Only if you're foolish enough to believe that quality = quantity. But that is false. What really needs to happen is to get rid of rote memorization-based standardized tests, the ridiculous amounts of useless busywork that don't help people truly comprehend the material, propaganda trying to teach kids that authority is best, the ridiculous amounts of unnecessary rote memorization in general, and the one-size-fits-all nonsense that plagues the school system.
More schooling (which is just tantamount to brainwashing at the moment) will not fix any of this trash.
Odd how Americans think the same playbook is good and privacy is bad
We're not a hivemind. I'm an American and I oppose nonsense like the NSA's mass surveillance 100%; I don't think they should even be collecting the data at all.
Plenty of people, in fact, do. You can't explain all the massive violations of our constitution and our fundamental liberties with ignorance alone; everyone involved would have to be ignorant of all the government abuses of power throughout history, and would have to believe that everyone in the government is a perfect angel who can do no wrong and make no mistakes and that it would always be so.
Threats were made, but there were no serious risks. This is much ado about nothing.
I see freedom of speech as bigger than one government.
Freedom of speech is not really under attack. It's mainly just businesses with a poor understanding of the nearly nonexistent risks that caused the movie to be less available.
And sticking up for freedom of speech is fine, but I'd rather do it in ways that don't involve giving money to companies like Sony, or seeing silly movies.
The US government is not trying to censor this movie, and there were no serious threats to begin with, so freedom of speech is safe.
This is just chest-thumping nonsense. You don't need to see a movie produced by an evil company that routinely abuses its customers in order to support freedom of speech.
Your definition of "patriotism" seems strange. Mindlessly chanting "USA! USA! USA!" doesn't really qualify as "patriotism" in my book. Real patriots are fighting the NSA's mass surveillance and any silly draconian laws the government is trying to pass in response to this very convenient hack of a company with notoriously bad security.
At least you made me laugh by being so predictable. Everything in your world is somebody else's problem and not yours.
I hope you realize that that could just as easily be applied to you. Setting aside the fact that I don't know what "your world" is, and you don't know what mine is (as much as you'd like to pretend), of course. Have you ever thought of becoming cold fjord's underling?
He'll probably just spam links to news articles about terrorist attacks, insist that safety is more important than freedom, insist that none of this is unconstitutional, and say that anyone who disagrees wants "License" and not liberty.
If you merely disagreed with my opinion that people are oversensitive or something, that would be one thing. But instead, you act as most Random Arrogant ACs do and decide to point out fake contradictions in the arguments you think I'm making for 'points', and try to guess beliefs I haven't voiced.
Yup. You want everyone to approve of your extreme level of insensitivity. Quite selfish, I must say.
That is incorrect, as my own level of "insensitivity" is irrelevant. You are obviously not paying attention to the conversation.
Did you completely miss the preceding words calling someone (a nigger)?
No.
Well, what meaning do offensive statements by your logic have if they're not offensive?
Because the definitions of those words still exist regardless of whether or not they're offensive.
In your world, there's no distinction between saying that someone is black or saying that that person is a nigger.
In my world, context and intent matters. That may change the meaning, and it often helps to know those things so you can know what the other person is like. Someone calling someone a "nigger" because they don't like black people is a racist, while someone using the word for, say, parody purposes, probably isn't.
Just highlighting your illogical position.
Your lack of understanding of basic logic does not make my opinion illogical.
No. You hold an illogical position or don't understand half of what you're saying yourself.
It's just that you don't understand basic logic. Do you seriously have trouble understanding such a simple thing? I do not support punishing people for offending others, *if* someone gets offended. I would *rather* people not be what I call "oversensitive," but if they are, people shouldn't be punished just because they offended these people.
If you don't understand that, you're a braindead moron. There is no contradiction here.
What you don't grasp is the distinction between being fine with the right of others to insult you and not being fine with such insulting of you.
It's just that you don't grasp what the conversation is about. You're a complete and utter moron, similar to the numerous other arrogant ACs that show up randomly and make ridiculous arguments and don't actually read the posts they're responding to.
Well, they need to learn about the tu quoque fallacy, then. And they should also realize that not everyone in the US agrees with what the government is doing. Holding a single individual (who may disagree with the government's actions) accountable for the actions of the government is just silly.
Of course, that's also a complete violation of the spirit of the constitution, but courts would only pay attention to *that* if it would result in the government having more power. A shame that our courts too often side with the government.
Maybe eventually we will have the technology to make a console and games that don't depend on a server that is not in the purchasers control.
That's impossible. Everything has to be done in The Cloud, and must be a black box to the user. Anything else is pure heresy. Control in the user's hands? What are you smoking?
First amendment of the US constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to other parts of the government. I'm not sure how you could read that and determine that a law against insulting someone's "dignity" or dead bodies would not be unconstitutional.
Your ability to form a coherent argument and stay on-topic is as bad as your understanding of the US constitution.
In other words a law that restricts me from insulting your dead body, is not against the 'free speech artice/amendment' of your or any other constitution.
