You bring up a good point. To prevent the unauthorized copying of certain information (which results in certain companies not gaining money when they believe they should, which is just horrible and sad), Google and the Internet must be destroyed. Collective punishment is good, and your comparisons are even better. Such genius!
It also appears to be our logic in wanting to destroy these new technologies.
No. History has proven time and time again that people with power will most likely abuse it, so allowing people with power to have unchecked power is just foolish.
Laws and rights are the result of what the people that make up society think is right.
Maybe, but I guarantee there are many countries with absolutely insane laws that you wouldn't want to touch with a ten foot pole, so I'd be careful about talking about how corporations somehow have responsibilities to these insane countries.
Facebook isn't omnipresent, and they didn't bully anyone.
It's supposed to be about freedom to express your political views without fear of repercussion from the government.
Right, because it would be fine if the government punished people for having opinions; it's only about expressing political views, after all! If I arbitrarily declare that something is 'harassment', free speech no longer applies!
Unfortunately for you, I was referring to the government punishing people, and that should have been obvious. Hopefully, though, if I turned around and physically assaulted you, I'd either find myself in court, in jail, or at least reprimanded by police; we don't need weaklings who resort to violence over trivial matters walking the streets.
I responded to a few of the things you said and voiced disagreement, so yes.
Insane? Hardly.
Yes, I think it qualifies. People who do such things to receive shallow 'rewards' such as popularity are, in my books, insane.
losing hope is a rational response
That depends on what you mean by "bullied." Caring about mere words doesn't seem very rational, and getting all depressed won't fix anything anyway, so I don't see how any of it is rational at all. It might not be something you can control, but rational? I don't think so.
That depends on what you think qualifies as "bullying." You're merely defining it in such a way that allows you to proclaim that anyone who is against bullying is a hypocrite.
Well, if someone is difficult to harm emotionally, I would consider that a serious advantage.
Everyone has a tipping point.
Which may be extremely high or extremely low, depending on the person. For all you know, the one you just replied to could have went through extremely severe bullying.
All it takes is to destroy all of a person's hope.
If you're so fragile that someone can destroy your hopes without putting much effort into it, I'd say you (as well as the one bothering to do such a thing in the first place) are on the insane side.
memorization drones and people that know how to to use reference material will far out pace you.
Someone who can't innovate will not outpace me in anything except maybe in a game where players try to memorize and then recall as much useless information as possible (understanding not required). That's what our education system (and increasingly, our colleges) is giving us: people who memorize but do not understand; people who can pass tests but not apply their knowledge to a difficult problem; people who have a flawed view of what education is.
not ALL speech is legal in the US. take the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" example.
That case led to war protestors being punished. Not exactly something I'd want to bring up.
in some US jurisdictions, there are laws criminalizing severe verbal harassment and there are actionable torts for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Anyone can be offended or psychologically damaged by just about anything, so those laws don't exactly seem intelligent.
too many folks in the US misunderstand exactly what the First Amendment entails.
None of the things you just stated are mentioned in the first amendment, so nice try.
What we need are ambiguous laws against harassment that stifle freedom of speech.
I also know that it doesn't
Well, you're wrong. You can't have freedom of speech if you choose to limit what people can say based on whether or not you think they're 'harassing' someone. Say "freedom of speech with exceptions" or something, but don't give it a name that implies people have actual freedom.
it turns out that we need an educated workforce to function as a nation
But that's exactly what we're not getting. Instead, we get rote memorization drones who think they're intelligent because they graduated from our lousy public schools with good grades, and then those people go on to be accepted into a degree mill that will drain them of any and all money they or the government may have. Alternatively, they may go to one of those 'good' colleges, but they'll come out with nearly zero practical skills because they're just rote memorization drones anyway.
Colleges do pump out a lot of trash, but that's the same in any field
Colleges are pumping out more trash than usual because they're letting in more trash than usual.
All those imbeciles you're referring to are now packed into your HR & Accounting departments.
Plenty have jobs as code monkeys, it seems. It's honestly frustrating to see HR idiots (even ones who work in small or medium sized companies) not hire people simply because they don't have degrees rather than take the time to test their skills a bit (but HR idiots can't do that, anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe fines or mandated treatment for viewing CP,
but not taking away someone's freedom from them for looking at a picture.
Both of those things would infringe on people's freedoms.
The right approach to CP is to find and severely punish the perpetrators that are actually hurting children.
Agreed.
but I will not change my hardline approach to this because of that.
And I hope absolutely everyone ignores the garbage that spews from your mouth and fingers.
Normal people can accept the consent of their objects of attraction.
Then I suppose we should toss people who can't get girlfriends in prison.
A pedophile can only rape.
You're an imbecile. A pedophile is not necessarily a child molester.
You're not a very good troll, you know.
Better idea: get rid of copyright.
You bring up a good point. To prevent the unauthorized copying of certain information (which results in certain companies not gaining money when they believe they should, which is just horrible and sad), Google and the Internet must be destroyed. Collective punishment is good, and your comparisons are even better. Such genius!
