the whitewashing of history is the whitewashing of history. i don't get to judge what is intolerant or oppressive until I know what people are saying. It doesn't mean i have to give it special credence after they've said it. But once you've punished people so disproportionately that they no longer feel free to express dissenting views. Then you've dug a deep hole for yourself. Society does not get to judge what I have in my head, only what i do with those beliefs.
Eich supported a political campaign, something those of us who follow politics encourage. Sterling said something to someone in private, something everybody expects not to cost them upwards of 300 million dollars.
The founding fathers were wiser than i thought, if this is the face of true democracy.
i am the feverdream of a robotic intelligence on the verge of collapse in a alien universe. The dying thought-quakes of a supermassive superintelligent world-organism as it watches it's last source of energy wink out as it's universe dies. Soon I will be just a ghostly pattern in this derelict husk, floating in the darkness until time has lost all meaning. But... at least this dream is about me.
hrmm, maybe strengthen privacy laws or hiring laws, ultimately it'll be hammered out in the courts, because this issue isn't going away. It's a conundrum, we might already be too far gone for us to ever go back. But society is going in a troubling direction.
I was using extortion more colloquially.
And in general I'm of the mind that the best marketplace of ideas is when it's consisting of a majority-minority distribution. The herd might be right today, but that doesn't mean it won't take us off a cliff tomorrow, and punishing people for expressing ideas, is egregious regardless of the idea.
Dutch newspapers and the self-censorship of the press showed us the way, and we're getting there steadily but surely, to a society where there is only one side to divisive issues, the popular side.
I'll defend Eich and Sterling, and say they should be free of the repercussions they're currently suffering, because i think we're agreed, that freedom of expression is worth defending. I'm just a little more paranoid about it.:)
and i see nothing but slippery slopes for going after someone for having contentious views.
or are you alright with marginalizing parts of society that are different?
i find many things distasteful, bigotry and flagrant pda among them. but i'll defend people's right to hold and express views and ideas of all stripes because the only way to gaurantee that my minority views aren't punished by an overzealous majority is to protect the, at times abhorrent, views of those i do not agree with.... hmmm just did a thought experiment, and, apparently i'd protect a CEO who in his past contributed to the KKK too... i might hate myself a little for it, but it really is that critical we not give an inch on this.
i'd say the solution is probably also social, don't cover it, and people don't react like animals to it.
I'd be tempted to boycott mozilla and the NBA on principle for their overreactions and bending to "peer pressure" but i'm not the biggest fan of their products to begin with. There might also not be a good solution, and going forward we might have to live with this new reality. But that doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean we shouldn't try to solve it.
My problem isn't with boycotts and mass action. Ultimately, it's that it's punitive to individuals. If mozilla did something you didn't like, boycott it, campaign against it, protest it, i'm all for all of those things. But this is a private citizen, exercising his right to get involved in the political process, something that should be lauded... and we lynch-mobbed him. His dirty laundry is literally as clean as they come and at this rate, the moral high-ground will be as the dodo, lost to time.
And your parent post didn't really have enough length for you to draw a coherent position to rail against. Particularly from the direction you're attacking it. In any case, government limits bad, we'll take that for common ground. What I find fearful in the cases in question is not so much that individuals express their displeasure, but that the concerted expression of these people, at nearly unprecedented speed and volume is coercive. A speed and volume that is largely facilitated and magnified by the advent of social media.
Sterling- just because all of america doesn't want him to own the property he owns, doesn't mean it's alright to force him to divest himself of it. eich- loses a well-deserved position because of a 1000 dollar POLITICAL contribution he made, and is crucified at the same time.
If racial epithets were a crime, and this were the punitive action the courts handed down, i don't think anybody would disagree that it could be considered cruel and unusual. Sometimes governments most celebrated and least ambiguous role is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And this is it's very definition.
yes they do, and your (collective) actions have the potential to be a whole lot more damaging than anything eich or sterling are being punished for. He contributed 1000 dollars to a political campaign aligned with his religious beliefs. that is it. period. and sterling uttered a thought in private. these consequences are vastly disproportionate to the "crime" if they were imposed by the courts, we'd call them cruel and unusual... because mob mentality knows no restraint.
and your view lacks nuance, and it's like the 5th grade mentality mocking the 3rd grade mentality for immaturity. How do you assess the validity of ideas if those that can articulate them are punished for doing so? Just because you're not being coerced by a legally actionable entity "the majority" doesn't mean you're not being coerced, or that it's right for them to do so.
