However, the poster's careful specification that both of the store clerks he spoke to appeared to be Indian, and the immediate presumption that the second was talking to the first, and the further presumption that the talking was sneaky and to the detriment of the customer, is racist.
How did the parent poster's action indicate that he
A. believed in separate races
B. believed that his own race was superior to another race
?
Please explain. You claim to know what "racism" is, but I don't believe you yet.
And, no, racism, is NOT equivalent to bigotry. Bigotry does not imply a belief in separate races -- much less a belief that one's own race is inherently superior to another.
I just love "@tmp>$tmp", meaningful variable names and all.
Here's another one:
sub Tmploop { my (@args,@data,$tmp,$tmp2); @args=@_;
for($tmp=0;@{$args[1]}>$tmp;++$tmp) { my %hash;
# for every variable if defined
for($tmp2=0;@{$args[0]}>$tmp2;++$tmp2) {
if(defined($args[1]->[$tmp][$tmp2])) {
$hash{$args[0]->[$tmp2]}=$args[1]->[$tmp][$tmp2];
}
} push(@data,\%hash); } return \@data; }
@args, @data, %hash, $tmp, and, as an extra bonus, $tmp2! All in an ultra-meaningfully-named function called "Tmploop". I'm glad that the comment "for every variable if defined" was included, as the ultra-obscure meaning of the for loop was severerly clouding my understadning of what $tmp2=0;@{$args[0]}>$tmp2;++$tmp2 was trying to convey.
I've described debugging this former associate's code as "the herpes of this job".
I apologize for butting heads with you and saying things that might have been too harsh. I accept your apology as well. It's a shame that some anti-me moderator had to kill three of my karma points before we got to the agreement stage (pox on you, whoever you are), but I wouldn't let that deter me. My child is too important to me, and I felt like I was arguing on his behalf.
only because of the fact that there is a sucker born every minute.
This is a horrible quote.
It's a quote that was born from the realization that someone could take advantage of a trusting public on a mass scale. In other words, someone could easily make money through fraud using the trust of an inexperienced public as the lube, so to speak.
This means that the public likely hasn't encountered an asshole as big as the person saying, "There's a sucker born every minute." The notion of calling them "suckers" is a way of making it seem like they *deserve* to be defrauded. Have you had "friends" who thought it was smart/funny/cool to take advantage of your trust? Do you have a high opinion of a human who wants to make a *career* of that skill?
To me, the fact that the quote exists and isn't derided in the same way that we deride "Let them eat cake" is a sign of degeneracy in our culture. Yes, that's a value-judgement-charged statement, and I make no apology for it. We all have to stand somewhere, and I think fraud (and especially the notion that some people deserve to be defrauded) sucks to high hell.
Mod me down if you must, but the inference that two 'foreigners' at different stores were in cahoots against the shopper - only evidenced by one's use of a walkie-talkie and a language the shopper didn't understand - smacks of racism.
Racism is the belief that one's own race is inherently superior to another's race. (Or that another's race is inherently inferior to one's on race.)
I don't believe in races. I believe in one race: the human race. The belief in "separate races" is a cultural belief, not a scientific belief, and is the core of all racist beliefs. If you read my words as saying, "If you believe in separate races, then you are a racist", then you read me correctly.
That said, I see nothing racist in the parent poster's words or actions. Perhaps it was bigoted, but not racist. Perhaps the actions of the shopkeepers were also bigoted. Hard to tell from the average/. troll post.;)
Depends how you define "total failure". Personally I rate art and culture over the Big Mac and SUVs. YMMV.
What a poorly-conceived dig against the USA! Perhaps reflexive America-bashing is a "cool" thing to do in the culture you live in, but there are several aspects of it that deserve attention.
1. The Big Mac is part of American culture. Sure, I don't eat them, but millions of non-Americans do. If they were such crap, and the cultures you think are superior are so superior, then why do those cultures not reject Big Macs as the crap that you perceive them as? Are those cultures incapable of understanding your refined tastes?
2. Are you trying to claim that the United States has "no culture"? This is a common and retarded canard. Of course the United States has a culture! In fact, it has many, many cultures as you might expect a country of 300 million people and millions of square miles of land to contain. Do you think the cultures of Seattle, New Orleans, New York City, Lubbock, San Franciso, San Diego are all equal(ly crap)?
