I didn't say "there is no gaming community", I said "there is no gaming community in the sense feminists talk about".
Yes, being angry because you are constantly verbally assaulted is so unreasonable.
Modern feminists are little more than trolls: they make outrageous statements and then feign anger when people get upset in response. Yes, it's unreasonable to complain that people use harsh language when you deliberately provoke them.
A) even teenagers threating to beat and rape a women is BAD.
That presumes that it's an actual threat, instead of merely language intended to shock; it just serves her agenda to blur the distinction.
Of course, it's better not to feed trolls like Sarkeesian; it's better to respond to her with ridicule than harsh language. Come on, you can't really be taking her seriously, can you?
You asked in what way subsidiarity is an American tradition. I'm pointing you to de Tocqueville, who observed subsidiarity as a principle of US governance in the 19th century. What else do you want?
Yes, we should. The shortcomings and predilections of teenage heterosexual males neither matter, nor do they have anything to do with technology or Slashdot.
She is talking about the gaming culture; which is in a horrid state for women right now. perhaps you should stop whining and try to understand women get a lot of harrassment from the gaming community
There is no "gaming community" in the sense feminists talk about; it's a construct intended to fabricate a fictional enemy that people can grandstand against to make themselves important, gain power, and gain impressions. It lets them engage in their Two Minutes Hate.
Anita Sarkeesian seems to dislike the idea that female Vietnamese prostitutes try to be enticing to American soldiers and speak in broken English. Oh, the horror of it! Of course, Vietnamese prostitutes should speak with Oxford diction and kick butt like Sigourney Weaver! And pandering to the desires of heterosexual males, I mean, what's the world coming to!
One thing Sarkeesian should do is work on her misandrism, objectification, and stereotyping of men, starting with the images of fat, lazy male gamers she keeps flashing in the background. The way she stereotypes and puts down men is offensive. And she should work on actually making a point instead of just rambling on.
If your idea of a "political dictator and strongman" is someone increasing oversight of the nation's police forces, you've completely removed all meaning from those terms and are simply using them for rhetorical impact.
No, obviously not (why do I even need to explain that?). I am pointing out that your reasoning and argumentation are symptomatic of someone who brings dictators to power. You and people like you obviously favor other such policies as well, and even though they seem individually harmless, collectively they bring down democracies.
So, the most powerful policymakers in our country are conspiring to implement an agenda of increasing public supervision of the police? That's your conspiratorial agenda? That sounds like *doing their jobs properly* to me!
Well, lots of people love political dictators and strongmen; you apparently too. That doesn't make it right.
Really? How do you figure, when I just gave you several historical examples of Congress doing the same thing you're objecting to?
Read de Tocqueville; he explains it pretty well.
Then it is you who are jumping to conclusions. You've concluded that there are serious costs and negative effects, despite a total lack of evidence. I'm *refusing* to jump to conclusions by not assuming negative effects until they can be shown to exist.
I'm not concluding anything, I merely tried to illustrate a basic fact of US democracy for you. Sorry if you don't grasp it.
The problem with sociologists, politicians, economists, or ethicists is that they know nothing about climate change. Therefore, anyone following *their* advice about climate change is an idiot.
Let me explain how this works. Climatologists look at natural phenomena and make predictions about what the climate in the future might look like given various actions; that's the entirety of their expertise. It's not rocket science for them to communicate this either. Economists, sociologists, politicians, and ethicists then look at those options and make choices. It's like a restaurant: the chef gives you a menu of choices, but he doesn't get to tell you what to eat.
Given a choice, I will go back to the world of lying charlatans
The problem with Windows isn't what it is trying to do but how it is trying to do it: the highly interdependent object-oriented libraries, the widespread use of C++ for basic services, bloated functionality in everything from the file system to the mouse. Even if every single daemon and server in Windows were superior to Linux individually, the entire system would still be crap because of that.
I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm relying upon empirical data like this:
Yes, you are jumping to conclusions. While body cameras clearly have benefits, they also have costs and effects that we don't know yet. I do want my local police department to wear them, but I don't want the state or federal government to mandate that they wear them.