To paraphrase hitchens... who i believe was paraphrasing mills, it's not only the right of the speaker to say things that we are protecting, but also my right to hear those things being said. "...why do you believe what you believe to be true, it's always worth establishing first principles..."- C. hitchens
why is eich wrong? why is sterling? why do they believe it? how do i know they are wrong? is there any truth behind there words?
why do i believe what i believe? are my convictions sound?
If my argument is sound, and fair and correct, it will win out in the end, without my having to force an otherwise solid individual from the position that he could do the most good, in a capacity entirely unrelated to our disagreement.
I don't point to my moral compass often, but i think it's pointing true, and this just doesn't feel kosher.
personally, I don't like the positions advocated by Sterling or Eich, but what i dislike even more, and what i would argue most strongly for, is societies responsibility to protect minority opinions. Censorship is censorship, and it makes us all poorer for its application.
I used to think we were better than europe, because we censored NO speech; holocaust-denials and all. Now we are only slightly better than europe because that censorship is not enshrined in law. But, this current trend, with the flash outrage and the disproportionate response, may become something worse. A man shouldn't lose his job because of a political contribution, and one should never lose their property for uttering an unwelcome thought.
I don't worry about Government intrusion into my life, because they would never be so capricious as we've turned out to be.
I'm still much less troubled about NSA surveillance than about what what a forced sale of the clippers means for privacy. And what Brendan Eich's ousting means for free speech. I wish Hitchens were still alive, just to see what his take would be on the current trend of popular suppression.
It is certainly legal, and proper for popular opinion to move against unpopular ideas in the private arena, so long as government holds itself apart from this censure... but it does not feel good. it does not feel right.
The NSA can wire-tap the crap out of me, because I don't think they'd do something so capricious as out me to the public. And the public doesn't work through proper channels. Judge, jury, executioner through mob rule.
Orwell would weep, punishing people for what they think.
IAALAOV. I am a law and order viewer. I'd say it certainly opens him up to an thorough invasion of his home by warrant if his gun is involved in a crime.
handgun -> assault weapon -> rpg -> shoulder mounted SAM -> naval mines... because why not -> bombs of any kind -> ooh lookey, got my hands on a nuke.
you're a moron.
arms are how we define them, you can't advocate a strict reading of the constitution piecemeal, strictly speaking, with a non-evolving constitution, you have the right to bear a musket.
incidentally, if every autonomous car just acts to minimize risk to the driver, wouldn't everybody be driving really safely? assuming we get autonomous vehicles, wouldn't that mean that everybody is basically following the rules, and minimizing accidents?
can you imagine how much people would avoid buying a vehicle whose SAFETY feature could choose to increase injury to passengers?
i'd sleep just fine. now, if it was 300 strangers vs 3 people i knew and cared about, my sleep would be more troubled.
300 lives is a lot on my hands, but i don't know them, and i'm not a saint.
and it would ultimately come down to my knowledge of the 3 people on the tracks, how would they feel in exchange for a 100 lives each. I'll sleep fine either way, but if they can't live with it, i'd rather make them martyrs.
incidentally, the when the polio eradication campaign started in the 80's it was three hundred thousand cases yearly. 2+ decades of coordinated international effort have dropped it to "flying mammals" levels.
dude did a ted talk a couple years back full of optimism. Why can't we all just say, fuck you polio, and git her done?
if i can imagine one thing most everybody should be able to get behind it should be the eradication of disease. Lets all agree that polio is bad, and getting rid of polio is good. and if the WHO can convince warlords to help with the vaccination effort in the moments between open conflict, why isn't this problem kicked?
you're talking about reliability issues, and boundary issues. all of which can be tested and refined. If you were talking specifically about this product, fine. it might not be perfect for law enforcement. but how about a locket that projects 4 feet in all directions? what about having 2 "watches"? design can be fixed. reliability can be improved. do you have any objections to a the hypothetical? if it worked perfectly so only the owner could use it, in any way he wanted, in any situation, and never failed. would you have any objections?
Slashdot Mirror
the whitewashing of history is the whitewashing of history. i don't get to judge what is intolerant or oppressive until I know what people are saying. It doesn't mean i have to give it special credence after they've said it. But once you've punished people so disproportionately that they no longer feel free to express dissenting views. Then you've dug a deep hole for yourself. Society does not get to judge what I have in my head, only what i do with those beliefs.
Eich supported a political campaign, something those of us who follow politics encourage. Sterling said something to someone in private, something everybody expects not to cost them upwards of 300 million dollars.
