The democrat and republican parties are the gatekeepers to the electoral system. The debates used to be run by the league of women voters, now they are run by the 2 dominant parties themselves.
Intel also labels chips that are certified to run at different clock speeds with different part numbers, even if they were from the same design and even from the same wafer.
I said if I personally witnessed him being a white supremacist. If I actually saw him randomly physically attacking a black or jewish person because they were black or jewish. That's policing actions, not thoughts.
Being a white supremacist just means you think white people are superior in some way just by virtue of being white. You don't actually need to attack anyone to be a white supremacist.
But if it were known that Eich was a white supremacist, I think this would affect his ability as a leader, not because of anything he did, but because his subordinates might doubt that they are being treated fairly.
Then that should have been left up to his employees, not a twitter mob of people that don't know him who were told he was a bigot because of a political donation.
He resigned. And it wasn't a political donation (to a political party), it was a donation to create a law that would outlaw gay marriage. What I am saying is that this is as bigoted as donating money for a law to outlaw interracial marriage.
That's essentially what I said I'm doing, but when there's a "PC culture" component to the claim I look extra careful at it along with who's making it and what their motives are. A lot of the time it's someone making fluff from nothing and putting words into people's mouths in an effort to frame them for something.
Sure look extra carefully. But the fact that some people had overreactions to Eich's donation (i.e. threats, etc), doesn't make his actions any more defensible.
I don't speak for everyone, but I know if I worked there, I would not feel confident in the leadership of a manager if I knew that's what he/she believed. I think this is a problem specific to managers. I don't have a problem working alongside a bigoted engineer as long as he keeps his bigotted ideas to himself at work.
So first off, I wouldn't believe it. After the shit I've seen pulled over the last year most of what the media says is bull, made up, taken out of context, half truths, hyperbole, unfounded accusations. I'd have to witness Eich, in context, being a white supremacists, then yes I would support removing him.
I'm not saying Eich was a white supremacist. This is a hypothetical example.
However, all reports from employees stated Eich was respectful to them and he did encourage diversity. He had one anti-gay marriage view that he donated some money to support, but didn't discriminate against people based on that view.
It is also possible for racist people and white supremacists to be respectful. I question the ability of a white supremacist to be non-discriminatory, just as I question a straight marriage supremacist to be non-discriminatory, but I think it's possible for both to divorce their actions from their beliefs.
That donation was dug up and whipped into a social media storm that resulted in articles parroting rumors and slander to the point he and his family was being threatened with physical violence by people who were justifying it because he was a bigot.
Obviously it's not good that he and his family was threatened, regardless of how those people justified it.
This is thought policing at it's finest.
It's not thought policing. It's not illegal to be against gay marriage. It's not illegal to be a white supremacist. But even you said you'd support removing Eich for being a white supremacist. Is this not thought policing by your criteria?
A couple years ago I was pretty much on the bandwagon for politically correct culture, but now I see it's a tool people are using to ensure facts and opinions that disagree with them, what they see as "popular opinion", get shutdown.
While there certainly is a political correctness angle to this, there is more to it than that. I personally don't give a shit about political correctness. But Eich was the CTO of a private organization, who had bigoted views. As a Manager of a diverse group of people, I don't think he could be an effective leader without the respect of his subordinates. Furthermore, her wasn't removed by the internet, or even by his own company, he resigned.
. What's worse is the people that employ these types of shaming and mobbing tactics are the WORST hypocrites, as long as you agree with them they don't even care that your a self admitted pedophile, but they're extremely quick to accuse others of it based on guilt by association using fabricated evidence.
This is what happens when you divide everything into 2 sides. If someone from side A does something bad, it doesn't make side B automatically right.
So unfortunately my stance now is, if someone's making waves about a politically correct, gender, race and/or "diversity" issue THEY are probably the ones in the wrong and look very carefully at their claims, who they're accusing, what their motivations might be and what they're proposing as a solution before falling in with them.
Why not just evaluate every claim based on merit regardless of whether it's a "diversity" issue?
I will start by saying that my post was not intended to be serious.
That said. Would you feel the same way if Eich was a white supremacist in his personal life, and donated $1000 to a proposition to outlaw marriage between white and black people? I am not judging. I am just curious.