That's just your opinion, not the American tradition.
No, what I stated is the American tradition. It's you who subscribes to the bizarre and un-American idea that the federal government can and should pass whatever laws it deems to be in the benefit of Americans overall.
Of course they aren't. Some cities, towns, and villages are very poorly managed.
Of course they are, frequently in fact. How is kicking the problem to the state or federal government going to fix it? Obviously, government at the state and federal level is just as corrupt and dysfunctional, but even harder to control by voters.
Your distrust for government is pretty inexplicable if you believe that every government is fully competent and in control of their duties, isn't it?
Quite the opposite: I expect government to screw up at all levels, just like businesses screw up. Screwing up is part of human nature and human organizations. One of the best defenses against those screwups is to keep things as local and diverse as possible. That way, while some cities fail because they make bad decisions, others who make good decisions prosper.
I'm pretty sure you would have a different outlook on the importance of the issue if someone who looked like your child was on the front pages practically each and every day over questionable police-violence incidents.
That's a problem with the front pages, not reality. In reality, killings by police are rare, representative of the population of suspects, and are almost always found to be in accordance to the law.
How is putting cameras on police even remotely a "political agenda"?
Federal interference in local politics and local policing is a political agenda.
What smoky back room is full of fat cats whose schemes for world domination will be advanced by subjecting police officers to something approaching the same level of workplace supervision that we demand of daycare operators?
The smoky backroom full of fat cats like Obama, Bush, congressmen, and the lobbyists and cronies that supply them with money and want power.
Even if the term actually meant "anti-competitive behavior", it would be accurate roughly in the sense that the "Ministry of Truth" has to do with truth and the "Ministry of Peace" has to do with peace.
Of course, the term "unlauterer Wettbewerb" doesn't even mean "anti-competitive behavior", it means something like "indecent competition" or "immoral competition". The best translation is probably "unfair competition", although that doesn't quite capture the emotional force of the term in German. Usually, companies accused of this behavior are too competitive, rather than anti-competitive.
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
The term "Unlauteres Wettbewerbsverhalten" does not mean "uncompetitive behavior"; it means "competition that violates good taste" or "competition that violates moral standards". A better translation might be "unfair competition".
That's what they teach in high school civics classes. I can see that you have never actually tried that out with an unpopular cause in the real world.
Ferguson is 2/3 black. Whatever "black causes" there may be, they are the popular causes in Ferguson.
More importantly, you are effectively suggesting that Ferguson be governed by having a predominantly white federal government impose policies in response to the demands of a small number of rioters, mostly from outside Ferguson. Whatever flaws local elections may have, your solution is clearly far worse.
Ferguson does have a low black voting rate, but that's because the white establishment uses these techniques to prevent them from voting.
You're pulling that out of your ass; there is no evidence whatsoever that Ferguson's black voters were in any way prevented from voting or running for office. If there were any such evidence, the federal government could have, should have, and likely would have stepped in long ago.
Progress usually came in response to riots.
What progress? Democrats themselves keep complaining of the "intractable" problems, "persistent" and "rising" racial and economic inequities. You can't have it both ways: either there has been substantial progress or there hasn't been.
In fact, I think Democrats are right: these problems are persistent, intractable, rising, and serious. But given that we have had decades of progressive and civil rights legislation and enforcement, the conclusion has to be that this legislation is ineffective and likely actually the cause of some of these problems.
Southern racists had many clever ways of disqualifying blacks from voting, such as "Literacy tests," which they could claim were fair.
Again, you're fabricating your facts. The "literacy tests" were racist precisely because they weren't fair: they were administered predominantly to blacks and they were scored at the discretion of racist election officials who would let whites pass and blacks fail. In different words, objectively they weren't actually "literacy tests".
Now the racists have other ways of preventing black people from voting, such as requiring photo ID cards
Voter ID laws are favored by a majority of both whites and blacks. Voter ID laws do have a slight impact in that they hurt Democrats and help Republicans, but it's anybody's guess as to whether that's due to fraud or disparate impact based on social class; but there is no clear evidence that they have a disparate impact based on race. They are also the norm in pretty much all other democratic nations. Your accusations of racism just show again how far removed from reality your arguments are.
