Then why do allies of the United States spy on the United States? We've caught them at it on occasion and even have some of their spies in our prisons.
Here is what I'll offer on the whole spying thing.
I think the US should put an "agreement not to spy on each other" document out there that binds all signing nations not to spy on each other. And sets out heavy consequences in the form of trade sanctions etc if they violate the terms. The trade sanctions would have to be imposed by all signing powers in the event that any member of the group was found to violate the rules.
I'd then sign it and anyone else that wants to sign it as well is free to do so.
The thing is that all these powers pretending to be holier then thou spy all the time. Possibly they're less effective at it but being less competent doesn't mean you're more ethical.
Foreign powers hand over their intelligence because that is the price of US intelligence which is highly desired by all allied powers. US intel is extensive. But it is a pay to play system. You want intel? You have to give intel.
And even then... there are rules.
The concept is valid and I don't have a problem with it.
The issue is that the data being collected is often something the intelligence services shouldn't have. Intel on you and me for one thing. The dragnet intel gathering is not acceptable. If they stop doing that then I am generally fine with the NSA playing spy vs spy with whomever.
I'm all for the leaks when it concerns stuff the NSA does against civilians. But against foreign governments? The point of the NSA is to do that sort of thing. And anyone that thinks these other governments aren't doing the same thing back are kidding themselves. The US is just walking around with their fly down until they get Snowden home. And he can be brought back at any time for the low low price of just pardoning him. Do that, admit fault, have a national/international discussion about it, and then as part of that he stops.
The point of the Koran comment again was to counter something the previous poster said.
They said that if you take efforts to avoid a troll that troll wins.
I pointed out that we avoid real life versions of trolls all the time. If you make a cartoon they don't like, islamic extremists will try to kill you. That is just a fact. If I made an unflattering cartoon about Jesus, I would not be risking my life. I could also burn a bible on international television and why many people might think it was in poor taste... I probably wouldn't have my throat slit. The same can't be said if I did that to a koran.
We modify our behavior even though we disagree with them because we don't want to draw the attention of crazy people.
To that end, when you're on the internet you try to avoid people that are crazy.
Where did I strawman you? I made an accusation of what you are doing. I did not misrepresent your position.
If you notion of strawmanning is anyone that views your position unflatteringly then it is almost impossible to not strawman someone. That said, you've effectively strawmanned the very concept of strawmanning which is as invalid as strawmanning itself. You appear to be strawmanning the english language now by arbitrarily redefining words as convenient.
I'm not a troll. I made a comment on the issue in good faith and you said you disagreed but refused to say why specifically.
I asked for evidence and you said I should use google when all I wanted you to do was to clearly explain your position.
Eventually, you posted some totally useless links to very long winded sources and provided no pointers as to what you wanted me to look at within them. I woudl have been very happy to read PORTIONS of those sources if you cited them. But you seem to be saying that if I dont' read your sources in their entirity that I am unworthy of intellectual regard.
You sir are in fact the troll. As much is obvious to anyone with a clue. As to our relative value as human beings, it would be very sad indeed if our moment of judgement as people were determined entirely by a stupid thread on slashdot. That you think that is a valid judgment of a person's whole life really just goes to the core of your own moral shallowness.
Calm down, little man. Your petty opinions on this board are as nothing to the rest of your life. I hope that outside of this you're a better person and I wish that hopefully better person a good life. As to the troll that you have animated this board... this persona you're displaying here... Lets hope that gets retired. It is without utility.
I'll just use that random data set to justify everything then.
If that argument I just made doesn't make sense it is because your counter to my argument made no sense.
That is how different the two things we're talking about are right now.
So thank you for your response, but you're not talking about what I'm talking about and I'm not going to talk about what you want me to talk about. I was talking about something that I cared about as relates to this topic. And your attempt to strawman my argument while not unexpected isn't going to do anything.
I know what I said and what I was talking about. Attempting to change my argument to something else only makes your own counter argument sound incoherent.
I was being quite clear but if we're just going to play word games then game on. Fine. We'll just do that. I won't even attempt to make a point if that's all you're going to do. Instead, like you, I'll go out of my way to confuse things just for the lolz.
