The "political spectrum" is a consequence of U.S. politics. Because they use voting systems that favour a two-party state, there's little use for the political compass in the U.S. Everything is ultimately for or against one of the two parties.
And this is surprising how? Not specifically that it's Sony that's not playing ball, but that the company in the dominant position isn't willing to help out the underdogs. If Microsoft was in Sony's position they would be behaving exactly the same way.
That's just not true... We know from history that Microsoft would way, way worse.
It's worse than that. Back when I "cut the cord" they were popping up commercials at the bottom of the screen while you were trying to watch a show. And they wanted me to pay $12,000 a decade or more for that? That was the final straw for me.
Good lord. I never actually thought about it that way until I read that. I was paying enough to buy an extra (cheap) car every decade.
I don't know about your library, but it takes an insane amount of time to check anything useful out from mine, and if they have a popular show the wait for it is months.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say your library just isn't that great. I'm not the OP, but my library runs through the entire city, with multiple branches and will generally have copies of anything that I want to borrow available in at least one of the many branches. I can then request that copy and have it at my branch within 2 days of the request being made, assuming that it's not already available in my local branch when I request it.
I found that once I "cut the cord" that I didn't really care that much about most of the shows on TV. Occasionally I hear about a show and I think "that would be a cool show to watch", but then I usually forget about it. You see no cable means I don't see many commercials and commercials for TV shows are especially rare. So either the shows eventually come out on Netflix or DVD and then I may watch them, if I'm still interested. Sometimes they don't, probably because they were cancelled after fewer than 11 episodes. In any case, it's not exactly "settling", it's without the constant advertisements, there's nothing to make me care about TV shows that I don't even know exist.
People are not spending money on shit entertainment because of the government, surely?
It's Rockoon. Everything is always and only the fault of the government. Although, I should note that occasionally he also blames everyone who isn't a libertarian...
Then BBC will do the same, and AMC, and CBS, and pretty soon you've got 6 or 7 streaming services with narrow offerings, shaky infrastructure and buggy apps. And they'll all stuff their channel with thousands of hours of meaningless low-budget crap to complement their 3 good shows.
And then they'll go bankrupt, or they'll kill off the streaming service. Following those disastrous forays into streaming content, either they or the new owners will license their content to one or more of the surviving streaming services. It's already happening..
Eventually the streaming market will reach a new equilibrium, with a small handful of players because people don't like overchoice or over paying.
What sins? Supposedly they changed the subtitle on a story after Antifa asked them nicely to change it. The horror! Of coure, CNN says they changed it because they didn't want people to confuse Antifa with the Charlottesville jackass who drove a car through a crowd of protesters. Oh the shame!
Can you right-wing crybabies get any more pathetic?
Punctuating your opinion with ad hominem attacks will certainly get others to understand your point.
Those aren't "ad hominem attacks", they're insults and they're not the same thing. For example an ad hominem goes like this "Nothing you say is correct because you're an illiterate moron", however, "You're an illiterate moron because nothing you say is correct" is not an ad hominem, it's just insulting. The crucial part of an "ad hominem" is dismissing the argument because of who the person making the argument is. Insulting someone while you are making an argument is rude but not fallacious.
For the record, I tend to agree with your point that punctuating your arguments with insults rarely does anything to convince people who are inclined to disagree with you.
What? Are you unable to read usernames? They're right there under the subject line. One says PopeRatzo and the other says drinkypoo, that's usually a hint that they aren't the same person and might have independent thoughts.
The article is completely and totally academic, with a position and supporting argument, written by a psychology professor!
Ha! I started reading it, but stopped before I finished because it was clearly not academic, it was obviously political, and entirely one-sided, and consequently a waste of my time. You may not notice the loaded language and biased assumptions because they match your pre-existing views but they are still there...
Do you want competent "jerk" aspies or incompetent nice people?
Neither, I'd have to fire people who fall into either group. The first disrupt other people so they don't get their work done, and the second group disrupts other people so they don't get their work done. In both cases, I'll keep the other people and remove the trouble makers.
So if I'm a Christian baker, and known as such by most of my clients and my neighbors and friends, I cannot "fire" a customer who's lifestyle I don't agree with, and find insullting?