3. The USA isn't the only country that drives or makes SUVs.
4. The USA has artists too. In fact, they're so good that the government forces individuals to pay them!
5. Do you admire the cultures of Saudi Arabia and Iran? Many Euro-elitists can endlessly bash the machiavellian evil of Biggie Fries, but they can't seem to generate the energy to criticize the *hideously* anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-democracy record of more than one middle eastern country.
I will say that I enjoy reading Ayn Rand's books for instance, but I do not agree with all of her philosophical rantings and beliefs. I read books as stories.
I guess I feel sad reading that. I dislike Ayn Rand's storytelling. I particularly dislike her awkward way of writing love stories (which all come out sounding like rape fantasies). Her philosophy, on the other hand, is something that I really admire.
Thank you for your response. I, too, oppose "civil confinement", since it is seemingly undifferent from an extension of a jail sentence and thus an arbitrary improsonment. If it can happen for predatory child rapists, then why can't it happen for any other action by an "undesirable" (gay men for instance)?
If this is the only part that you opposed, I wish you would have come out and said it from the beginning and let me know that you weren't sticking up for the rights of predatory child rapists. Insinuations that I would be comfortable with communist-style roundups of any political threat is not helpful.
Seriously though, when my total mutt of a moggy has just had a skin graft and is about to undergo chemotherapy, I have to start to wonder - am I taking this too far?
It's a tough call. Keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of cats (and dogs, and birds, and...) that would make teriffic pets but live miserable lives and then die. Are you not going far enough in saving them?
The point here is not that you are going overboard with your cat nor being malicious with the potential pets that you don't care for. The point here is that the pet is in your life for the enhancement of *your* quality of life. When you find that the cuddliness of the cat does not outweigh the pain you go through to keep the alive, then you will let the pet die. This is the fate of most pets, and the most difficult and painful decision a pet owner has to make (in regards to her/his pet). My heart goes out to you.
i have no problem with life in prison for child rapists, in fact i fully support it. What i have a problem with is the exploitation of fear to move certain crimes into a "anything goes as long as we punish them" category.
I think this illustrates the crux of our disagreement. We are like two ships passing in the night.
You seem to take issue with what you perceive as the exploitation of fear as a pretext for unlimited abuse of a politically unpopular class of people. (As a gay man, I can sympathize with that point of view.) What I take issue with is the defense of child rapists in the name of an "Everyone is Speical (except those damn captialists, who should be summarily executed)" socialist mindset, even if said defense happens at the expense of endangering my own child.
Could it be that there is truth in what you say AND truth in what I say? Meaning, could it be that one of us being (partially) right does not necessarily imply that the other is (completely) wrong? I am willing to accept that.
I don't think child rapists should be allowed out of prison. ever. But if the law/sentance says 5 years let them out after five years. the problem is weak laws.
I think weak laws is but one of several problems. The initial problem is that people choose to rape children. Another problem is that they tend to do it over and over again (meaning, getting caught and convicted does not "cure the problem"). Another problem is that there are some people who want to coddle these predators, consequences be damned. I'm not accusing you of being one of those people, but I think it's ignorant to pretend that such coddlers do not exist.
Allow me to illustrate: suppose I enroll my son in community baseball. After six weeks, I find out that the baseball coach had two prior convictions of sex with children younger than 12, and that a liberal judge gave him probation for those crimes. (In case you didn't know, most child predators will actively seek out job positions where they can be around children.) Do you think my concern at that moment should be about "weak laws" or about the safety of my child? If I argue that this man should be monitored and removed from his job position, do you think I should feel receptive to liberals who lambaste me and accuse me of being a Nazi because "that man already paid his debt to society"? If I'm going to be forced to choose between protecting the well-being of my child and protecting the rights of a predtory child rapist, I will choose the former over the latter every single time. Do you regard that as unethical?
the ACLU is one of few recognizing that the latest pedophile witch hunt is just that, a witch hunt. there has not been an increase in number of child molestations and rapes.
"Witch hunt" is tired rhetoric.
The issue here is the liklihood of an individual who molests a child to do it again. There have been numerous cases of individuals who rape children receiving light sentences (say, probation) who then proceed to get convicted again for raping children. Are you one to argue that probation for those individuals was a better sentence after the second child was raped? Keep in mind that the perpetrators only get punished for the rapes for which they were caught. I believe that predatory child molesters prey on many children. Go visit www.pervetedjustice.com if you would like more insight, but it's an ugly, ugly read.