Then the US lost WW2 because the Imperial Japanese forced the US to defend itself.
The irrationality in this thread is frankly pretty funny.
The orwellian logic of "To defend yourself is to be defeated" is just goofy.
For one thing, I tend to have fun with the trolls. They're so despirate to get a reaction that you can bait them and get them to do stupid things. Which makes it easier to laugh at them. They can be quite entertaining at times.
Regardless, holding my line is no more a waste of my time then arguing with you.
Do I lose simply arguing something? Is the best policy to just avoid all conflict and go through life lacking the ability to even defend my position if I wanted to because I've never had to do it before?
Fighting the trolls made me wiser and made me stronger... on the internet. And I found it to be interesting at times. I treated it like science... what will this do.
As to non-profits representing voting interests, that isn't any more true then with a company.
A lobbying group can be funded in some cases mostly by a very small number of very rich people. Or the entity could be running on an endowment from many years ago. Take the Getty Foundation which was set up by J Paul Getty. It is one of the richest art advocacy organizations in the world and basically no one donates to it. It operates as a company and the one person that really gave it a lot of money has been dead for decades.
So no.
If you changed the way that non-profits worked such that they could not receive more then 10 or 50 dollars per person then it would be closer to what you're talking about. But they don't work that way. And you'd also be acknowledging in the process that money is speech.
As your final comment, insulting me and strawmanning me do not strengthen your argument. That just makes you look desperate and unethical.
Wrong, the trolls want SPECIFIC behavior changes. Not any behavior change. If you decide to eat tacos instead of roast beef, it doesn't mean they win just because their behavior caused you to change something you were doing.
They want to control you. And control means making you do what they want you to do.
Things trolls want:
1. You leave and never come back. 2. You go inactive for long periods of time. 3. You lose your temper and start raging at them. 4. You call for help.
These are the sorts of things trolls want. If you do none of these things then the trolls won't feel the troll was successful.
Things trolls do not want to happen
1. Making the troll look like a fool. 2. Laughing at the troll. 3. Being funnier then the troll. 4. Finding their troll to be boring/uninteresting/unremarkable.
Savvy? That is how you deal with trolls. Now you know.
Bots? What are we even talking about? Another bullshit statistical study?
Bro, unless you know the methodology on those they're utterly untrustworthy. Not just on this issue but on ANY issue. You can't just take those things as gospel. A fair number of them are just made up.
I'll go a step further... lets your stats, which I don't regard as credible, were reversed. Lets say men in your study received 25 times the harassment. Would you suggest men need to be protected from harassment then?
Obviously not. This whole thing is female infantilization. You're trying to protect the poor helpless adult women on the internet.
They don't need our protection.
I've been on a lot of forums in a lot of communities on the internet. Women are rarely harassed. In fact, they tend to be protected more then not. The only thing they tend to suffer from is lots of people asking for their picture. That is a constant question. But aside from that... they're treated with more respect in most cases then men.
Anyone that has been on a forum has seen this and is familiar with it.
Now do some women get harassed? Sure... But they tend to come into a thread, say "I'm a girl"... write in a giggly fashion and then not actually contribute anything to the thread. Which gets the tried and true ToGTFO response. I've seen girls give that response to other girls that do that.
Everything is contextual. But the internet in general is not a hostile place for women... no more so then for men in any case.
Your argument is still forfeit. You know those citations are laughable in this context.
I asked for a specific example and you cited a paper and some 20 page memorandium.
From this I cannot get your point. I cannot understand what your argument is... you have no specific example.
It would be like if I responded to your point by dropping an encyclopedia in front of you and then saying my argument was in there somewhere.
Get real.
Either have the courage to make your argument without evasion or concede.
I'm almost certain this is a sad rhetorical technique. You know your argument is weak and you know that if examined you might not be able to carry the argument. So rather then engage and let the chips fall where they may... you are determined to keep the matter so vague that I can't nail you down.
Fine... you fail to make a clear argument then. And citing these two links doesn't make your argument clearer. I don't even need links from you. I want you to explain what you mean specifically with specific examples. I am very happy to look it up on google or whatever myself after you have done that. But you must be clear or I have no confidence that you even have a point.