Straw man? Check.
It also appears to be our logic in wanting to destroy these new technologies.
No. History has proven time and time again that people with power will most likely abuse it, so allowing people with power to have unchecked power is just foolish.
That's exactly their logic in wanting to destroy these websites, yes.
Laws and rights are the result of what the people that make up society think is right.
Maybe, but I guarantee there are many countries with absolutely insane laws that you wouldn't want to touch with a ten foot pole, so I'd be careful about talking about how corporations somehow have responsibilities to these insane countries.
Facebook isn't omnipresent, and they didn't bully anyone.
It's supposed to be about freedom to express your political views without fear of repercussion from the government.
Right, because it would be fine if the government punished people for having opinions; it's only about expressing political views, after all! If I arbitrarily declare that something is 'harassment', free speech no longer applies!
Unfortunately for you, I was referring to the government punishing people, and that should have been obvious. Hopefully, though, if I turned around and physically assaulted you, I'd either find myself in court, in jail, or at least reprimanded by police; we don't need weaklings who resort to violence over trivial matters walking the streets.
"The hypocrisy of the anti-bully movement" makes it sound as if everyone who is anti-bullying is a bully themselves, for one.
Second of all, it is indeed possible to say that actions taken for certain reasons are not bullying, but I wouldn't do that myself.
Now I have to wonder what definition of bullying YOU have that would exclude this behavior?
You made the mistake of thinking that I myself was trying to exclude anything, and I simply wasn't.
Are you disagreeing with me?
I responded to a few of the things you said and voiced disagreement, so yes.
Insane? Hardly.
Yes, I think it qualifies. People who do such things to receive shallow 'rewards' such as popularity are, in my books, insane.
losing hope is a rational response
That depends on what you mean by "bullied." Caring about mere words doesn't seem very rational, and getting all depressed won't fix anything anyway, so I don't see how any of it is rational at all. It might not be something you can control, but rational? I don't think so.
That depends on what you think qualifies as "bullying." You're merely defining it in such a way that allows you to proclaim that anyone who is against bullying is a hypocrite.
This makes you luckier than others not superior
Well, if someone is difficult to harm emotionally, I would consider that a serious advantage.
Everyone has a tipping point.
Which may be extremely high or extremely low, depending on the person. For all you know, the one you just replied to could have went through extremely severe bullying.
All it takes is to destroy all of a person's hope.
If you're so fragile that someone can destroy your hopes without putting much effort into it, I'd say you (as well as the one bothering to do such a thing in the first place) are on the insane side.
memorization drones and people that know how to to use reference material will
far out pace you.
Someone who can't innovate will not outpace me in anything except maybe in a game where players try to memorize and then recall as much useless information as possible (understanding not required). That's what our education system (and increasingly, our colleges) is giving us: people who memorize but do not understand; people who can pass tests but not apply their knowledge to a difficult problem; people who have a flawed view of what education is.
Please tell everyone that the First Amendment is a lie.
The first amendment is not a lie. The only lie would be someone saying that the government follows the constitution.
not ALL speech is legal in the US. take the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" example.
That case led to war protestors being punished. Not exactly something I'd want to bring up.
in some US jurisdictions, there are laws criminalizing severe verbal harassment and there are actionable torts for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Anyone can be offended or psychologically damaged by just about anything, so those laws don't exactly seem intelligent.
too many folks in the US misunderstand exactly what the First Amendment entails.
None of the things you just stated are mentioned in the first amendment, so nice try.
What we need are ambiguous laws against harassment that stifle freedom of speech.
I also know that it doesn't
Well, you're wrong. You can't have freedom of speech if you choose to limit what people can say based on whether or not you think they're 'harassing' someone. Say "freedom of speech with exceptions" or something, but don't give it a name that implies people have actual freedom.
However, the First Amendment is not a license to say anything you want about anybody without consequences.
What does that even mean? China has freedom of speech... with consequences if you say something they don't like.
What a grand idea that is!
6: Have dummy Facebook and E-mail accounts at the ready. Employers will ask for username/PW access just so they can go through everything.
Run away from jobs like that, if at all possible.
it turns out that we need an educated workforce to function as a nation
But that's exactly what we're not getting. Instead, we get rote memorization drones who think they're intelligent because they graduated from our lousy public schools with good grades, and then those people go on to be accepted into a degree mill that will drain them of any and all money they or the government may have. Alternatively, they may go to one of those 'good' colleges, but they'll come out with nearly zero practical skills because they're just rote memorization drones anyway.
Colleges do pump out a lot of trash, but that's the same in any field
Colleges are pumping out more trash than usual because they're letting in more trash than usual.
All those imbeciles you're referring to are now packed into your HR & Accounting departments.
Plenty have jobs as code monkeys, it seems. It's honestly frustrating to see HR idiots (even ones who work in small or medium sized companies) not hire people simply because they don't have degrees rather than take the time to test their skills a bit (but HR idiots can't do that, anyway).