It's interesting that you accuse me of engaging in a "hunt". Do you think it's fair to characterize predatory child rapists' actions as "hunting children?" Will you also decry that particular "hunt"? From my point of view, it doesn't seem like their actions bother you all that much. You save your ire and outrage for people like me who want to decrease the quality of life of those people.
here in NY die fuehrer patacki has used "civil confinement" to arbitrarily extend prison sentances after the fact.
I disagree with civil confinement, but a person who seeks out, abducts, and rapes a child deserves to be monitored for the rest of his/her life. I notice that you vilify the governor for depriving child rapists of their rights to freedom. Why don't you vilify the child rapists for depriving children of their (quality of) lives?
how long before drug dealers and drunk drivers, they are up there on the "skewer for political benefit" list.
I don't care about the "political benefit" one iota. I loathe government in general. What I want is to deprive predatory child rapists of their freedom. What I want is to protect my child's life. Why don't you? I see you sticking up for the child rapist. Why won't you stick up for my kid instead? Do you believe that once a child rapist gets caught he'll never do it again?
they can already confiscate your home if pot is growing in your yard without a trial. they can confiscate your car without a conviction and you have to sue and win to get it back.
You and I probably already agree that the War on Some Drugs is moronic. It is waged largely to pad the feelings of hatred that many people have toward drug users and to line the pockets of self-indulgent, abusive drug warriors. No action should be illegal unless it deprives another individual of life, liberty, or property.
fuck it let's get a 3x5 notecard and make a list of decent human beings in politics, then draw and quarter the rest
It looks like you're engaging in some demonizing blowhard rhetoric in order to draw attention away from the fact that you're arguing for the quality of life of predatory child rapists. Why am I the Nazi here? You are the one who's saying, "Let's not hurt predatory child rapists. Let's give them light sentences, then not incovnenience or watch them at all after the fact. After all, what's the worst thing that could happen?"
So if it were up to you, Neo-Nazis who want to kill millions of people would get freedom of speech, but muslims who want to kill millions of people wouldn't. Interesting; I'm not entirely sure what the logic is there.
It's called a strawman argument.
I support the right of Neo-Nazis and Mujahideen to say that they hate and are superior to everyone. I do not support the right of Neo-Nazis and and Mujahideen to make threats.
Here's my plan: How about if we let everybody have freedom of speech, just don't let them kill or rape people.
Do you remember the Nuremberg files online? That was a website by a pro-life nutcase who listed the names and addresses of abortion providers. When one of those abortion providers happened to be killed by another pro-life nutcase, the owner of the website would scratch out the victim's name from the list. Does that qualify as "free speech" to you? The owner of the website wasn't killing or raping anyone.
You seem to be sugesting that the ACLU defends peoples right to be "serial predatory child rapists" or "violent totalitarian jihadi zealots" as opposed to just defending peoples right to free speech regardless of who they are. Of course, you can't really be saying that can you? Because that would be completely idiotic.
Good thing I didn't suggest it then. I do not maintain that the ACLU defends a person's right to be a serial predatory child rapist or a violent totalitarian mujahideen. At the same time, the ACLU definately stands up for the civil rights of those people. You seem to think that their civil rights are worth saving, and, on that point, you and I violently disagree. Those fuckers should be shot, not defended. Shame on the ACLU for sticking up for those bastards. They want to molest/kidnap my child and murder me. I'm supposed to be concerned about their rights? They have the right to die, god dammit!
Never mind.
You call yourself "progressive"? Tell me, how gay-friendly is Islam? How woman-friendly is it? Please help me figure this out, becuase I see a lot of "progressives" sticking up for muslim fuckers (who would gladly cut off my genitals because I'm a faggot), and I think they do it all in the name of their intense, irrational, seething hatred for Chimpy McBushitler. Is me and my family worth sacrificing to the muslim god in the name of destroying BushCO? It certainly seems that ay.
You need only search a little bit to figure out what CAIR's agenda is, and the ACLU supports CAIR, which means they support this:
"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad
As a gay man, how should I feel about the organization which stands up for the people who want to make Islam the highest authority in America and who gives money to offensive mujahideen?
As far as defending child predators goes, it's a quick search, too. Shame, shame, shame on me for posting a link to the concerned christian bitches of America, but it's not like a liberal website is going to report on this:
"If I murdered or raped someone before, I can go to the parks," Falk said.
How should I feel about the group that stands up for that person's right to be around my 5-year-old in the park? Does my son not deserve to be safe from harm?
If I were you, I would answer back about "he having served his time" and what not, which means that you would gladly put my son in danger of a serial predatory child molester because you certainly wouldn't want a serial predatory child molester's rights infringed upon. If I were you, I would answer that with, "It's not about his rights, it's about everyone's! Because if they can do it to him, they can do it to you!" Wrong again! I'm not a serial predatory child molester.
