We all want it and yet it isn't clear whether the regulations that are being rolled back are truly net neutrality in practice particularly so because they do not address the companies that are actively censoring ideas and opinion online today. That is more of a concern then Netflix paying for extra server racks.
That happened because of the law passed by Canada and over zealous university policy in response to that law. As much as it is the government it is cultural to disregard fundamental principles that made our nations what they are today. The point is that Trudeau should be more concerned about Canada and their problems then be concerned about the technicalities of which US bureaucracy will regulate US businesses that have no bearing on Canadian business or citizenry.
Thanks for the history lesson. Not sure why you would call me Xian or think it obvious to know about ancient greek. But that also doesn't explain why use it in common parlance to distinguish yourself and others while using it as a pejorative. Hence my original post.
I don't think I have met anyone who uses it that is worth talking to. Your post is a good example. It would have been a very good post that was very informative but there is a subtle insult which I find common with the Xian usage. It's like a scarlet letter of a word the way you and others use it. Maybe I am just not pagan enough to understand.
Calling randoms on the internet 'Xians' when you don't know anything about them. You are reinforcing bad stereotypes. You should stop that.:)
An edgy atheist way to say 'Christian'. Think of X-Mas for Christmas. Usually used by teenagers discovering atheism for the first time or adults who never got over growing up Christian and hold a grudge.
And Athens executed their generals that totally deserved it. The point is that direct democracy has fundamental problems that a republic attempts to accommodate.
Or wait! No, I get what you're saying. Human nature and logistics are just what the government wants us to think! Or is it Hanlon's razor what the government wants us to think... Take off the tinfoil hat and set the bong down. Trust me the government doesn't want you to do that so you totally should.
That is very different than unconscious bias toward black sounding names on resumes in France. That also doesn't address anything I have said in any previous comment.
But at least you found the bus stop. In the mean time, I am going to fly away because you are going no where.
I don't see your point going from "white people saying words like N* oppresses black people" to unconscious bias toward black sounding names on resumes in France. You're off the reservation and missed the bus.
the world you would create is dangerous. much more so than if the us preemptively attacked nk. i am glad you are not in the position to make those decisions.
In a world where free speech is king. Propaganda is an another opinion. Democracy requires the seditious and the patriot to convince you. If the patriot fails then so do we all.
Those are protected by law as well. Also, that is no longer in the realm of speech but action (refusing to hire or back for the bus policy). I would agree that denied opportunity and services is harmful and that is why it is illegal to do that on the basis of immutable characteristics. If there are institutions breaking the law or policy not inline with the law then we can name individual examples and fix them.
but are you really saying that speech does not often lead to action
It can but what causes harm is the important part and how easily it is defined. In addition there is no thought crime. Now before you jump on cause harm. Harm is a physical thing. Cause harm means you are forced to respond with a physical action to protect your person or property. The examples you mention and things like slander or libel cause harm and are well defined. Incitement is easily identified and does not represent a single idea just as conspiracy. Just like threats of violence, credible incitement and conspiracy would result in a response by a reasonable person to protect themselves.
Which is more dangerous the gun that kill X per year or the idea that kills millions? If you choose the later then should ideas be criminal?
If words really had no effect, people wouldn't bother with them.
Yea, communication. It can do both great and horrible things. But the point I was making that oppression requires an action to follow. If there is no action then you decide if you are oppressed as you have demonstrated later in your post (quoted below).
Check my post history here on Slashdot. I get called an "SJW" a lot, and look at how it affects the response to my posts. Perfectly reasonable arguments result in "troll" and "flamebait" mods, and when people respond they assume all kinds of crazy things. Here is an example from today:... In other words, relentless use of terms like "SJW" have had a very real oppressive effect on me. I'm not crying victim here, this is a relatively minor annoyance and certainly nothing compared to what people of colour have to put up with.