If you are someone who believes they could make a successful presidential run, but doesn't, they are making the choice between "make a choice between a thousand of soldiers die or a hundred civilians die" and "let some woefully incompetent person make that decision". Apparently people are much more comfortable with the latter decision. I would hope that more people realize that inaction is actually also an action that has consequences.
Error! Please form your response in a form I can understand. For example:
Object("whooosh!).assignAttribute(Great.modifier(Really));
Object("day").setCount(1).assignAttribute(Nice).command(have);
LOL
Bullshit. There is this tired trope of the genius programmer who is not a "people person". Yeah those people exist. There are also lots of really good programmers who are perfectly capable of being professional, as well as dickheads who are just mediocre programmers (who still think they are amazing).
If anything I've found that the "people people" tend to be better programmers on average because they are not stubborn. They are willing to learn new things. And being civil to other people usually helps in learning new things, rather than being a prick who ends up being isolated.
Stop being such a fucking baby. Boohoo the PC nazi's are being passive aggressive to you and you don't know if you are doing a good job? (world's smallest violin playing)...
Sorry, that was inappropriate.... Maybe you should be more mature. Yes your work may require you to act more professionally, and you may not like it, but that's because not everyone appreciates your direct speaking style. (world's most regular-sized violin)...
We need an objective, concise, and unambiguous language to communicate with eachother. In fact we have many such languages right in front of our noses, and they are languages that our community already understands very fluently (despite claims by some of complete retardation of others) . Programming languages!
I don't doubt that there are some patterns of human behavior that can be analyzed and predicted, but generally I don't take every social science theory as gospel.
The stereotype of the weak bully who only picks on those who won't fight back is feel-good nonsense and applies to a small proportion of the world's assholes. The effective bullies will pin you down and choke you, metaphorically or literally, for daring to assert yourself. They have dealt with uppity little shits like you a hundred times before.
The part where they won't fight back is nonsense. Some won't and some obviously will.
The spirit of this stereotype is nonetheless true. Bullies are bullies precisely because they are weak. They may not be physically weak, but they are emotionally weak. Their defective personalities are usually a result of past trauma. The bully at your school who got beaten didn't come out on top. He's a shitty person who probably has no real friends.
So no, fighting a bully isn't always the best idea, especially if you are not good at fighting. This doesn't mean that we should never fight back against bullies.
The problem was the school for not dealing with many of the bullies even when they knew exactly what was going on and knew that victims had no escape.
Maybe the school had a "really good" excuse. Maybe the school felt bullied by the well-connected parents of the bullies./s
Bullies are a dime a dozen. It is more common than not that properly dealing with a bully will involve more than simply reporting them to the proper authority. This is why being able to stand up for yourself becomes such an important personality trait.
1. I don't know Ted Cruz personally. Maybe he's a genius. All I can go by is the idiotic things he says in public, and give him the benefit of the doubt that he is honest and actually believes what he says.
2. Please provide citations of who praised Ted Cruz as "among the most brilliant minds they've encountered". I am very curious. Please don't tell me to just google it. I want to know which peoples' endorsements of Cruz are notable.
3. I don't know why you value the opinions of Ted Cruz's highly liberal opponents so highly. I know I don't.
4. You are an anonymous coward so who gives a shit what you have to say.
This article was about Carly Fiorina, and we haven't seen Carly Fiorina debating any democrats in this election yet. Furthermore we haven't even seen any democrats debating yet this election.
I know the democrats have some pretty pathetic candidates as well, but on average the don't seem as bad, and there are less of them. I think Hillary is a fucking disaster. I think she is actually a bad human being, which is arguably worse than being some idiot republican. If the election were held today, I'd probably vote for Bernie.
But in terms of being inclusive, If we were going to grade republican and democrat candidates based on how terrible they are, currently the democrats score 1/2 and republicans are 17/17.
There are plenty of intelligent people who are willing to do other crappy jobs. There are people who have jobs helping kids who are dying of cancer.
I think the problem is that we as a country are not capable of electing the right people. We are a bunch of dummies electing other dummies to represent us.
Slashdot Mirror
The democrat and republican parties are the gatekeepers to the electoral system. The debates used to be run by the league of women voters, now they are run by the 2 dominant parties themselves.
Intel also labels chips that are certified to run at different clock speeds with different part numbers, even if they were from the same design and even from the same wafer.