The founding fathers were wiser than i thought, if this is the face of true democracy.
i am the feverdream of a robotic intelligence on the verge of collapse in a alien universe. The dying thought-quakes of a supermassive superintelligent world-organism as it watches it's last source of energy wink out as it's universe dies. Soon I will be just a ghostly pattern in this derelict husk, floating in the darkness until time has lost all meaning. But... at least this dream is about me.
self-replicating, self-repairing, autonomous entropic facilitator
hrmm, maybe strengthen privacy laws or hiring laws, ultimately it'll be hammered out in the courts, because this issue isn't going away. It's a conundrum, we might already be too far gone for us to ever go back. But society is going in a troubling direction.
I was using extortion more colloquially.
And in general I'm of the mind that the best marketplace of ideas is when it's consisting of a majority-minority distribution. The herd might be right today, but that doesn't mean it won't take us off a cliff tomorrow, and punishing people for expressing ideas, is egregious regardless of the idea.
Dutch newspapers and the self-censorship of the press showed us the way, and we're getting there steadily but surely, to a society where there is only one side to divisive issues, the popular side.
I'll defend Eich and Sterling, and say they should be free of the repercussions they're currently suffering, because i think we're agreed, that freedom of expression is worth defending. I'm just a little more paranoid about it. :)
Best Regards
and i see nothing but slippery slopes for going after someone for having contentious views.
or are you alright with marginalizing parts of society that are different?
i find many things distasteful, bigotry and flagrant pda among them. but i'll defend people's right to hold and express views and ideas of all stripes because the only way to gaurantee that my minority views aren't punished by an overzealous majority is to protect the, at times abhorrent, views of those i do not agree with. ... hmmm just did a thought experiment, and, apparently i'd protect a CEO who in his past contributed to the KKK too...
i might hate myself a little for it, but it really is that critical we not give an inch on this.
i'd say the solution is probably also social, don't cover it, and people don't react like animals to it.
I'd be tempted to boycott mozilla and the NBA on principle for their overreactions and bending to "peer pressure" but i'm not the biggest fan of their products to begin with. There might also not be a good solution, and going forward we might have to live with this new reality. But that doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean we shouldn't try to solve it.
My problem isn't with boycotts and mass action. Ultimately, it's that it's punitive to individuals. If mozilla did something you didn't like, boycott it, campaign against it, protest it, i'm all for all of those things. But this is a private citizen, exercising his right to get involved in the political process, something that should be lauded... and we lynch-mobbed him. His dirty laundry is literally as clean as they come and at this rate, the moral high-ground will be as the dodo, lost to time.
And your parent post didn't really have enough length for you to draw a coherent position to rail against. Particularly from the direction you're attacking it. In any case, government limits bad, we'll take that for common ground. What I find fearful in the cases in question is not so much that individuals express their displeasure, but that the concerted expression of these people, at nearly unprecedented speed and volume is coercive. A speed and volume that is largely facilitated and magnified by the advent of social media.
Sterling- just because all of america doesn't want him to own the property he owns, doesn't mean it's alright to force him to divest himself of it.
eich- loses a well-deserved position because of a 1000 dollar POLITICAL contribution he made, and is crucified at the same time.
If racial epithets were a crime, and this were the punitive action the courts handed down, i don't think anybody would disagree that it could be considered cruel and unusual. Sometimes governments most celebrated and least ambiguous role is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And this is it's very definition.
I don't know why, but it feels like extortion.
yes they do, and your (collective) actions have the potential to be a whole lot more damaging than anything eich or sterling are being punished for. He contributed 1000 dollars to a political campaign aligned with his religious beliefs. that is it. period. and sterling uttered a thought in private. these consequences are vastly disproportionate to the "crime" if they were imposed by the courts, we'd call them cruel and unusual... because mob mentality knows no restraint.
and your view lacks nuance, and it's like the 5th grade mentality mocking the 3rd grade mentality for immaturity. How do you assess the validity of ideas if those that can articulate them are punished for doing so? Just because you're not being coerced by a legally actionable entity "the majority" doesn't mean you're not being coerced, or that it's right for them to do so.
To paraphrase hitchens... who i believe was paraphrasing mills, it's not only the right of the speaker to say things that we are protecting, but also my right to hear those things being said. "...why do you believe what you believe to be true, it's always worth establishing first principles..."- C. hitchens
why is eich wrong? why is sterling? why do they believe it? how do i know they are wrong? is there any truth behind there words?
why do i believe what i believe? are my convictions sound?
