front page of BBC News has a story about the oppression of Muslims in China. Last time I looked it was the top story.
You seem to be confused about what the White Privilege Conference is about. It's nothing to do with white people being inherently worse than anyone else, it's about understanding the ways in which history and current social structures benefit them in ways that non-white people aren't.
There is no blame, no racism, just an attempt to understand the world as it exists.
It's a well established form of protest. Most protest is some kind of denial of service attack, be it temporarily blocking a road as you march down it or peacefully sitting in an area. Other examples include paying fines in pennies and deliberately spoiling ballot papers.
The correct term is "protest calls".
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
They do care, that's why it doesn't make sense to you.
What they want is a system that manages immigration. A system that is humane and gives migrants a path to citizenship that rewards being a productive member of American society. They see that when immigrants are given the opportunity they are often hard working and valuable, and being economic benefits.
Of course there are some people with ill intent, but the same is true of society in general and it doesn't justify treating everybody badly.
And of course at the same time they want efforts to be made to improve the situations in the countries that migrants are coming from. Rather than trying to make them pay for a wall, help them fix their problems and build up their economies.
You may not agree with any of that, but if you can at least understand that they aren't saying just let everyone with no controls or intervention then it would be a better, less polarized discussion. They are actually not that far from you on that point.
Oh god, don't say that!
It will start the next Soy Boy panic, Paul Joseph Watson will have to defend selling Brain Force Plus in plastic bottles, Reddit will be full of endless threads about the plastic content of anything you might conceivably ever put in your mouth.
Sure but it's not the iPhone that is good about fast charging, it's the chargers.
iPhones use a proprietary protocol to detect how much power the charger can deliver. Most of the USB charge regulator chips on the market support it, because it's very popular. Even the cheapest ones will support iPhone fast charging, if nothing else.
Some Android phones do actually measure how much current the charger can deliver and adjust automatically. In fact most of the mid to high end ones do. But not iPhones, they rely on the charger telling them.
Except they didn't, you are still getting security updates and updates to Google service apps to this day.
It's also worth noting that this was a $299 phone with decent hardware in 2012, which was rare. Considering you paid 1/3rd the price of an iPhone/Galaxy S you could afford to upgrade it twice (so total of 6 years of primary OS update support, plus hardware upgrades) compared to the competition.
You have a choice, either get OS updates for 5+ years but they make your phone slow and unusable, or stop after a couple of years but remain protected, or buy a cheaper phone every few years, or install a custom ROM...
At some point you have to take a stand against the government doing things you don't agree with, or you become like IBM supporting the Nazis. IBM equipment was used to conduct censuses and round up people to be sent to concentration camps and be murdered. If the Nazis had not had access to that technology their operation would not have been so efficient, and their victims fewer in number. It's as black and white as that.
Doubtless IBM didn't know or suspect that was going to happen, but we can learn from their mistake. We can recognize when organizations are exhibiting behaviour that should worry us.
As for your Obama quote, you are right that it could almost have come from Trump's mouth. The difference is that when either president speaks in those general terms people put them in the context of their actual policies. For Obama that would be things like the amnesty and trying to address the problems at source, for Trump the focus would be on building a wall and harshly enforcing laws.
Also, the use of the term "pro-queer" is offensive.
I've noticed that you are quite easily offended about pretty much everything. Maybe lighten up a bit?
I'm gonna add Stallman's Kind Communications guidelines to my sig. You clearly need reminding of basic stuff like only addressing things people actually say, not things you imagine they would say.
Interesting. So how about regulations on the use of the phone network? It's privately owned by heavily regulated, e.g. universal service requirements and the Do Not Call list. That would seem to be more relevant to regulating platforms like Facebook.
So say you had a Jewish Privilege Conference... What kind of issues would you discuss?
What was the justification used for laws regulating speech on radio and TV? Clearly they found some way around the 1st Amendment rule.
You don't have to earn it, but you can certainly lose it.
I try to follow them. Maybe I don't always manage it... The arguments here are pretty energetic, but I try.
I see Mashiki's sock puppets have mod points again, but how the hell does this add up?
30% Informative
20% Troll
20% Insightful
Starting score 1, excellent karma, and it's now at +1 Insightful. Surely it should be at least +2. The mysteries of the Slashdot moderation system I guess.
That's because victim culture isn't part of their ethos.
It's because their history is different. As an example of that, Chinese Americans were not considered "coloured" for the purposes of having to sit at the back of the bus. Their kids could go to white only schools. So they were not being oppressed in the same way or as recently as black people.
On the other hand, we have had films with black leads and majority black casts for a while now, and quite a few big ones lately. Yet Crazy Rich Asians was seen as something of a milestone, a major film with a majority Asian cast and Asian leads. So while economically and socially Asian Americans tend to be in a better position than African Americans, in some ways they are actually doing a little less well.
For example there are various pride organizations for every ethnicity, sans white. Why can't we have a white scholarship?
Imagine you saw a homeless guy on the street, and a bloke in a Porsche rolled up beside him. You dug into your pocket and gave your loose change to the guy in the Porsche. People might think you were a bit of an arsehole.
Obviously that's exaggerated but if you are helping out underprivileged white kids somewhere I don't think anyone will mind.
On the other hand I don't think the idea that it's not okay to be white is in any way common or visible in popular culture etc. so it would be kind of odd to have a white pride parade. In fact people would probably assume you were some kind of white supremacist, since they are the only ones who do that kind of thing. That's just how it is.
If you think there is a problem you can work to do something about it, but gay people didn't go right from illegal to gay pride overnight either so maybe come up with a plan first.
You mean Dr. Maggie Aderin-Pocock? Fairly sure being able to read is a prerequisite for getting a PhD.