You let the term "SJW" affect your posts and you announce to everyone that it bothers you (through sig and previous posts). Aside from the mods (which have their own problems of disagree == troll etc), you decide how to respond or what words get to you. Any ad hominem has this potential effect. If my response to you was "You're an idiot'" I would imagine you would disregard it much more easily than if I called you an "SJW". You give "SJW" more power over you by your reaction to the word. If I was an asshole* trying to get you mad I would use the term you have specified bothers you. You give the term "SJW" power by not treating it like another dumb ad hominem. The more power you give the more it will be used because it works to bother you.
I think why is because you know you're not an idiot so it's easy to disregard. My guess is that with SJW** you support social justice and bastardizing something you support/like into something ugly is bothersome. It's harder to disregard because it isn't a simple refutation because there is a part that you identify with. That's the point of insulting someone like that and I think you conflate that with 're-enforces sterotypes'. A powerful insult has some grain of truth.
N*, is similar. Historically, it was neutral referring to skin color as Spanish/Portuguese negro or Latin's niger. The reaction to the word through history has shaped how powerful it is today. The underlying truth that hurts is the reference to color and using part of your identity as an insult is bothersome. But it only has power if you let it just as other racial slurs do not carry the same weight as N*. The word itself, it's history, or it's small historical truth (referencing skin color in a neutral way) does not oppress anyone. The reactions over time has given it power that enables ass holes to be more insulting because they know it bothers people.
* Ok, I am prolly ass hole.
** I know there are a lot of definitions out there and it changes depending on who you talk to. For common usage the insult part I think we can agree is the militancy part or the 'warrior' part. Is why social justice advocate is not an insult by most.
prosecuted just as much for calling someone a cracker
Not big on salt much, eh? Personally, I love 'em in chowder. MMMM cannibalism. The right kind of meat.
And the military build up and nuclear arms? Chamberlain thought his talks with Germany were a success too. Can you be sure that NK won't start an offensive like what happened in 1950? Can you be sure that the US will always be around to help and protect SK and Japan?
Who cares about legalities nowadays?
You are right. non-proliferation is a failed policy and the UN is a toothless animal. What should happen with the next despot wanting/getting nukes?
I don't want war but sometimes it's necessary. I don't know the right answer for NK but the last 30-50 years of policy have failed. Yes congrats, the armistice was successful in reducing the number of killed as is the point of a cease fire when both sides gain no ground. Now we are in a situation where many more people can die to a madman willing and able to kill millions more because he was able to build up the tools to kill more people than before. Hooray appeasement.
Does Chamberlain policy work in the 21st century when that appeasement will amount to nuclear arms?
The N word was used by white people to oppress black people
How can words oppress people? Are words actions? You give an inordinate amount of power to words. Policy oppresses and no one denies the policy of the past. People and individuals have behavior and no one denies the past behavior motivated by race can oppress people. Words communicate and no one denies it can communicate horrible things.
I can call you every bad word in the dictionary and that would not oppress you. How can words oppress you if you don't let it? There has to be an action or authority that enforces an action to keep you down. Again, no denies that those actions and authority didn't occur and they used those words.
If it was as clear and powerful as you make it, why didn't the other racial epitaphs keep their power? Hint, because those people didn't let it keep them down.
that's just a historical fact,
It's historical fact that the word was used as a slur. Why don't other historical slurs have the same power as the n* word? No other race or word has the same rules applied (which word is censored by/. again?)
Is it just me or is there something funny about a person explaining why "X people can do something but Y people can't" and then have the justification be along the lines of "X people can do something that Y people can't because X people can't do what Y people do".
You just gotta feel it in your guts. Deep down in the bowels of the truthiness-sphinker you have to pucker the truth out into a malleable morass you can work with.
Slashdot Mirror
We all want it and yet it isn't clear whether the regulations that are being rolled back are truly net neutrality in practice particularly so because they do not address the companies that are actively censoring ideas and opinion online today. That is more of a concern then Netflix paying for extra server racks.
That happened because of the law passed by Canada and over zealous university policy in response to that law. As much as it is the government it is cultural to disregard fundamental principles that made our nations what they are today. The point is that Trudeau should be more concerned about Canada and their problems then be concerned about the technicalities of which US bureaucracy will regulate US businesses that have no bearing on Canadian business or citizenry.
