i don't think you can abdicate your moral responsibility unless you are completely unaware and have no power to change anything. like that whole dolphin tuna thing. when you're made aware of something that you find morally objectionable done by yada yadda that you purchase yadda yadda from, you instantly have the moral responsibility to find an alternative.
it's personal belief or whatnot, i'm atheist, so your only responsibility is to your own conscience.:)
i wouldn't empathize with the gazelle. and i don't with the lion. I feel disgust that people would celebrate it, not necessarily that someone died. That it was such a gratuitous way of doing it. that's just me. That they're reveling in it by boasting about it horrifies me.
Death happens, sometimes it's necessary, i'm not a saint, nor a pacifist. But i will never be ok with glorifying an execution.... calling it a natural act is a pretty skewed viewpoint by the way.
i'm not outraged by it. i'm disgusted, i'm horrified, i'm sad. i'm sad that i'm not outraged and what that means.
i have not seen it, i will not see it. i read a description and it sounds horrific. it's even more disturbing that they were taking a poll to determine how to execute someone.
this is not justice, this is not vengeance. this is revelling in your power, feeling nothing for the pain of others, and juvenile all at once.
this feels like finding a child that likes to torture cats, but on the scale of a state. disturbing, terrifying, horrific and wrong.
... and obviously because your position is correct, the producers of fox news should be arrested for collaborating with terrorists, maybe even treason. Because they are literally working for the enemy, and everybody knows that that means exactly what you say it means.
and how you literally set the pilot on fire, because you chip into a market which serves as a source of substantial funding for ISIS through your gas purchases. and they used that money to purchase equipment, fuel, to capture and kill the pilot.
nope, i'm very cognizant of the fact that it's a private corporation. It's profit driven and can impose any speech restrictions it wants. I do however think that twitter can't really do anything about a dedicated troll that won't also decrease their accessibility significantly. In light of the fact that i don't think they can do anything about it, in an economical fashion at least, these will be the only way to deal with trolls for the foreseeable future.
if your employment involves social media to the degree that you can't stop using it, then learn to hack it. i have no sympathy for those that subsist on public attention but cannot handle the darker aspects associated with it.
think of them as mini journalists, think of them as mini radio announcers, think of them as mini-anchors. all of which get, got and will continue to receive hatemail. this is little different. Those that can't deal with the criticism and negative attention will find new employment. Those that don't do it for employment, can simply start a new account, it is simply a luxury to them.
it's unenforceable, the only solution i can think of is for them to get better at ignoring abuse reports to your accounts. or privacy settings... but that kinda defeats the purpose.
no, but children are legally mandated to receive an education. kids who can't get vaccinated, their parents could decide that a camping trip might be safer than one to a theme park, and they're free to make that decision. they can take measures, not so much with schooling. educating a kid is a full time job... you know what teachers do.
that this amazes anyone... what is this new thing we're seeing on this internet thing? people being dicks to one another when completely anonymous? wtf? why has no one told me of this before?
free speech on twitter is a right because the alternative is unenforceable without tamping down on the very features that draw people to it.
and when you can say anything at all you want to anybody else, people are going to be dicks.
people need to grow a thicker skin
also, don't particularly like the biased slant of the article, singling out gamergate?
that stuff that sarkeesan documents, it's pretty vile, but i don't really think it's any less vile than the normal trash you see on an unmoderated forum... also, a bunch of that abuse was just calling her a terrible person, with expletives... which, you know can be construed as a legitimate complaint, if a bit crass.
true enough, but for some reason society has agreed collectively that a signed document... with you know, some other things, is also legally binding. yay for that i guess.
when you can't use the argument that, hey, my password doesn't mean anything... then we'll see using a confession as a password be a valid scenario.
isn't a confession typically a signed document or a recorded verbal admission of guilt? regardless of what it says a password is just a collection of letters and numbers and symbols.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, moderating the hell out of those uppitty dissidents. who are they to call for... you know rights.
i don't think you can abdicate your moral responsibility unless you are completely unaware and have no power to change anything. like that whole dolphin tuna thing. when you're made aware of something that you find morally objectionable done by yada yadda that you purchase yadda yadda from, you instantly have the moral responsibility to find an alternative.
it's personal belief or whatnot, i'm atheist, so your only responsibility is to your own conscience. :)
i wouldn't empathize with the gazelle. and i don't with the lion. I feel disgust that people would celebrate it, not necessarily that someone died. That it was such a gratuitous way of doing it. that's just me. That they're reveling in it by boasting about it horrifies me.
