GamerGate has lead to game developers being forced out of their homes because of threats.
GamerGate is just a movement with pretty much no organization whatsoever, with an overall unclear goal (all of them being pretty unimportant, in my opinion). A movement isn't a sentient entity, and therefore cannot force anyone out of their homes or threaten anyone; individuals part of the movement did.
But taking every foolish threat seriously will just render you incapable of doing anything. Fortunately, a grand majority of the time, such Internet threats aren't serious to begin with.
I thought freedom was more important than privacy.
Freedom is more important than safety. Privacy is part of freedom.
Furthermore, the government infringing upon your freedoms makes the government (supposedly by the people and for the people) your enemy, and morally, that's the worst result of all, even if the alternative is being destroyed.
What are they supposed to do, disqualify everyone merely because they might have committed some crime (even though most people don't commit any serious crimes)? Not going with that little strategy doesn't seem like it would do a very good job of guaranteeing sociopaths.
Care to point out where he said "Pedophiles are like Rosa Parks."? No, you can't, because he didn't; that was a straw man.
Let me help you understand the situation, since you seem to be too stupid to do it yourself. One guy said that the people looking at these images are breaking laws "plain and simple," as if that in itself was a bad thing. Then, someone else mentioned people who broke the law (Rosa Parks being an example) to show that breaking the law is not necessarily wrong.
There was no comparison. Just someone using someone's stupid fucking logic against them.
Yes, and that doesn't relate to what I said. There's nothing inherently wrong about living in fantasy. If they want to do that, I don't really care, and I'm not going to tell others whether or not they're living life to the fullest.
It is when it's your money. Or do you think money cannot be stolen? If so, give me your address and I'll gladly take all of that money that isn't yours off of your hands.
It's just a shame that it doesn't result in punishment; that was a pretty bad idea. People who openly ignore the constitution and infringe upon our liberties really do need to be put behind bars. Then again, even if it was supposed to result in people being punished, the government would likely just not enforce it anyway.
This is a valid and welcome point of view in the discussion.
No, it isn't. He repeats the same trash over and over again in any privacy-related discussion and openly despises the constitution and the very concept of freedom.
'Real' freedom, to him, is as follows: 1) You have the freedom to be warrantlessly spied on by your government in a mass surveillance program. 2) You have the freedom to be shoved off into free speech zones. 3) You have the freedom to be arrested for having drawings of children having sex, because the community doesn't like that sort of thing. 4) You have the freedom to be molested by the government at airports, buses, and trains simply because you might be a terrorist. 5) You have the freedom to be searched randomly at DUI checkpoints. 6 You have the freedom to be destroyed and declared a traitor for leaking your government's unconstitutional activities. 7) In general for just about any privacy-related matter, you have the freedom to have your privacy violated by the government in the name of safety.
If you disagree with him, you want "license" and not "liberty." Furthermore, if you bring up the constitution, the Supreme Court is always 100% correct and cannot ever be wrong in interpreting it, so you're wrong for thinking any of the above are unconstitutional. If you still disagree, prepare for him to spam links showing deaths from terrorism/child molesters/whatever as if freedom is less important than safety.
cold fjord in a nutshell. He's truly the biggest fan of limited government.
he did, and to any normal american, he did the right thing
I only wish that were true. Sadly, most people seem to be braindead drones who think the government can do no wrong and that infringing upon the constitution and our individual liberties is okay in the name of safety. Add to that the fact that they keep voting for the 'lesser of two evils'? Yeah, they're completely worthless.
Actually, no. Fools have arbitrarily decided that certain things are relevant to intelligence (how well you do in school, how much money you make, etc.) without a shred of evidence. We haven't even properly defined intelligence in any sort of rigorous way.
But the serious IQ tests have demonstrated effectiveness at rating our commonsense concept of intelligence, so it is good enough.
Nonsense. Common sense is often neither common and nor does it often make sense. Plenty of nonsensical things used to be "common sense." That is not science, either. The "common sense concept" of intelligence does not matter in the least.
Doesn't it seem strange that human intellect seems to have peaked at it's current level? Intelligence beyond a couple standard dev. above a 100 IQ seems to be negatively correlated with reproduction(or else 100 would be more intelligent than it is).
Also, another problem with that method is that the founders sometimes violated their own constitution for convenience., which doesn't change their original intentions.
No, not really. A more accurate description would be the courts tend to look at the Constitution (and its Amendments) as if those who created it were alive, sitting next to them, and completely aware of the last 240 years of history when they wrote it.