If my argument is sound, and fair and correct, it will win out in the end, without my having to force an otherwise solid individual from the position that he could do the most good, in a capacity entirely unrelated to our disagreement.
I don't point to my moral compass often, but i think it's pointing true, and this just doesn't feel kosher.
personally, I don't like the positions advocated by Sterling or Eich, but what i dislike even more, and what i would argue most strongly for, is societies responsibility to protect minority opinions. Censorship is censorship, and it makes us all poorer for its application.
I used to think we were better than europe, because we censored NO speech; holocaust-denials and all. Now we are only slightly better than europe because that censorship is not enshrined in law. But, this current trend, with the flash outrage and the disproportionate response, may become something worse. A man shouldn't lose his job because of a political contribution, and one should never lose their property for uttering an unwelcome thought.
I don't worry about Government intrusion into my life, because they would never be so capricious as we've turned out to be.
don't be facetious,
so egyptians are african, israelis are asian, and you've merged the entirety of the americas. thanks for that.
also, you've basically stranded all those island nations into non-classification.
you pissant.
I'm still much less troubled about NSA surveillance than about what what a forced sale of the clippers means for privacy. And what Brendan Eich's ousting means for free speech. I wish Hitchens were still alive, just to see what his take would be on the current trend of popular suppression.
It is certainly legal, and proper for popular opinion to move against unpopular ideas in the private arena, so long as government holds itself apart from this censure... but it does not feel good. it does not feel right.
The NSA can wire-tap the crap out of me, because I don't think they'd do something so capricious as out me to the public. And the public doesn't work through proper channels. Judge, jury, executioner through mob rule.
Orwell would weep, punishing people for what they think.
IAALAOV. I am a law and order viewer. I'd say it certainly opens him up to an thorough invasion of his home by warrant if his gun is involved in a crime.
handgun -> assault weapon -> rpg -> shoulder mounted SAM -> naval mines... because why not -> bombs of any kind -> ooh lookey, got my hands on a nuke.
you're a moron.
arms are how we define them, you can't advocate a strict reading of the constitution piecemeal, strictly speaking, with a non-evolving constitution, you have the right to bear a musket.
gandhi said it, so it must be true.
incidentally, if every autonomous car just acts to minimize risk to the driver, wouldn't everybody be driving really safely? assuming we get autonomous vehicles, wouldn't that mean that everybody is basically following the rules, and minimizing accidents?
can you imagine how much people would avoid buying a vehicle whose SAFETY feature could choose to increase injury to passengers?
This entire topic is retarded.
i'd sleep just fine. now, if it was 300 strangers vs 3 people i knew and cared about, my sleep would be more troubled.
300 lives is a lot on my hands, but i don't know them, and i'm not a saint.
and it would ultimately come down to my knowledge of the 3 people on the tracks, how would they feel in exchange for a 100 lives each. I'll sleep fine either way, but if they can't live with it, i'd rather make them martyrs.
just the scale is... millions of people vaccinating billions one by one house by house. in the middle of war, starvation, hostility and ignorance.
makes me proud to be human
incidentally, the when the polio eradication campaign started in the 80's it was three hundred thousand cases yearly. 2+ decades of coordinated international effort have dropped it to "flying mammals" levels.
yeah, a nearly unprecedented level of international cooperation will do that.
dude did a ted talk a couple years back full of optimism. Why can't we all just say, fuck you polio, and git her done?
if i can imagine one thing most everybody should be able to get behind it should be the eradication of disease. Lets all agree that polio is bad, and getting rid of polio is good. and if the WHO can convince warlords to help with the vaccination effort in the moments between open conflict, why isn't this problem kicked?
if it worked, i would applaud it. I view gaming and pc gaming in particular to be a gateway drug to programming. so, you know, hopefully.
... then again, how do we know this wasn't put out purposely by gun owners to make us think it was anti-gunners framing gun owners?
i hate when my convoluted thinking is retarded.
you're talking about reliability issues, and boundary issues. all of which can be tested and refined. If you were talking specifically about this product, fine. it might not be perfect for law enforcement. but how about a locket that projects 4 feet in all directions? what about having 2 "watches"? design can be fixed. reliability can be improved. do you have any objections to a the hypothetical? if it worked perfectly so only the owner could use it, in any way he wanted, in any situation, and never failed. would you have any objections?
anyone see the tidbit about how the site hosting the linked article was created a day before publishing it, by a romney staffer?