Nope. The fact that you have a problem with gay people isn't an insult to you, now matter how much you whine about it. It's just like you're not allowed to claim that someone's skin colour insults you, either. I realize that you think it's some kind of monumental burden to actually treat people like they're people regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation, but all you're doing is making a jack ass of yourself.
That if I feel it becomes known I made a wedding cake for a gay wedding it may damage the reputation of my company and myself, personally?
In this case, the law would actually protect you. Since you are legally required to sell wedding cakes to people regardless of whether they are gay or straight, your reputation can not be damaged by providing your regular services as required by law. Of course, I don't expect you to actually appreciate the fact these laws also protect bakers who do make cakes for gay weddings from pushy, bigoted, jackasses like you.
Cloudflare should not discriminate based on the content of the speech. This is a fairly basic principle.
And they didn't, Cloudflare terminated a customer who made libellous accusations against the company. Stormfront claimed that Cloudflare was secretly run by Nazis and the fact that Cloudflare hadn't terminated Stormfront's account was proof that is was true. Stormfront brought on themselves, not just because they're racist assholes but because they had to accuse everyone who tolerates them of also being secret racist assholes. Stormfront really didn't leave Cloudflare any choice but to terminate their service to refute the allegations.
The point was that if the government's not running the infrastructure there is no legal requirement to respect freedom of speech (in the United States) because the laws covering Freedom of Speech only restrict what the government can do (again, in the United States).
This is exactly right. However, infrastructure business have a responsibility to uphold free speech. They have shown extremely poor judgement by caving to pressure to suppress.
They didn't cave. Stormfront pissed them off by claiming that Cloudflare was a White Supremacist organization and claimed that the fact that Stormfront's service wasn't terminated was all the evidence you needed to know it was true... It turns out that was not the wisest thing for them to post on their web site. Now everyone has justification for terminating their services, because Stormfront says anybody who doesn't terminate their services is a racist asshole.
It's actually linked from the article in the summary, Stormfront used Cloudflare's refusal to punt them from the service as evidence that Cloudflare was run by White Supremacists, so the CEO personally terminated their account for damaging the reputation of Cloudflare.
You are labouring and arguing under a misconception, the CEO of Cloudflare hates the Stormfront guys but he was willing to let them continue using the service until they personally insulted him and started touting Cloudflare's refusal to terminate their service as evidence that Cloudflare was a White Supremacist company. You are not only totally allowed to fire customers who insult you and damage the reputation of your company, you are ethically and morally required to do so.
Cloudflare was bullied by SJWs to censor Daily Stormer.
Look, the bully who drove the Daily Stormer off of Cloudflare is the Daily Stormer. They called the CEO a Neo-nazi and claimed he was "one-of-them". In response he said "Fuck no and fuck you assholes" and kicked them off his service.
This is incredible. Their CEO admits he knew he was wrong, but he kicked them off anyway, and double pinky swear he won't do it again.
What a clusterfuck.
Typical lies of the alt-right bubble-brains.
According to the interview with Matthew Prince (Cloudflare CEO), he felt that he had to boot the Daily Stormer from Cloudflare because the Daily Stormer started claiming that Cloudlfare was run by Neo-nazis, and used Cloudflare's refusal to boot them as evidence to support their claims. So they got booted because they made disparaging claims about Cloudflare and personally insulted Matthew Prince, the CEO, by claiming he was one of them.
What's the problem? You don't like examples of places where this is no government?
Was the US like Somalia in the 1790s? Were Madison and Jefferson anarchists?
Are you claiming that the U.S. had no functioning government in the 1790s? Is it your position that therefore Congress didn't exist and couldn't have passed a series of laws that came to be known as the Alien and Sedition Acts and therefore they didn't arrest and imprison people accused of sedition including a Congressman and newspaper editors?
You can have rule of law; courts a government empowered to do some things (but not all things at whim) and not have anarchy.
Sure you can, and next time you should lead with that. Skip the petulant child act and say forthrightly what you believe.