No, they just blatantly make shit up. If they were doing as you said, mass surveillance would be struck down immediately, free speech zones wouldn't be allowed, and the commerce clause wouldn't be used so ridiculously, among many other things.
While in reality the invention of the assault rifle and the Internet has pretty much blown away anything they intended in the Second and First Amendments, respectively.
Nothing is wrong with the first amendment; the courts just enjoy modifying it. As for the second, if you really want it changed, then you must amend the constitution. Arbitrarily deciding which modern weapons are and aren't allowed is not something I want the government to be able to do.
the Slashdot crowd cries foul and talks about police states. Give it a rest.
Actually, smaller-scale corruption can be seen in police forces abusing what powers they do have. What makes you think giving them even more sweeping powers will lead to good results?
You've been crying foul for years and nothing like that has happened
It has already happened numerous times throughout history. That you are utterly ignorant of history and cannot comprehend how something can be a slow and gradual process is not anyone's problem but your own.
But yes, *this time* the government is and always will be full of perfect little angels who will never make mistakes or abuse their powers. This time will be different, so give the government as much power as it needs.
There is a good reason for it and it's long overdue.
No, there is no good reason. In any truly free country, fundamental liberties are considered more important than safety. So even if the police state isn't a threat, this action would still be wrong.
Your authoritarian garbage will convince no one except those who hate liberty, are ignorant of history, or both.
That seems to be what they do in the US anyway. The courts just modify the constitution with invisible ink, and then pretend they're "interpreting" it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, fortunately *most* of the time the threats are hot air, would you like to be the one to take the bullet for that one serious threat?
I'd be far more worried about getting into a car accident. The threat is greatly overblown.
GamerGate has lead to game developers being forced out of their homes because of threats.
GamerGate is just a movement with pretty much no organization whatsoever, with an overall unclear goal (all of them being pretty unimportant, in my opinion). A movement isn't a sentient entity, and therefore cannot force anyone out of their homes or threaten anyone; individuals part of the movement did.
But taking every foolish threat seriously will just render you incapable of doing anything. Fortunately, a grand majority of the time, such Internet threats aren't serious to begin with.
I thought freedom was more important than privacy.
Freedom is more important than safety. Privacy is part of freedom.
Furthermore, the government infringing upon your freedoms makes the government (supposedly by the people and for the people) your enemy, and morally, that's the worst result of all, even if the alternative is being destroyed.
Playing a musical instrument is often correlated with intelligence
Correlated with things that have arbitrarily been deemed to be intelligence, you mean. There's a difference.
Not correcting that if you can is a sign that you don't care about yourself or living.
If they didn't care about living, they likely would have died already. How about you not decide how others feel based on your own arbitrary standards?
There is nothing inherently wrong with being obese, depressed, dying early, either I suppose.
Right.
Of course, just about anything can be addictive. It largely depends on the person.
Nice anecdotal evidence.
Don't get caught, no consequences.
What are they supposed to do, disqualify everyone merely because they might have committed some crime (even though most people don't commit any serious crimes)? Not going with that little strategy doesn't seem like it would do a very good job of guaranteeing sociopaths.
Care to point out where he said "Pedophiles are like Rosa Parks."? No, you can't, because he didn't; that was a straw man.
Let me help you understand the situation, since you seem to be too stupid to do it yourself. One guy said that the people looking at these images are breaking laws "plain and simple," as if that in itself was a bad thing. Then, someone else mentioned people who broke the law (Rosa Parks being an example) to show that breaking the law is not necessarily wrong.
There was no comparison. Just someone using someone's stupid fucking logic against them.
Oh, I see. So they can just do whatever they please when it comes to your money. Land of the free, home of the brave.
Yes, and that doesn't relate to what I said. There's nothing inherently wrong about living in fantasy. If they want to do that, I don't really care, and I'm not going to tell others whether or not they're living life to the fullest.
That's great. We are not in a Revolutionary War right now.
Even if we were, that wouldn't make it right. Stop seemingly defending privacy violations.
It is when it's your money. Or do you think money cannot be stolen? If so, give me your address and I'll gladly take all of that money that isn't yours off of your hands.
It's just a shame that it doesn't result in punishment; that was a pretty bad idea. People who openly ignore the constitution and infringe upon our liberties really do need to be put behind bars. Then again, even if it was supposed to result in people being punished, the government would likely just not enforce it anyway.