The truth, as described for example in Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States
Zinn's book is a great summary of the arguments and views of progressives and democratic socialists. And as such it was instrumental in turning me from a progressive into a conservative-leaning libertarian: unlike the vague handwaving from politicians and folks like you, one can check Zinn's sources and arguments, and they do not stand up to closer scrutiny. It's not that Zinn didn't have good intentions (progressives and democratic socialists are motivated by the best of intentions), it's that the means he advocated for achieving those intentions were ineffective and harmful, like progressive policies in general.
Because communities are often not as in charge of their police departments as they should be or think they are, because some move more slowly than others,.
That's nonsense. Cities are fully in charge of their police departments: they can limit the use of force, pass laws, hire and fire, even get rid of them. And if the "move slowly", that's their right. They may well have other, more important issues than body cams on their minds.
and because this is an important enough issue due to recent events that it warrants quick and decisive movement
It's only an "important issue" because some people are making it such for political and financial gain. There is no evidence that a body cam is needed in this case either: there is tons of physical evidence and witness statements. People are trying to fabricate a crisis in order to push through political agendas.
The reason they have race riots, all over this country, is that people go through the whole process of polite complaints and peaceful demonstrations, and get nowhere.
Polite complaints, peaceful demonstrations, and rioting is what you do in order to get handouts from a king or slave owner. We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, all those actions are meaningless. What matters in a democracy is voting, running for office, and convicing your fellow citizens.
They riot because they found out that riots are the only thing that works. When they burn down the town, the white establishment finally pays attention.
Oh, rioting certainly works for the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world: it furnishes them with money and power. For the people of Ferguson, it just means poverty and marginalization.
If the people of Ferguson don't like their "white establishment", they can vote them out every couple of years. But apparently, they have been satisfied enough with their white establishment that they didn't bother to do so.
Opposing a federal law mandating the use of police cameras isn't the same as opposing police cameras. I'm happy if my local police wear body cameras. I strongly object to such a requirement being imposed by the federal government.
Just because something is right for white middle class nerds like you doesn't mean it's right for everybody. It's your kind of hubris and ignorance that causes Washington to keep passing ineffective and harmful legislation, legislation that makes the white middle class happy and well off at the expense of everybody else. Cut it out.
The idea behind the police cameras is to prevent police brutality
There are about 400 killings by police in the US per year, not a large number to begin with. Almost all of them are found to have been justifiable in a court of law. There is no evidence of significant racial bias in those statistics (i.e., the people getting shot are representative of the relevant population of perpetrators and suspects). There is no evidence of the kind of breakdowns in local and state government that would require the federal government to step in.
Preventing police brutality isn't the job of the federal government, it is only the job of the federal government if democratic mechanisms have clearly broken down at the local and state level and can't handle that. Is there any evidence for that? No. Hence, not a job for the federal government.
Slashdot Mirror
But creating a few sinecures will improve the numbers!
We usually refer to him as the "Crony Capitalist in Chief"
By the way, how do we know that Sarkeesian didn't just fabricate these threats herself? I mean, she's making a lot of money off all of this.
I didn't say "there is no gaming community", I said "there is no gaming community in the sense feminists talk about".
Modern feminists are little more than trolls: they make outrageous statements and then feign anger when people get upset in response. Yes, it's unreasonable to complain that people use harsh language when you deliberately provoke them.
That presumes that it's an actual threat, instead of merely language intended to shock; it just serves her agenda to blur the distinction.
Of course, it's better not to feed trolls like Sarkeesian; it's better to respond to her with ridicule than harsh language. Come on, you can't really be taking her seriously, can you?
You asked in what way subsidiarity is an American tradition. I'm pointing you to de Tocqueville, who observed subsidiarity as a principle of US governance in the 19th century. What else do you want?
Yes, we should. The shortcomings and predilections of teenage heterosexual males neither matter, nor do they have anything to do with technology or Slashdot.