Somalia has no rule of law; no agreed upon Constitution. You need to get out more: read the US Constitution; the Federalist Papers; the Anti-Federalist Papers; de tocqueville and others. A constitutionally limited government is not anarchy.
Certainly true, but not actually germane to the discussion yet.
Keep battling that straw man brother it makes you stronger.
You ought to know, right? By the way that wasn't actually a strawman because you had yet to put forth an actual argument.
the "justification" for moving jobs overseas has nothing to do with it being "better" for *US* or the 'economy' as a whole than a wage increase.. it had everything to do with just being *cheaper*, period. companies are evil. they're greedy as fuck. they will choose the cheaper option 999 times of 1000 without any other considerations.
Actually companies are inherently amoral, not evil. For example, most companies wouldn't direct their employees to go out of their way to harm innocent bystanders. Companies generally exist for one purpose, to create profits for the owner(s). Companies can be good if the owner(s) or the customers wish it to, and they can be evil because the owner(s) wish it and the customers can't stop it (for example, in monopoly or oligopoly situations). Most of the time they are neither explicitly evil nor explicitly good, most of the time they're simply doing what their employees think will make them the most money.
automation is coming, *regardless* of what the minimum wage is. because for many, many jobs, it is *cheaper* than people doing the same thing.. even at the lowest possible wages in the u.s. the companies don't give a shit about lost jobs if they can do or make more with less money, their bean counters are happy.
Ah the old, I'm comparing you to Nazis so I WIN argument.
Sound SJW logic at it's finest.
Hello, moron. He's talking about the actual Neo-nazis in Charlottesville. Take a look at the some of the pictures, the KKK and Neo-nazis were there in force and costume. One of the guys is even wearing the hood and white robe while posing with his buddies. If someone calls themself a Nazi, adores Hitler, and advocates for the eradication of the Jewish people, I think it should be pretty uncontroversial to call them a Nazi.
Slashdot Mirror
The "political spectrum" is a consequence of U.S. politics. Because they use voting systems that favour a two-party state, there's little use for the political compass in the U.S. Everything is ultimately for or against one of the two parties.
And this is surprising how? Not specifically that it's Sony that's not playing ball, but that the company in the dominant position isn't willing to help out the underdogs. If Microsoft was in Sony's position they would be behaving exactly the same way.
That's just not true... We know from history that Microsoft would way, way worse.
Sports don't make it to DVD. Nor does audiovisually presented left- or right-wing political commentary.
I'm sorry, are you implying that is a good thing or a bad thing? Because I could see it going either way...
Also, most of the political commentary worth viewing ends up on Youtube...
It's worse than that. Back when I "cut the cord" they were popping up commercials at the bottom of the screen while you were trying to watch a show. And they wanted me to pay $12,000 a decade or more for that? That was the final straw for me.
Good lord. I never actually thought about it that way until I read that. I was paying enough to buy an extra (cheap) car every decade.
I don't know about your library, but it takes an insane amount of time to check anything useful out from mine, and if they have a popular show the wait for it is months.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say your library just isn't that great. I'm not the OP, but my library runs through the entire city, with multiple branches and will generally have copies of anything that I want to borrow available in at least one of the many branches. I can then request that copy and have it at my branch within 2 days of the request being made, assuming that it's not already available in my local branch when I request it.
I found that once I "cut the cord" that I didn't really care that much about most of the shows on TV. Occasionally I hear about a show and I think "that would be a cool show to watch", but then I usually forget about it. You see no cable means I don't see many commercials and commercials for TV shows are especially rare. So either the shows eventually come out on Netflix or DVD and then I may watch them, if I'm still interested. Sometimes they don't, probably because they were cancelled after fewer than 11 episodes. In any case, it's not exactly "settling", it's without the constant advertisements, there's nothing to make me care about TV shows that I don't even know exist.
People are not spending money on shit entertainment because of the government, surely?
It's Rockoon. Everything is always and only the fault of the government. Although, I should note that occasionally he also blames everyone who isn't a libertarian...
Then BBC will do the same, and AMC, and CBS, and pretty soon you've got 6 or 7 streaming services with narrow offerings, shaky infrastructure and buggy apps. And they'll all stuff their channel with thousands of hours of meaningless low-budget crap to complement their 3 good shows.