Hands are tied here unless you are going to make a clear argument.
If you concern is associations giving money to politicians then don't focus on corporations. That makes about as much sense as if I said "unions shouldn't be allowed to give money to politicians" but then didn't say anything about corporations or other associations.
if your idea is getting money out of politics, I think you'll find a lot of people that will agree with you.
There are problems with this idea though.
1. What if they don't give money to the politician but instead just say things in the media that effect the campaign?
2. What if the whole point of the association is to effect public policy? Are associations forbidden from petitioning the government?... I could go on... there are problems with your idea.
I've done that as well. When I said ignore them, I didn't mean don't respond at all. I meant rather that you don't show when they effect you. Rather, you send the impression that YOU are playing with them. That they came to troll you and instead you will troll them instead.
No, you haven't disagreed. You've ignored my argument. Ignoring what someone says and then carrying on with your rant doesn't constitute a disagreement.
If you want to disagree, you must first deal with my point.
Just because I make a point you don't like doesn't mean you can bypass it. I made it clear that accounting for differences in what men and women ACTUALLY do in the work place... they are paid the same.
Your argument is that that is unfair because women have different stresses and responsibilities in their lives that require them to work fewer years or fewer hours or spend more time at home.
That is fine. However, that is a world of difference from saying women are paid less then men for the same work. If you worked fewer years and fewer hours you did not do the same work.
You don't like it that some companies don't offer paternity leave? Fine. Not my argument.
You're not arguing against my point and never have. And because of that, I'm going to have to take your whole point as forfeit.
That I responded to you even this much was a courtesy. I suspect it won't be respected... so be it.
Respond to my point about the koran. Go back, read it again, and do not dismiss it. Understand the point I was making. If you just refuse to read things because I said something you didn't expect then you're denying me the ability to form my own argument. You're saying what I can and cannot say in the argument. My point was relevant to this discussion.
Failing to give specific examples makes it impossible for you to back up your point. Sadly this means the discussion ends with you failing to clarify your point.
Next time you want to discuss something like this with another person that might have ANY idea different from your own... you might consider that being clear is an important part of communication.
As to laziness. It isn't my responsibility to make YOUR argument for you. I run the risk of straw-manning you by accident if I try to do that. So I ask you to define your own argument. This not only gives you control over your own argument it also reduces the likelihood that I'll misunderstand or misrepresent your position.
Anyway... since I doubt you're going to reverse course and give specific examples... I guess we're done.
True, however we're talking about changing the way things work. And it is no great stretch to put the DA in a separate branch or to create a special prosecutor that only investigates police and is in a separate chain of command.
Even the police understand how to deal with trolls. You can see here, when the police respond to a swatting call... they encourage people to keep it secret. It happens more then you'd think.
But it is kept under wraps because that just feeds the trolls. They get what they want. They get what they did on the news. They get you admitting that they got you.
You don't give them that. The trolls are the enemy. And when an enemy wants something... you deny it. Women often don't have this mentality. They are trained throughout most of their lives to call for help. The rape whistles they're handed in some college campuses simply continue this training. They don't hand men rape whistles even though men suffer more victimization in society then women do. Most murders are against men. Most burglaries are against men. Most assaults are against men. And yet no one hands men a whistles for any of that.
Why is that? Why do we hand women rape whistles when fewer of them are raped then men that are assaulted? Think about that.
It is genetic. Men are expendable and women are not. Women are to be protected and men must protect themselves.
That is fine in the physical world. On the internet though? Be adults, ladies. You have every ability to be tough as any guy on the internet. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why do allies of the United States spy on the United States? We've caught them at it on occasion and even have some of their spies in our prisons.
Here is what I'll offer on the whole spying thing.
I think the US should put an "agreement not to spy on each other" document out there that binds all signing nations not to spy on each other. And sets out heavy consequences in the form of trade sanctions etc if they violate the terms. The trade sanctions would have to be imposed by all signing powers in the event that any member of the group was found to violate the rules.
I'd then sign it and anyone else that wants to sign it as well is free to do so.