There is no "gaming community" in the sense feminists talk about; it's a construct intended to fabricate a fictional enemy that people can grandstand against to make themselves important, gain power, and gain impressions. It lets them engage in their Two Minutes Hate.
Anita Sarkeesian seems to dislike the idea that female Vietnamese prostitutes try to be enticing to American soldiers and speak in broken English. Oh, the horror of it! Of course, Vietnamese prostitutes should speak with Oxford diction and kick butt like Sigourney Weaver! And pandering to the desires of heterosexual males, I mean, what's the world coming to!
One thing Sarkeesian should do is work on her misandrism, objectification, and stereotyping of men, starting with the images of fat, lazy male gamers she keeps flashing in the background. The way she stereotypes and puts down men is offensive. And she should work on actually making a point instead of just rambling on.
No, obviously not (why do I even need to explain that?). I am pointing out that your reasoning and argumentation are symptomatic of someone who brings dictators to power. You and people like you obviously favor other such policies as well, and even though they seem individually harmless, collectively they bring down democracies.
What is stupid is citing "Prof. Norm Matloff"; the man plays fast and loose with the truth based on his agenda-du-jour.
Well, lots of people love political dictators and strongmen; you apparently too. That doesn't make it right.
Read de Tocqueville; he explains it pretty well.
I'm not concluding anything, I merely tried to illustrate a basic fact of US democracy for you. Sorry if you don't grasp it.
Let me explain how this works. Climatologists look at natural phenomena and make predictions about what the climate in the future might look like given various actions; that's the entirety of their expertise. It's not rocket science for them to communicate this either. Economists, sociologists, politicians, and ethicists then look at those options and make choices. It's like a restaurant: the chef gives you a menu of choices, but he doesn't get to tell you what to eat.
Well, yes, it's obvious that you're an idiot.
Here is a list of additional, serious problems legislators should address ASAP:
http://first-world-problems.co...
The problem with Windows isn't what it is trying to do but how it is trying to do it: the highly interdependent object-oriented libraries, the widespread use of C++ for basic services, bloated functionality in everything from the file system to the mouse. Even if every single daemon and server in Windows were superior to Linux individually, the entire system would still be crap because of that.
Yes, you are jumping to conclusions. While body cameras clearly have benefits, they also have costs and effects that we don't know yet. I do want my local police department to wear them, but I don't want the state or federal government to mandate that they wear them.
No, what I stated is the American tradition. It's you who subscribes to the bizarre and un-American idea that the federal government can and should pass whatever laws it deems to be in the benefit of Americans overall.
Of course they are, frequently in fact. How is kicking the problem to the state or federal government going to fix it? Obviously, government at the state and federal level is just as corrupt and dysfunctional, but even harder to control by voters.
Quite the opposite: I expect government to screw up at all levels, just like businesses screw up. Screwing up is part of human nature and human organizations. One of the best defenses against those screwups is to keep things as local and diverse as possible. That way, while some cities fail because they make bad decisions, others who make good decisions prosper.
That's a problem with the front pages, not reality. In reality, killings by police are rare, representative of the population of suspects, and are almost always found to be in accordance to the law.
Federal interference in local politics and local policing is a political agenda.
The smoky backroom full of fat cats like Obama, Bush, congressmen, and the lobbyists and cronies that supply them with money and want power.
Even if the term actually meant "anti-competitive behavior", it would be accurate roughly in the sense that the "Ministry of Truth" has to do with truth and the "Ministry of Peace" has to do with peace.
Of course, the term "unlauterer Wettbewerb" doesn't even mean "anti-competitive behavior", it means something like "indecent competition" or "immoral competition". The best translation is probably "unfair competition", although that doesn't quite capture the emotional force of the term in German. Usually, companies accused of this behavior are too competitive, rather than anti-competitive.
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
The term "Unlauteres Wettbewerbsverhalten" does not mean "uncompetitive behavior"; it means "competition that violates good taste" or "competition that violates moral standards". A better translation might be "unfair competition".