I said if I personally witnessed him being a white supremacist. If I actually saw him randomly physically attacking a black or jewish person because they were black or jewish. That's policing actions, not thoughts.
Being a white supremacist just means you think white people are superior in some way just by virtue of being white. You don't actually need to attack anyone to be a white supremacist.
But if it were known that Eich was a white supremacist, I think this would affect his ability as a leader, not because of anything he did, but because his subordinates might doubt that they are being treated fairly.
Then that should have been left up to his employees, not a twitter mob of people that don't know him who were told he was a bigot because of a political donation.
He resigned. And it wasn't a political donation (to a political party), it was a donation to create a law that would outlaw gay marriage. What I am saying is that this is as bigoted as donating money for a law to outlaw interracial marriage.
That's essentially what I said I'm doing, but when there's a "PC culture" component to the claim I look extra careful at it along with who's making it and what their motives are. A lot of the time it's someone making fluff from nothing and putting words into people's mouths in an effort to frame them for something.
Sure look extra carefully. But the fact that some people had overreactions to Eich's donation (i.e. threats, etc), doesn't make his actions any more defensible.
I don't speak for everyone, but I know if I worked there, I would not feel confident in the leadership of a manager if I knew that's what he/she believed. I think this is a problem specific to managers. I don't have a problem working alongside a bigoted engineer as long as he keeps his bigotted ideas to himself at work.
So first off, I wouldn't believe it. After the shit I've seen pulled over the last year most of what the media says is bull, made up, taken out of context, half truths, hyperbole, unfounded accusations. I'd have to witness Eich, in context, being a white supremacists, then yes I would support removing him.
I'm not saying Eich was a white supremacist. This is a hypothetical example.
However, all reports from employees stated Eich was respectful to them and he did encourage diversity. He had one anti-gay marriage view that he donated some money to support, but didn't discriminate against people based on that view.
It is also possible for racist people and white supremacists to be respectful. I question the ability of a white supremacist to be non-discriminatory, just as I question a straight marriage supremacist to be non-discriminatory, but I think it's possible for both to divorce their actions from their beliefs.
That donation was dug up and whipped into a social media storm that resulted in articles parroting rumors and slander to the point he and his family was being threatened with physical violence by people who were justifying it because he was a bigot.
Obviously it's not good that he and his family was threatened, regardless of how those people justified it.
This is thought policing at it's finest.
It's not thought policing. It's not illegal to be against gay marriage. It's not illegal to be a white supremacist. But even you said you'd support removing Eich for being a white supremacist. Is this not thought policing by your criteria?
A couple years ago I was pretty much on the bandwagon for politically correct culture, but now I see it's a tool people are using to ensure facts and opinions that disagree with them, what they see as "popular opinion", get shutdown.
While there certainly is a political correctness angle to this, there is more to it than that. I personally don't give a shit about political correctness. But Eich was the CTO of a private organization, who had bigoted views. As a Manager of a diverse group of people, I don't think he could be an effective leader without the respect of his subordinates. Furthermore, her wasn't removed by the internet, or even by his own company, he resigned.
. What's worse is the people that employ these types of shaming and mobbing tactics are the WORST hypocrites, as long as you agree with them they don't even care that your a self admitted pedophile, but they're extremely quick to accuse others of it based on guilt by association using fabricated evidence.
This is what happens when you divide everything into 2 sides. If someone from side A does something bad, it doesn't make side B automatically right.
So unfortunately my stance now is, if someone's making waves about a politically correct, gender, race and/or "diversity" issue THEY are probably the ones in the wrong and look very carefully at their claims, who they're accusing, what their motivations might be and what they're proposing as a solution before falling in with them.
Why not just evaluate every claim based on merit regardless of whether it's a "diversity" issue?
Touche
I will start by saying that my post was not intended to be serious.
That said. Would you feel the same way if Eich was a white supremacist in his personal life, and donated $1000 to a proposition to outlaw marriage between white and black people? I am not judging. I am just curious.
ouch...
Maybe if Eich wasn't a bigot, DRM wouldn't be in Mozilla right now. Lesson: Don't be a bigot.
If you are someone who believes they could make a successful presidential run, but doesn't, they are making the choice between "make a choice between a thousand of soldiers die or a hundred civilians die" and "let some woefully incompetent person make that decision". Apparently people are much more comfortable with the latter decision. I would hope that more people realize that inaction is actually also an action that has consequences.