The thing is that all these powers pretending to be holier then thou spy all the time. Possibly they're less effective at it but being less competent doesn't mean you're more ethical.
Foreign powers hand over their intelligence because that is the price of US intelligence which is highly desired by all allied powers. US intel is extensive. But it is a pay to play system. You want intel? You have to give intel.
And even then... there are rules.
The concept is valid and I don't have a problem with it.
The issue is that the data being collected is often something the intelligence services shouldn't have. Intel on you and me for one thing. The dragnet intel gathering is not acceptable. If they stop doing that then I am generally fine with the NSA playing spy vs spy with whomever.
Exactly. He needs to keep his leaks to what the NSA does wrong... not what they do right.
... so he'll not feel inspired to keep leaking.
I'm all for the leaks when it concerns stuff the NSA does against civilians. But against foreign governments? The point of the NSA is to do that sort of thing. And anyone that thinks these other governments aren't doing the same thing back are kidding themselves. The US is just walking around with their fly down until they get Snowden home. And he can be brought back at any time for the low low price of just pardoning him. Do that, admit fault, have a national/international discussion about it, and then as part of that he stops.
The point of the Koran comment again was to counter something the previous poster said.
They said that if you take efforts to avoid a troll that troll wins.
I pointed out that we avoid real life versions of trolls all the time. If you make a cartoon they don't like, islamic extremists will try to kill you. That is just a fact. If I made an unflattering cartoon about Jesus, I would not be risking my life. I could also burn a bible on international television and why many people might think it was in poor taste... I probably wouldn't have my throat slit. The same can't be said if I did that to a koran.
We modify our behavior even though we disagree with them because we don't want to draw the attention of crazy people.
To that end, when you're on the internet you try to avoid people that are crazy.
Where did I strawman you? I made an accusation of what you are doing. I did not misrepresent your position.
If you notion of strawmanning is anyone that views your position unflatteringly then it is almost impossible to not strawman someone. That said, you've effectively strawmanned the very concept of strawmanning which is as invalid as strawmanning itself. You appear to be strawmanning the english language now by arbitrarily redefining words as convenient.
Precisely.
I'm not a troll. I made a comment on the issue in good faith and you said you disagreed but refused to say why specifically.
I asked for evidence and you said I should use google when all I wanted you to do was to clearly explain your position.
Eventually, you posted some totally useless links to very long winded sources and provided no pointers as to what you wanted me to look at within them. I woudl have been very happy to read PORTIONS of those sources if you cited them. But you seem to be saying that if I dont' read your sources in their entirity that I am unworthy of intellectual regard.
You sir are in fact the troll. As much is obvious to anyone with a clue. As to our relative value as human beings, it would be very sad indeed if our moment of judgement as people were determined entirely by a stupid thread on slashdot. That you think that is a valid judgment of a person's whole life really just goes to the core of your own moral shallowness.
Calm down, little man. Your petty opinions on this board are as nothing to the rest of your life. I hope that outside of this you're a better person and I wish that hopefully better person a good life. As to the troll that you have animated this board... this persona you're displaying here... Lets hope that gets retired. It is without utility.
I'll just use that random data set to justify everything then.
If that argument I just made doesn't make sense it is because your counter to my argument made no sense.
That is how different the two things we're talking about are right now.
So thank you for your response, but you're not talking about what I'm talking about and I'm not going to talk about what you want me to talk about. I was talking about something that I cared about as relates to this topic. And your attempt to strawman my argument while not unexpected isn't going to do anything.
I know what I said and what I was talking about. Attempting to change my argument to something else only makes your own counter argument sound incoherent.
I was being quite clear but if we're just going to play word games then game on. Fine. We'll just do that. I won't even attempt to make a point if that's all you're going to do. Instead, like you, I'll go out of my way to confuse things just for the lolz.
Happy? I am.
Then the US lost WW2 because the Imperial Japanese forced the US to defend itself.
The irrationality in this thread is frankly pretty funny.
The orwellian logic of "To defend yourself is to be defeated" is just goofy.