Death happens, sometimes it's necessary, i'm not a saint, nor a pacifist. But i will never be ok with glorifying an execution. ... calling it a natural act is a pretty skewed viewpoint by the way.
i'm not outraged by it.
i'm disgusted, i'm horrified, i'm sad. i'm sad that i'm not outraged and what that means.
:), nice.
use any plastic products? utilities of any kind? you grow your own food too?
fossil fuel usage is pervasive. none of our hands are truly clean, unless you're basically amish. even then, maybe not.
i have not seen it, i will not see it. i read a description and it sounds horrific. it's even more disturbing that they were taking a poll to determine how to execute someone.
this is not justice, this is not vengeance. this is revelling in your power, feeling nothing for the pain of others, and juvenile all at once.
this feels like finding a child that likes to torture cats, but on the scale of a state. disturbing, terrifying, horrific and wrong.
... and obviously because your position is correct, the producers of fox news should be arrested for collaborating with terrorists, maybe even treason. Because they are literally working for the enemy, and everybody knows that that means exactly what you say it means.
and how you literally set the pilot on fire, because you chip into a market which serves as a source of substantial funding for ISIS through your gas purchases. and they used that money to purchase equipment, fuel, to capture and kill the pilot.
you murderer you.
i'm just going to say, i have absolutely no twitter presence, so no dog in the fight.
i'm going to watch with a great deal of amusement at the solution that twitter comes up with to block trolls.
this should be good.
i don't think they can solve the problem outright, so the only option is for people affected to stop using, or switch accounts.
you know what else you could call silencing abuse?
censorship. and that's why you can't really silence trolls without silencing critics, and dissidents etc. etc.
call the police. like she did.
in any case, we'll see how credible the threats against her were. i doubt they're any moreso than like, 99 percent of what happens on the internet.
nope, i'm very cognizant of the fact that it's a private corporation. It's profit driven and can impose any speech restrictions it wants. I do however think that twitter can't really do anything about a dedicated troll that won't also decrease their accessibility significantly. In light of the fact that i don't think they can do anything about it, in an economical fashion at least, these will be the only way to deal with trolls for the foreseeable future.
then stop using it.
if your employment involves social media to the degree that you can't stop using it, then learn to hack it. i have no sympathy for those that subsist on public attention but cannot handle the darker aspects associated with it.
think of them as mini journalists, think of them as mini radio announcers, think of them as mini-anchors. all of which get, got and will continue to receive hatemail. this is little different. Those that can't deal with the criticism and negative attention will find new employment. Those that don't do it for employment, can simply start a new account, it is simply a luxury to them.
they are not owed these things.
i can imagine that disagreeing with someone with a lot of followers could get you downvoted into oblivion at that point.
it's unenforceable, the only solution i can think of is for them to get better at ignoring abuse reports to your accounts. or privacy settings... but that kinda defeats the purpose.
meh, perhaps the wrong word to describe what it is, but you get my idea. it's basically a behavior that cannot be regulated properly. "being a dick"
while i disagree with the tone of emphasis of the parent, i don't disagree with the sentiment. that's horrific.
no, but children are legally mandated to receive an education. kids who can't get vaccinated, their parents could decide that a camping trip might be safer than one to a theme park, and they're free to make that decision. they can take measures, not so much with schooling. educating a kid is a full time job... you know what teachers do.
trolls will be trolls. don't like, don't use, and block.
that this amazes anyone... what is this new thing we're seeing on this internet thing? people being dicks to one another when completely anonymous? wtf? why has no one told me of this before?
free speech on twitter is a right because the alternative is unenforceable without tamping down on the very features that draw people to it.
and when you can say anything at all you want to anybody else, people are going to be dicks.
people need to grow a thicker skin
also, don't particularly like the biased slant of the article, singling out gamergate?
that stuff that sarkeesan documents, it's pretty vile, but i don't really think it's any less vile than the normal trash you see on an unmoderated forum... also, a bunch of that abuse was just calling her a terrible person, with expletives... which, you know can be construed as a legitimate complaint, if a bit crass.
true enough, but for some reason society has agreed collectively that a signed document... with you know, some other things, is also legally binding. yay for that i guess.
when you can't use the argument that, hey, my password doesn't mean anything... then we'll see using a confession as a password be a valid scenario.
isn't a confession typically a signed document or a recorded verbal admission of guilt? regardless of what it says a password is just a collection of letters and numbers and symbols.
... for like a month of work? that's pretty lucrative.
you know what i have to say about that?
hats off to you.
i think to be a game... it needs to have a win condition no matter how implausible. i don't think greece qualifies.