Why? Canada is doing a fine job of undermining the principles of freedom and liberty.
https://globalnews.ca/news/387...
https://globalnews.ca/news/387...
How many extra optional taxes do you pay to feel morally superior?
There's a lot of 'should' to make this thread more tactful. TBH, I don't expect much from A. cowards. I said my opinion. Sue me. t('.'t)
Thanks for the history lesson. Not sure why you would call me Xian or think it obvious to know about ancient greek. But that also doesn't explain why use it in common parlance to distinguish yourself and others while using it as a pejorative. Hence my original post.
I don't think I have met anyone who uses it that is worth talking to. Your post is a good example. It would have been a very good post that was very informative but there is a subtle insult which I find common with the Xian usage. It's like a scarlet letter of a word the way you and others use it. Maybe I am just not pagan enough to understand.
Calling randoms on the internet 'Xians' when you don't know anything about them. You are reinforcing bad stereotypes. You should stop that. :)
An edgy atheist way to say 'Christian'. Think of X-Mas for Christmas. Usually used by teenagers discovering atheism for the first time or adults who never got over growing up Christian and hold a grudge.
And Athens executed their generals that totally deserved it. The point is that direct democracy has fundamental problems that a republic attempts to accommodate.
Or wait! No, I get what you're saying. Human nature and logistics are just what the government wants us to think! Or is it Hanlon's razor what the government wants us to think... Take off the tinfoil hat and set the bong down. Trust me the government doesn't want you to do that so you totally should.
I could only imagine what you put in my justice since you heard I like justice.
lol
There's this term "direct democracy". You should research it.
I keep getting redirected to mob rule, group think, and mass hysteria.
We should be asking Xzibit.
That is very different than unconscious bias toward black sounding names on resumes in France. That also doesn't address anything I have said in any previous comment.
But at least you found the bus stop. In the mean time, I am going to fly away because you are going no where.
I don't see your point going from "white people saying words like N* oppresses black people" to unconscious bias toward black sounding names on resumes in France. You're off the reservation and missed the bus.
the world you would create is dangerous. much more so than if the us preemptively attacked nk. i am glad you are not in the position to make those decisions.
In a world where free speech is king. Propaganda is an another opinion. Democracy requires the seditious and the patriot to convince you. If the patriot fails then so do we all.
Those are protected by law as well. Also, that is no longer in the realm of speech but action (refusing to hire or back for the bus policy). I would agree that denied opportunity and services is harmful and that is why it is illegal to do that on the basis of immutable characteristics. If there are institutions breaking the law or policy not inline with the law then we can name individual examples and fix them.
I fail to see your point.
but are you really saying that speech does not often lead to action
It can but what causes harm is the important part and how easily it is defined. In addition there is no thought crime. Now before you jump on cause harm. Harm is a physical thing. Cause harm means you are forced to respond with a physical action to protect your person or property. The examples you mention and things like slander or libel cause harm and are well defined. Incitement is easily identified and does not represent a single idea just as conspiracy. Just like threats of violence, credible incitement and conspiracy would result in a response by a reasonable person to protect themselves.
Which is more dangerous the gun that kill X per year or the idea that kills millions? If you choose the later then should ideas be criminal?
If words really had no effect, people wouldn't bother with them.
Yea, communication. It can do both great and horrible things. But the point I was making that oppression requires an action to follow. If there is no action then you decide if you are oppressed as you have demonstrated later in your post (quoted below).
Check my post history here on Slashdot. I get called an "SJW" a lot, and look at how it affects the response to my posts. Perfectly reasonable arguments result in "troll" and "flamebait" mods, and when people respond they assume all kinds of crazy things. Here is an example from today: ... In other words, relentless use of terms like "SJW" have had a very real oppressive effect on me. I'm not crying victim here, this is a relatively minor annoyance and certainly nothing compared to what people of colour have to put up with.