For one thing, I tend to have fun with the trolls. They're so despirate to get a reaction that you can bait them and get them to do stupid things. Which makes it easier to laugh at them. They can be quite entertaining at times.
Regardless, holding my line is no more a waste of my time then arguing with you.
Do I lose simply arguing something? Is the best policy to just avoid all conflict and go through life lacking the ability to even defend my position if I wanted to because I've never had to do it before?
Fighting the trolls made me wiser and made me stronger... on the internet. And I found it to be interesting at times. I treated it like science... what will this do.
As to non-profits representing voting interests, that isn't any more true then with a company.
A lobbying group can be funded in some cases mostly by a very small number of very rich people. Or the entity could be running on an endowment from many years ago. Take the Getty Foundation which was set up by J Paul Getty. It is one of the richest art advocacy organizations in the world and basically no one donates to it. It operates as a company and the one person that really gave it a lot of money has been dead for decades.
So no.
If you changed the way that non-profits worked such that they could not receive more then 10 or 50 dollars per person then it would be closer to what you're talking about. But they don't work that way. And you'd also be acknowledging in the process that money is speech.
As your final comment, insulting me and strawmanning me do not strengthen your argument. That just makes you look desperate and unethical.
I'm not getting in a word game with you.
When I say meaningful, I refer to whether that data automatically tells you something of significance.
If you want to use the word "useful"... we can see if your use of it is the same as mine. But I've a very low tolerance for semantics games.
Wrong, the trolls want SPECIFIC behavior changes. Not any behavior change. If you decide to eat tacos instead of roast beef, it doesn't mean they win just because their behavior caused you to change something you were doing.
They want to control you. And control means making you do what they want you to do.
Things trolls want:
1. You leave and never come back.
2. You go inactive for long periods of time.
3. You lose your temper and start raging at them.
4. You call for help.
These are the sorts of things trolls want. If you do none of these things then the trolls won't feel the troll was successful.
Things trolls do not want to happen
1. Making the troll look like a fool.
2. Laughing at the troll.
3. Being funnier then the troll.
4. Finding their troll to be boring/uninteresting/unremarkable.
Savvy? That is how you deal with trolls. Now you know.
Bots? What are we even talking about? Another bullshit statistical study?
Bro, unless you know the methodology on those they're utterly untrustworthy. Not just on this issue but on ANY issue. You can't just take those things as gospel. A fair number of them are just made up.
I'll go a step further... lets your stats, which I don't regard as credible, were reversed. Lets say men in your study received 25 times the harassment. Would you suggest men need to be protected from harassment then?
Obviously not. This whole thing is female infantilization. You're trying to protect the poor helpless adult women on the internet.
They don't need our protection.
I've been on a lot of forums in a lot of communities on the internet. Women are rarely harassed. In fact, they tend to be protected more then not. The only thing they tend to suffer from is lots of people asking for their picture. That is a constant question. But aside from that... they're treated with more respect in most cases then men.
Anyone that has been on a forum has seen this and is familiar with it.
Now do some women get harassed? Sure... But they tend to come into a thread, say "I'm a girl"... write in a giggly fashion and then not actually contribute anything to the thread. Which gets the tried and true ToGTFO response. I've seen girls give that response to other girls that do that.
Everything is contextual. But the internet in general is not a hostile place for women... no more so then for men in any case.
Your argument is still forfeit. You know those citations are laughable in this context.
I asked for a specific example and you cited a paper and some 20 page memorandium.
From this I cannot get your point. I cannot understand what your argument is... you have no specific example.
It would be like if I responded to your point by dropping an encyclopedia in front of you and then saying my argument was in there somewhere.
Get real.
Either have the courage to make your argument without evasion or concede.
I'm almost certain this is a sad rhetorical technique. You know your argument is weak and you know that if examined you might not be able to carry the argument. So rather then engage and let the chips fall where they may... you are determined to keep the matter so vague that I can't nail you down.
Fine... you fail to make a clear argument then. And citing these two links doesn't make your argument clearer. I don't even need links from you. I want you to explain what you mean specifically with specific examples. I am very happy to look it up on google or whatever myself after you have done that. But you must be clear or I have no confidence that you even have a point.