And then they'll go bankrupt, or they'll kill off the streaming service. Following those disastrous forays into streaming content, either they or the new owners will license their content to one or more of the surviving streaming services. It's already happening..
Eventually the streaming market will reach a new equilibrium, with a small handful of players because people don't like overchoice or over paying.
What sins? Supposedly they changed the subtitle on a story after Antifa asked them nicely to change it. The horror! Of coure, CNN says they changed it because they didn't want people to confuse Antifa with the Charlottesville jackass who drove a car through a crowd of protesters. Oh the shame!
Can you right-wing crybabies get any more pathetic?
Punctuating your opinion with ad hominem attacks will certainly get others to understand your point.
Those aren't "ad hominem attacks", they're insults and they're not the same thing. For example an ad hominem goes like this "Nothing you say is correct because you're an illiterate moron", however, "You're an illiterate moron because nothing you say is correct" is not an ad hominem, it's just insulting. The crucial part of an "ad hominem" is dismissing the argument because of who the person making the argument is. Insulting someone while you are making an argument is rude but not fallacious.
For the record, I tend to agree with your point that punctuating your arguments with insults rarely does anything to convince people who are inclined to disagree with you.
What? Are you unable to read usernames? They're right there under the subject line. One says PopeRatzo and the other says drinkypoo, that's usually a hint that they aren't the same person and might have independent thoughts.
It's not really surprising that all of those links go to right-wing alternate news sources that seem to try to make a big deal about nothing.
The article is completely and totally academic, with a position and supporting argument, written by a psychology professor!
Ha! I started reading it, but stopped before I finished because it was clearly not academic, it was obviously political, and entirely one-sided, and consequently a waste of my time. You may not notice the loaded language and biased assumptions because they match your pre-existing views but they are still there...
Do you want competent "jerk" aspies or incompetent nice people?
Neither, I'd have to fire people who fall into either group. The first disrupt other people so they don't get their work done, and the second group disrupts other people so they don't get their work done. In both cases, I'll keep the other people and remove the trouble makers.
So if I'm a Christian baker, and known as such by most of my clients and my neighbors and friends, I cannot "fire" a customer who's lifestyle I don't agree with, and find insullting?
Nope. The fact that you have a problem with gay people isn't an insult to you, now matter how much you whine about it. It's just like you're not allowed to claim that someone's skin colour insults you, either. I realize that you think it's some kind of monumental burden to actually treat people like they're people regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation, but all you're doing is making a jack ass of yourself.
That if I feel it becomes known I made a wedding cake for a gay wedding it may damage the reputation of my company and myself, personally?
In this case, the law would actually protect you. Since you are legally required to sell wedding cakes to people regardless of whether they are gay or straight, your reputation can not be damaged by providing your regular services as required by law. Of course, I don't expect you to actually appreciate the fact these laws also protect bakers who do make cakes for gay weddings from pushy, bigoted, jackasses like you.
Cloudflare should not discriminate based on the content of the speech. This is a fairly basic principle.
And they didn't, Cloudflare terminated a customer who made libellous accusations against the company. Stormfront claimed that Cloudflare was secretly run by Nazis and the fact that Cloudflare hadn't terminated Stormfront's account was proof that is was true. Stormfront brought on themselves, not just because they're racist assholes but because they had to accuse everyone who tolerates them of also being secret racist assholes. Stormfront really didn't leave Cloudflare any choice but to terminate their service to refute the allegations.
The point was that if the government's not running the infrastructure there is no legal requirement to respect freedom of speech (in the United States) because the laws covering Freedom of Speech only restrict what the government can do (again, in the United States).
This is exactly right. However, infrastructure business have a responsibility to uphold free speech. They have shown extremely poor judgement by caving to pressure to suppress.
They didn't cave. Stormfront pissed them off by claiming that Cloudflare was a White Supremacist organization and claimed that the fact that Stormfront's service wasn't terminated was all the evidence you needed to know it was true... It turns out that was not the wisest thing for them to post on their web site. Now everyone has justification for terminating their services, because Stormfront says anybody who doesn't terminate their services is a racist asshole.