Simply incorrect. Try again. Or don't, because your comments are a waste of space.
Cool, we get to choose what government programs that we fund? Fine, don't take my money to fund the bloated, unnecessary, government mandated healthcare program that was rammed down everyones throat.
Why do you seem to be assuming I'm someone who supports that sort of thing? What if I'm someone who desires limited government? And the implication with your statement also seems to be that people who don't desire such government mandated healthcare programs are warmongers who would desire a war. I don't think that's the case at all.
It's completely subjective, and you likely already have a general idea of what I mean.
So in your opinion there's no difference between saying that a a muslim is intolerant or calling a black man a nigger?
In my opinion, you should take into account someone's intent and the context of the situation, not just say that the word "nigger" is always bad. It can, in fact, be used in ways that are completely not racist at all.
Whether those two things are different is completely dependent on the communicator's intent, and the context of the situation. You act like it is black-and-white, but it isn't.
what's the point in free speech if you want speech to loose most of its meaning?
Speech does not lose its meaning merely because people don't become offended. What a complete non sequitur. Although I have heard people argue similar things before, so this line of reasoning will not convince me.
Well, it's pretty funny logic that you have. You want people to desire to be offended.
What?
That is not the same as supporting a society in which people have the right to offend you.
Are blacks inferior to whites if they're offended by being called nigger?
You speak as if only blacks are offended by such things; that is false. There are oversensitive people of all races.
However, saying that someone being offended by some speech is only their problem is just selfish.
It is their problem. How they react to the speech is completely their problem.
but I consider the word nigger an entirely different matter.
Well, I don't. Language evolves, people can have certain intentions, and there is context to consider. It is silly to declare that *any* word is inherently bad (and bad is subjective).
but doesn't that mean that you support a society in which it's ok to offend you for your race?
I think that people should grow thicker skins, yes.
Slashdot Mirror
This all makes sense and is probably a good idea.
Only if you're foolish enough to believe that quality = quantity. But that is false. What really needs to happen is to get rid of rote memorization-based standardized tests, the ridiculous amounts of useless busywork that don't help people truly comprehend the material, propaganda trying to teach kids that authority is best, the ridiculous amounts of unnecessary rote memorization in general, and the one-size-fits-all nonsense that plagues the school system.
More schooling (which is just tantamount to brainwashing at the moment) will not fix any of this trash.
Odd how Americans think the same playbook is good and privacy is bad
We're not a hivemind. I'm an American and I oppose nonsense like the NSA's mass surveillance 100%; I don't think they should even be collecting the data at all.
No one wants 1984
Plenty of people, in fact, do. You can't explain all the massive violations of our constitution and our fundamental liberties with ignorance alone; everyone involved would have to be ignorant of all the government abuses of power throughout history, and would have to believe that everyone in the government is a perfect angel who can do no wrong and make no mistakes and that it would always be so.
Threats were made, but there were no serious risks. This is much ado about nothing.
I see freedom of speech as bigger than one government.
Freedom of speech is not really under attack. It's mainly just businesses with a poor understanding of the nearly nonexistent risks that caused the movie to be less available.
And sticking up for freedom of speech is fine, but I'd rather do it in ways that don't involve giving money to companies like Sony, or seeing silly movies.
The US government is not trying to censor this movie, and there were no serious threats to begin with, so freedom of speech is safe.
This is just chest-thumping nonsense. You don't need to see a movie produced by an evil company that routinely abuses its customers in order to support freedom of speech.
Your definition of "patriotism" seems strange. Mindlessly chanting "USA! USA! USA!" doesn't really qualify as "patriotism" in my book. Real patriots are fighting the NSA's mass surveillance and any silly draconian laws the government is trying to pass in response to this very convenient hack of a company with notoriously bad security.
At least you made me laugh by being so predictable. Everything in your world is somebody else's problem and not yours.
I hope you realize that that could just as easily be applied to you. Setting aside the fact that I don't know what "your world" is, and you don't know what mine is (as much as you'd like to pretend), of course. Have you ever thought of becoming cold fjord's underling?
If you can give me a link to whatever site/blog/vlog you've adopted your "beliefs" from
None. Why don't you give me a link to whatever site/blog/vlog you've adopted your "beliefs" from?
Otherwise, it's pointless for me to continue since you're unable to express them coherently yourself.
No, it's just that your reading comprehension is awful, and your ability to form a logical argument is awful. It's your problem.
He'll probably just spam links to news articles about terrorist attacks, insist that safety is more important than freedom, insist that none of this is unconstitutional, and say that anyone who disagrees wants "License" and not liberty.
If you merely disagreed with my opinion that people are oversensitive or something, that would be one thing. But instead, you act as most Random Arrogant ACs do and decide to point out fake contradictions in the arguments you think I'm making for 'points', and try to guess beliefs I haven't voiced.
The government already stops people from protesting in real life. Your protests can't inconvenience anyone or you're in trouble.
Land of the free, home of the brave.