Hands are tied here unless you are going to make a clear argument.
Here is the story for you:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
I thought everyone had heard of this already.
As to the IRS not destroying evidence... *rollseyes* whatever, bro.
If you concern is associations giving money to politicians then don't focus on corporations. That makes about as much sense as if I said "unions shouldn't be allowed to give money to politicians" but then didn't say anything about corporations or other associations.
if your idea is getting money out of politics, I think you'll find a lot of people that will agree with you.
There are problems with this idea though.
1. What if they don't give money to the politician but instead just say things in the media that effect the campaign?
2. What if the whole point of the association is to effect public policy? Are associations forbidden from petitioning the government? ... I could go on... there are problems with your idea.
So you deny what the troll wants by giving the troll what they want?
Uhmmm no. No patience for this nonsense... just no.
Next.
I've done that as well. When I said ignore them, I didn't mean don't respond at all. I meant rather that you don't show when they effect you. Rather, you send the impression that YOU are playing with them. That they came to troll you and instead you will troll them instead.
They don't like that. And they tend to go away.
there are women that have streams... can't really hide your gender once you start talking.
That said, why does that make you inferior? Why is a woman on the internet weaker then a man?
I don't think she is weaker. Men deal with these problems. Women need to be adults about this and deal with it as well.
No, you haven't disagreed. You've ignored my argument. Ignoring what someone says and then carrying on with your rant doesn't constitute a disagreement.
If you want to disagree, you must first deal with my point.
Just because I make a point you don't like doesn't mean you can bypass it. I made it clear that accounting for differences in what men and women ACTUALLY do in the work place... they are paid the same.
Your argument is that that is unfair because women have different stresses and responsibilities in their lives that require them to work fewer years or fewer hours or spend more time at home.
That is fine. However, that is a world of difference from saying women are paid less then men for the same work. If you worked fewer years and fewer hours you did not do the same work.
You don't like it that some companies don't offer paternity leave? Fine. Not my argument.
You're not arguing against my point and never have. And because of that, I'm going to have to take your whole point as forfeit.
That I responded to you even this much was a courtesy. I suspect it won't be respected... so be it.
Respond to my point about the koran. Go back, read it again, and do not dismiss it. Understand the point I was making. If you just refuse to read things because I said something you didn't expect then you're denying me the ability to form my own argument. You're saying what I can and cannot say in the argument. My point was relevant to this discussion.
Failing to give specific examples makes it impossible for you to back up your point. Sadly this means the discussion ends with you failing to clarify your point.
Next time you want to discuss something like this with another person that might have ANY idea different from your own... you might consider that being clear is an important part of communication.
As to laziness. It isn't my responsibility to make YOUR argument for you. I run the risk of straw-manning you by accident if I try to do that. So I ask you to define your own argument. This not only gives you control over your own argument it also reduces the likelihood that I'll misunderstand or misrepresent your position.
Anyway... since I doubt you're going to reverse course and give specific examples... I guess we're done.
Cya.
True, however we're talking about changing the way things work. And it is no great stretch to put the DA in a separate branch or to create a special prosecutor that only investigates police and is in a separate chain of command.
another point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Even the police understand how to deal with trolls. You can see here, when the police respond to a swatting call... they encourage people to keep it secret. It happens more then you'd think.
But it is kept under wraps because that just feeds the trolls. They get what they want. They get what they did on the news. They get you admitting that they got you.
You don't give them that. The trolls are the enemy. And when an enemy wants something... you deny it. Women often don't have this mentality. They are trained throughout most of their lives to call for help. The rape whistles they're handed in some college campuses simply continue this training. They don't hand men rape whistles even though men suffer more victimization in society then women do. Most murders are against men. Most burglaries are against men. Most assaults are against men. And yet no one hands men a whistles for any of that.
Why is that? Why do we hand women rape whistles when fewer of them are raped then men that are assaulted? Think about that.
It is genetic. Men are expendable and women are not. Women are to be protected and men must protect themselves.
That is fine in the physical world. On the internet though? Be adults, ladies. You have every ability to be tough as any guy on the internet. End of story.