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Ferguson is 2/3 black. Whatever "black causes" there may be, they are the popular causes in Ferguson.
More importantly, you are effectively suggesting that Ferguson be governed by having a predominantly white federal government impose policies in response to the demands of a small number of rioters, mostly from outside Ferguson. Whatever flaws local elections may have, your solution is clearly far worse.
You're pulling that out of your ass; there is no evidence whatsoever that Ferguson's black voters were in any way prevented from voting or running for office. If there were any such evidence, the federal government could have, should have, and likely would have stepped in long ago.
What progress? Democrats themselves keep complaining of the "intractable" problems, "persistent" and "rising" racial and economic inequities. You can't have it both ways: either there has been substantial progress or there hasn't been.
In fact, I think Democrats are right: these problems are persistent, intractable, rising, and serious. But given that we have had decades of progressive and civil rights legislation and enforcement, the conclusion has to be that this legislation is ineffective and likely actually the cause of some of these problems.
Again, you're fabricating your facts. The "literacy tests" were racist precisely because they weren't fair: they were administered predominantly to blacks and they were scored at the discretion of racist election officials who would let whites pass and blacks fail. In different words, objectively they weren't actually "literacy tests".
Voter ID laws are favored by a majority of both whites and blacks. Voter ID laws do have a slight impact in that they hurt Democrats and help Republicans, but it's anybody's guess as to whether that's due to fraud or disparate impact based on social class; but there is no clear evidence that they have a disparate impact based on race. They are also the norm in pretty much all other democratic nations. Your accusations of racism just show again how far removed from reality your arguments are.
Zinn's book is a great summary of the arguments and views of progressives and democratic socialists. And as such it was instrumental in turning me from a progressive into a conservative-leaning libertarian: unlike the vague handwaving from politicians and folks like you, one can check Zinn's sources and arguments, and they do not stand up to closer scrutiny. It's not that Zinn didn't have good intentions (progressives and democratic socialists are motivated by the best of intentions), it's that the means he advocated for achieving those intentions were ineffective and harmful, like progressive policies in general.
That's nonsense. Cities are fully in charge of their police departments: they can limit the use of force, pass laws, hire and fire, even get rid of them. And if the "move slowly", that's their right. They may well have other, more important issues than body cams on their minds.
It's only an "important issue" because some people are making it such for political and financial gain. There is no evidence that a body cam is needed in this case either: there is tons of physical evidence and witness statements. People are trying to fabricate a crisis in order to push through political agendas.
Cop cams are generally good. But what's the justification for making it a federal mandate?
Yes, and the voters of Ferguson could have changed this every local election if they had wanted to.
Polite complaints, peaceful demonstrations, and rioting is what you do in order to get handouts from a king or slave owner. We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, all those actions are meaningless. What matters in a democracy is voting, running for office, and convicing your fellow citizens.
Oh, rioting certainly works for the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world: it furnishes them with money and power. For the people of Ferguson, it just means poverty and marginalization.
If the people of Ferguson don't like their "white establishment", they can vote them out every couple of years. But apparently, they have been satisfied enough with their white establishment that they didn't bother to do so.
Opposing a federal law mandating the use of police cameras isn't the same as opposing police cameras. I'm happy if my local police wear body cameras. I strongly object to such a requirement being imposed by the federal government.
Just because something is right for white middle class nerds like you doesn't mean it's right for everybody. It's your kind of hubris and ignorance that causes Washington to keep passing ineffective and harmful legislation, legislation that makes the white middle class happy and well off at the expense of everybody else. Cut it out.
There are about 400 killings by police in the US per year, not a large number to begin with. Almost all of them are found to have been justifiable in a court of law. There is no evidence of significant racial bias in those statistics (i.e., the people getting shot are representative of the relevant population of perpetrators and suspects). There is no evidence of the kind of breakdowns in local and state government that would require the federal government to step in.
Preventing police brutality isn't the job of the federal government, it is only the job of the federal government if democratic mechanisms have clearly broken down at the local and state level and can't handle that. Is there any evidence for that? No. Hence, not a job for the federal government.