Yup. You want everyone to approve of your extreme level of insensitivity. Quite selfish, I must say.
That is incorrect, as my own level of "insensitivity" is irrelevant. You are obviously not paying attention to the conversation.
Did you completely miss the preceding words calling someone (a nigger)?
No.
Well, what meaning do offensive statements by your logic have if they're not offensive?
Because the definitions of those words still exist regardless of whether or not they're offensive.
In your world, there's no distinction between saying that someone is black or saying that that person is a nigger.
In my world, context and intent matters. That may change the meaning, and it often helps to know those things so you can know what the other person is like. Someone calling someone a "nigger" because they don't like black people is a racist, while someone using the word for, say, parody purposes, probably isn't.
Just highlighting your illogical position.
Your lack of understanding of basic logic does not make my opinion illogical.
No. You hold an illogical position or don't understand half of what you're saying yourself.
It's just that you don't understand basic logic. Do you seriously have trouble understanding such a simple thing? I do not support punishing people for offending others, *if* someone gets offended. I would *rather* people not be what I call "oversensitive," but if they are, people shouldn't be punished just because they offended these people.
If you don't understand that, you're a braindead moron. There is no contradiction here.
What you don't grasp is the distinction between being fine with the right of others to insult you and not being fine with such insulting of you.
It's just that you don't grasp what the conversation is about. You're a complete and utter moron, similar to the numerous other arrogant ACs that show up randomly and make ridiculous arguments and don't actually read the posts they're responding to.
Well, they need to learn about the tu quoque fallacy, then. And they should also realize that not everyone in the US agrees with what the government is doing. Holding a single individual (who may disagree with the government's actions) accountable for the actions of the government is just silly.
Of course, that's also a complete violation of the spirit of the constitution, but courts would only pay attention to *that* if it would result in the government having more power. A shame that our courts too often side with the government.
Maybe eventually we will have the technology to make a console and games that don't depend on a server that is not in the purchasers control.
That's impossible. Everything has to be done in The Cloud, and must be a black box to the user. Anything else is pure heresy. Control in the user's hands? What are you smoking?
Man, you must be studying under cold fjord. Please, teach me more about the US constitution!
First amendment of the US constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to other parts of the government. I'm not sure how you could read that and determine that a law against insulting someone's "dignity" or dead bodies would not be unconstitutional.
Your ability to form a coherent argument and stay on-topic is as bad as your understanding of the US constitution.
In other words a law that restricts me from insulting your dead body, is not against the 'free speech artice/amendment' of your or any other constitution.
Simply incorrect. Try again. Or don't, because your comments are a waste of space.
What the fuck are you talking about?
They likely wouldn't, and shouldn't when it comes to world police nonsense.
The American Bill of Rights only restricted Congress from limiting speech, eventually the 14th amendment was used to expand that to all governments.
What does that have to do with what I said? He made an incorrect statement about the US constitution, so I corrected him.
I don't like it either, but it is the right thing to do.
No, it isn't, and I've explained why. Fuck off with your world police nonsense.
How about Rwanda in the 90s, when the world stood by while hundreds of thousands of people were murdered in genocide?
Was that ok?
As opposed to playing world police and stopping it? Both are wrong, and I would rather do nothing.
Cool, we get to choose what government programs that we fund? Fine, don't take my money to fund the bloated, unnecessary, government mandated healthcare program that was rammed down everyones throat.
Why do you seem to be assuming I'm someone who supports that sort of thing? What if I'm someone who desires limited government? And the implication with your statement also seems to be that people who don't desire such government mandated healthcare programs are warmongers who would desire a war. I don't think that's the case at all.
Define oversensitive.
It's completely subjective, and you likely already have a general idea of what I mean.
So in your opinion there's no difference between saying that a a muslim is intolerant or calling a black man a nigger?
In my opinion, you should take into account someone's intent and the context of the situation, not just say that the word "nigger" is always bad. It can, in fact, be used in ways that are completely not racist at all.
Whether those two things are different is completely dependent on the communicator's intent, and the context of the situation. You act like it is black-and-white, but it isn't.
what's the point in free speech if you want speech to loose most of its meaning?
Speech does not lose its meaning merely because people don't become offended. What a complete non sequitur. Although I have heard people argue similar things before, so this line of reasoning will not convince me.
Well, it's pretty funny logic that you have. You want people to desire to be offended.
What?
That is not the same as supporting a society in which people have the right to offend you.
I support such a society 100%.
Are blacks inferior to whites if they're offended by being called nigger?
You speak as if only blacks are offended by such things; that is false. There are oversensitive people of all races.
However, saying that someone being offended by some speech is only their problem is just selfish.
It is their problem. How they react to the speech is completely their problem.
but I consider the word nigger an entirely different matter.
Well, I don't. Language evolves, people can have certain intentions, and there is context to consider. It is silly to declare that *any* word is inherently bad (and bad is subjective).
but doesn't that mean that you support a society in which it's ok to offend you for your race?
I think that people should grow thicker skins, yes.