Error! Please form your response in a form I can understand. For example: Object("whooosh!).assignAttribute(Great.modifier(Really)); Object("day").setCount(1).assignAttribute(Nice).command(have); LOL
You're not right. You are a whiny bitch who needs to act out who he wishes he was on the internet. Go get some fucking therapy.
Bullshit. There is this tired trope of the genius programmer who is not a "people person". Yeah those people exist. There are also lots of really good programmers who are perfectly capable of being professional, as well as dickheads who are just mediocre programmers (who still think they are amazing).
If anything I've found that the "people people" tend to be better programmers on average because they are not stubborn. They are willing to learn new things. And being civil to other people usually helps in learning new things, rather than being a prick who ends up being isolated.
whooosh!
You are clearly a piece of shit.
Stop being such a fucking baby. Boohoo the PC nazi's are being passive aggressive to you and you don't know if you are doing a good job? (world's smallest violin playing)...
Sorry, that was inappropriate.... Maybe you should be more mature. Yes your work may require you to act more professionally, and you may not like it, but that's because not everyone appreciates your direct speaking style. (world's most regular-sized violin)...
We need an objective, concise, and unambiguous language to communicate with eachother. In fact we have many such languages right in front of our noses, and they are languages that our community already understands very fluently (despite claims by some of complete retardation of others) . Programming languages!
I don't doubt that there are some patterns of human behavior that can be analyzed and predicted, but generally I don't take every social science theory as gospel.
Fighting back doesn't have to be physical. Maybe you could cyberbully him back on facebook.
The stereotype of the weak bully who only picks on those who won't fight back is feel-good nonsense and applies to a small proportion of the world's assholes. The effective bullies will pin you down and choke you, metaphorically or literally, for daring to assert yourself. They have dealt with uppity little shits like you a hundred times before.
The part where they won't fight back is nonsense. Some won't and some obviously will.
The spirit of this stereotype is nonetheless true. Bullies are bullies precisely because they are weak. They may not be physically weak, but they are emotionally weak. Their defective personalities are usually a result of past trauma. The bully at your school who got beaten didn't come out on top. He's a shitty person who probably has no real friends.
So no, fighting a bully isn't always the best idea, especially if you are not good at fighting. This doesn't mean that we should never fight back against bullies.
The problem was the school for not dealing with many of the bullies even when they knew exactly what was going on and knew that victims had no escape.
Maybe the school had a "really good" excuse. Maybe the school felt bullied by the well-connected parents of the bullies. /s
Bullies are a dime a dozen. It is more common than not that properly dealing with a bully will involve more than simply reporting them to the proper authority. This is why being able to stand up for yourself becomes such an important personality trait.
Face bashing is "active aggressive".
Says the anonymous coward....
The most irritating thing about Big Bang Theory is my relatives telling me I would love it because I'm smart and into computers.
1. I don't know Ted Cruz personally. Maybe he's a genius. All I can go by is the idiotic things he says in public, and give him the benefit of the doubt that he is honest and actually believes what he says.
2. Please provide citations of who praised Ted Cruz as "among the most brilliant minds they've encountered". I am very curious. Please don't tell me to just google it. I want to know which peoples' endorsements of Cruz are notable.
3. I don't know why you value the opinions of Ted Cruz's highly liberal opponents so highly. I know I don't.
4. You are an anonymous coward so who gives a shit what you have to say.
This article was about Carly Fiorina, and we haven't seen Carly Fiorina debating any democrats in this election yet. Furthermore we haven't even seen any democrats debating yet this election.
I know the democrats have some pretty pathetic candidates as well, but on average the don't seem as bad, and there are less of them. I think Hillary is a fucking disaster. I think she is actually a bad human being, which is arguably worse than being some idiot republican. If the election were held today, I'd probably vote for Bernie.
But in terms of being inclusive, If we were going to grade republican and democrat candidates based on how terrible they are, currently the democrats score 1/2 and republicans are 17/17.
There are plenty of intelligent people who are willing to do other crappy jobs. There are people who have jobs helping kids who are dying of cancer.
I think the problem is that we as a country are not capable of electing the right people. We are a bunch of dummies electing other dummies to represent us.