This is a valid and welcome point of view in the discussion.
No, it isn't. He repeats the same trash over and over again in any privacy-related discussion and openly despises the constitution and the very concept of freedom.
'Real' freedom, to him, is as follows:
1) You have the freedom to be warrantlessly spied on by your government in a mass surveillance program.
2) You have the freedom to be shoved off into free speech zones.
3) You have the freedom to be arrested for having drawings of children having sex, because the community doesn't like that sort of thing.
4) You have the freedom to be molested by the government at airports, buses, and trains simply because you might be a terrorist.
5) You have the freedom to be searched randomly at DUI checkpoints.
6 You have the freedom to be destroyed and declared a traitor for leaking your government's unconstitutional activities.
7) In general for just about any privacy-related matter, you have the freedom to have your privacy violated by the government in the name of safety.
If you disagree with him, you want "license" and not "liberty." Furthermore, if you bring up the constitution, the Supreme Court is always 100% correct and cannot ever be wrong in interpreting it, so you're wrong for thinking any of the above are unconstitutional. If you still disagree, prepare for him to spam links showing deaths from terrorism/child molesters/whatever as if freedom is less important than safety.
cold fjord in a nutshell. He's truly the biggest fan of limited government.
he did, and to any normal american, he did the right thing
I only wish that were true. Sadly, most people seem to be braindead drones who think the government can do no wrong and that infringing upon the constitution and our individual liberties is okay in the name of safety. Add to that the fact that they keep voting for the 'lesser of two evils'? Yeah, they're completely worthless.
I'd change "normal" to "freedom-loving."
But the correlation is quite high.
Actually, no. Fools have arbitrarily decided that certain things are relevant to intelligence (how well you do in school, how much money you make, etc.) without a shred of evidence. We haven't even properly defined intelligence in any sort of rigorous way.
But the serious IQ tests have demonstrated effectiveness at rating our commonsense concept of intelligence, so it is good enough.
Nonsense. Common sense is often neither common and nor does it often make sense. Plenty of nonsensical things used to be "common sense." That is not science, either. The "common sense concept" of intelligence does not matter in the least.
Stop repeating myths.
instead of living life to the fullest in the real world
Have you considered that they are, in fact, doing that? Not everyone has the same interests.
Doesn't it seem strange that human intellect seems to have peaked at it's current level? Intelligence beyond a couple standard dev. above a 100 IQ seems to be negatively correlated with reproduction(or else 100 would be more intelligent than it is).
IQ != intelligence.
Also, another problem with that method is that the founders sometimes violated their own constitution for convenience., which doesn't change their original intentions.
Interpreting something is not the same as modifying it. You understand that much, yes?
Or would you think I'm correct if I were to interpret your post as saying "I love to rape and murder babies!"?
No, not really. A more accurate description would be the courts tend to look at the Constitution (and its Amendments) as if those who created it were alive, sitting next to them, and completely aware of the last 240 years of history when they wrote it.
No, they just blatantly make shit up. If they were doing as you said, mass surveillance would be struck down immediately, free speech zones wouldn't be allowed, and the commerce clause wouldn't be used so ridiculously, among many other things.
While in reality the invention of the assault rifle and the Internet has pretty much blown away anything they intended in the Second and First Amendments, respectively.
Nothing is wrong with the first amendment; the courts just enjoy modifying it. As for the second, if you really want it changed, then you must amend the constitution. Arbitrarily deciding which modern weapons are and aren't allowed is not something I want the government to be able to do.
the Slashdot crowd cries foul and talks about police states. Give it a rest.
Actually, smaller-scale corruption can be seen in police forces abusing what powers they do have. What makes you think giving them even more sweeping powers will lead to good results?
You've been crying foul for years and nothing like that has happened
It has already happened numerous times throughout history. That you are utterly ignorant of history and cannot comprehend how something can be a slow and gradual process is not anyone's problem but your own.
But yes, *this time* the government is and always will be full of perfect little angels who will never make mistakes or abuse their powers. This time will be different, so give the government as much power as it needs.
There is a good reason for it and it's long overdue.
No, there is no good reason. In any truly free country, fundamental liberties are considered more important than safety. So even if the police state isn't a threat, this action would still be wrong.
Your authoritarian garbage will convince no one except those who hate liberty, are ignorant of history, or both.
That seems to be what they do in the US anyway. The courts just modify the constitution with invisible ink, and then pretend they're "interpreting" it.