You let the term "SJW" affect your posts and you announce to everyone that it bothers you (through sig and previous posts). Aside from the mods (which have their own problems of disagree == troll etc), you decide how to respond or what words get to you. Any ad hominem has this potential effect. If my response to you was "You're an idiot'" I would imagine you would disregard it much more easily than if I called you an "SJW". You give "SJW" more power over you by your reaction to the word. If I was an asshole* trying to get you mad I would use the term you have specified bothers you. You give the term "SJW" power by not treating it like another dumb ad hominem. The more power you give the more it will be used because it works to bother you.
I think why is because you know you're not an idiot so it's easy to disregard. My guess is that with SJW** you support social justice and bastardizing something you support/like into something ugly is bothersome. It's harder to disregard because it isn't a simple refutation because there is a part that you identify with. That's the point of insulting someone like that and I think you conflate that with 're-enforces sterotypes'. A powerful insult has some grain of truth.
N*, is similar. Historically, it was neutral referring to skin color as Spanish/Portuguese negro or Latin's niger. The reaction to the word through history has shaped how powerful it is today. The underlying truth that hurts is the reference to color and using part of your identity as an insult is bothersome. But it only has power if you let it just as other racial slurs do not carry the same weight as N*. The word itself, it's history, or it's small historical truth (referencing skin color in a neutral way) does not oppress anyone. The reactions over time has given it power that enables ass holes to be more insulting because they know it bothers people.
* Ok, I am prolly ass hole.
** I know there are a lot of definitions out there and it changes depending on who you talk to. For common usage the insult part I think we can agree is the militancy part or the 'warrior' part. Is why social justice advocate is not an insult by most.
prosecuted just as much for calling someone a cracker
Not big on salt much, eh? Personally, I love 'em in chowder. MMMM cannibalism. The right kind of meat.
And the military build up and nuclear arms? Chamberlain thought his talks with Germany were a success too. Can you be sure that NK won't start an offensive like what happened in 1950? Can you be sure that the US will always be around to help and protect SK and Japan?
Who cares about legalities nowadays?
You are right. non-proliferation is a failed policy and the UN is a toothless animal. What should happen with the next despot wanting/getting nukes?
I don't want war but sometimes it's necessary. I don't know the right answer for NK but the last 30-50 years of policy have failed. Yes congrats, the armistice was successful in reducing the number of killed as is the point of a cease fire when both sides gain no ground. Now we are in a situation where many more people can die to a madman willing and able to kill millions more because he was able to build up the tools to kill more people than before. Hooray appeasement.
Does Chamberlain policy work in the 21st century when that appeasement will amount to nuclear arms?
The N word was used by white people to oppress black people
How can words oppress people? Are words actions? You give an inordinate amount of power to words. Policy oppresses and no one denies the policy of the past. People and individuals have behavior and no one denies the past behavior motivated by race can oppress people. Words communicate and no one denies it can communicate horrible things.
I can call you every bad word in the dictionary and that would not oppress you. How can words oppress you if you don't let it? There has to be an action or authority that enforces an action to keep you down. Again, no denies that those actions and authority didn't occur and they used those words.
If it was as clear and powerful as you make it, why didn't the other racial epitaphs keep their power? Hint, because those people didn't let it keep them down.
that's just a historical fact,
It's historical fact that the word was used as a slur. Why don't other historical slurs have the same power as the n* word? No other race or word has the same rules applied (which word is censored by /. again?)
Such as using the n* word obviously... Oh wait.
Is it just me or is there something funny about a person explaining why "X people can do something but Y people can't" and then have the justification be along the lines of "X people can do something that Y people can't because X people can't do what Y people do".
What do you mean? We are still at war. An armistice != peace agreement.
It takes two to make peace as it does to make war. As much as we havn't "constructively engaged" with them they haven't us.
Stop oppressing me with your violent words. Call the thought police! I think I'm bleeding.
Reminds me of a story. Stevie Wonder was given a cheese grater for Christmas. He said it was the most violent book he's ever read.
You just gotta feel it in your guts. Deep down in the bowels of the truthiness-sphinker you have to pucker the truth out into a malleable morass you can work with.
When we elect the correct lizard.