Has Cloudflare released a statement on this?
It's actually linked from the article in the summary, Stormfront used Cloudflare's refusal to punt them from the service as evidence that Cloudflare was run by White Supremacists, so the CEO personally terminated their account for damaging the reputation of Cloudflare.
You are labouring and arguing under a misconception, the CEO of Cloudflare hates the Stormfront guys but he was willing to let them continue using the service until they personally insulted him and started touting Cloudflare's refusal to terminate their service as evidence that Cloudflare was a White Supremacist company. You are not only totally allowed to fire customers who insult you and damage the reputation of your company, you are ethically and morally required to do so.
Cloudflare was bullied by SJWs to censor Daily Stormer.
Look, the bully who drove the Daily Stormer off of Cloudflare is the Daily Stormer. They called the CEO a Neo-nazi and claimed he was "one-of-them". In response he said "Fuck no and fuck you assholes" and kicked them off his service.
This is incredible. Their CEO admits he knew he was wrong, but he kicked them off anyway, and double pinky swear he won't do it again.
What a clusterfuck.
Typical lies of the alt-right bubble-brains.
According to the interview with Matthew Prince (Cloudflare CEO), he felt that he had to boot the Daily Stormer from Cloudflare because the Daily Stormer started claiming that Cloudlfare was run by Neo-nazis, and used Cloudflare's refusal to boot them as evidence to support their claims. So they got booted because they made disparaging claims about Cloudflare and personally insulted Matthew Prince, the CEO, by claiming he was one of them.
Oh really. That tripe again?
What's the problem? You don't like examples of places where this is no government?
Was the US like Somalia in the 1790s? Were Madison and Jefferson anarchists?
Are you claiming that the U.S. had no functioning government in the 1790s? Is it your position that therefore Congress didn't exist and couldn't have passed a series of laws that came to be known as the Alien and Sedition Acts and therefore they didn't arrest and imprison people accused of sedition including a Congressman and newspaper editors?
You can have rule of law; courts a government empowered to do some things (but not all things at whim) and not have anarchy.
Sure you can, and next time you should lead with that. Skip the petulant child act and say forthrightly what you believe.
Somalia has no rule of law; no agreed upon Constitution. You need to get out more: read the US Constitution; the Federalist Papers; the Anti-Federalist Papers; de tocqueville and others. A constitutionally limited government is not anarchy.
Certainly true, but not actually germane to the discussion yet.
Keep battling that straw man brother it makes you stronger.
You ought to know, right? By the way that wasn't actually a strawman because you had yet to put forth an actual argument.
the "justification" for moving jobs overseas has nothing to do with it being "better" for *US* or the 'economy' as a whole than a wage increase.. it had everything to do with just being *cheaper*, period. companies are evil. they're greedy as fuck. they will choose the cheaper option 999 times of 1000 without any other considerations.
Actually companies are inherently amoral, not evil. For example, most companies wouldn't direct their employees to go out of their way to harm innocent bystanders. Companies generally exist for one purpose, to create profits for the owner(s). Companies can be good if the owner(s) or the customers wish it to, and they can be evil because the owner(s) wish it and the customers can't stop it (for example, in monopoly or oligopoly situations). Most of the time they are neither explicitly evil nor explicitly good, most of the time they're simply doing what their employees think will make them the most money.
automation is coming, *regardless* of what the minimum wage is. because for many, many jobs, it is *cheaper* than people doing the same thing.. even at the lowest possible wages in the u.s. the companies don't give a shit about lost jobs if they can do or make more with less money, their bean counters are happy.
Quite true.
Ah the old, I'm comparing you to Nazis so I WIN argument.
Sound SJW logic at it's finest.
Hello, moron. He's talking about the actual Neo-nazis in Charlottesville. Take a look at the some of the pictures, the KKK and Neo-nazis were there in force and costume. One of the guys is even wearing the hood and white robe while posing with his buddies. If someone calls themself a Nazi, adores Hitler, and advocates for the eradication of the Jewish people, I think it should be pretty uncontroversial to call them a Nazi.