And that seems to be what the ACLU is about: sticking up for the rights of the mujahideen and the serial predatory child molesters in the world. When it comes to victims of frivolous lawsuits, or victims of emininet domain abuse, or victims of hate crimes where the "wrong" colors are involved, then the ACLU is no where to be found! So, quite frankly, fuck them right up the ass with a red-hot iron poker. They don't care about individual rights to life, liberty, or property. They want their own weird "Everyone is Special" agenda.
The ACLU supports civil rights. The way "the system" works is that it takes away the civil rights of the most despised (terrorists, etc.) and disenfranchised (poor, underclass) first and most people support these actions since these people are "evil".
The ACLU does support the mujahideen, granted. But it's not just "poor" people that it supports. It also has supported NAMBLA and serial predatory child rapists. How's that for civil rights? Not only does it support the right of people to raise money for suicide-bombing jihadists who would gladly kill me for being gay (I am gay), would gladly kidnap my child (adoptive parents have no rights in Islam, an e-mail debate from a rep of whyislam.org confirmed this), and would gladly kill me for being an infidel (I'm an atheist, not a "protected" "person of the book") -- but the ACLU also sticks up for the rights of people who would want to rape and kill my child and then lobby for that person's right to NOT be executed after they do so.
The old saying... "I may not agree with what you are saying but I will defend (to the death) your right to say it." (attributed to Voltaire)
And here's the sad part: I totally agree with this statement. It is granted by the First Amendment, and I think gay-bashing Neo-Nazis have every right in the world to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive and upsetting it is to me. What I don't understand is how you extend this to also include the protection mujahideen who would gladly detonate a dirty bomb in my bathroom and the NAMBLA creeps who are plotting to molest my child. This goes beyond protecting the right to speech. Instead, it is the most disgusting conclusion of the "Everyone Is Special" mindset that too many liberals live by. I like the way that SeanBaby put it: "Lots of people suffer from the delusion that every life is worth saving."
So while the way that the ACLU stands up for the rights of people who do things that do not infringe on others life, liberty or property (such as drug use, acts of homosexuality, death with dignity, etc.), these noble deeds are wholly eclipsed by the fact that the ACLU has unfailingly stuck up for the rights of serial predatory child rapists and violent totalitarian jihadi zealots. The ACLU has little to do with defending individual rights and everything to do with advancing a socialist agenda.
Now, if you're a socialist then you might like that, and I won't stop you from your own individual thoughts and feelings. But I wholly object to you painting the ACLU as some kind of organization which has my rights in mind. I don't think they do at all.
Perhaps he's a Christian scientist. How many times have you heard a Christian argue, "You can't disprove the existence of God, can you? You don't have infinite knowledge, do you?"
The problem with my discussion with you is that you and I saw each other as "opponents" and were biased to want to counter and dispute what the other said. I think I was more guilty of this than you were.
I became aware of this as soon as I read something from a like-minded source (today). The writer indicated that the mainstream media still rules despite the great strides made by alternative media. He commented (paraphrased): the alternative media does not report; rather, they only react to what the mainstream media reports.
I think this is partially true, and I will concede that it is a defining difference between the mainstream media and the alternative media. In most cases, the alternative media lacks the ability and resources to do investigative reporting. (Likewise, they also lack the ability and resources to do "editing" to the deceitful degree that many in the mainstream media do, but I digress.)
I do want to go back to our discussion about journalists verses engineers.
Suppose there was a group of hack engineers out there who started up a bunch of web pages which competed with and took attention away from real engineers. (You can "sed 's/engineers/journalists/g'" to understand where I'm going with this.) How would these hack engineers function?
In reality, they couldn't. Their bridges, automobiles, brain suckers (that's an actual product, see www.jarvisproducts.com), and what-not would almost certainly be of shoddy quality and cause much injury, death, and lawsuits. This is why there aren't any hack engineers out there doing this very thing.
Now, execute that sed. These "hack journalists" are what you call "bloggers". In opposition to the non-existant (and impossibly-existant) hack engineers, these hack journalists do quite well and take quite a bit of attention away from the mainstream media. I can only conclude that journalism is not that hard to do. If that were false, then there wouldn't be any bloggers.
If I were you, I would counter with, "That's not Real(TM) Journalism!" Well, what *is* real journalism anyway? I've already conceded that bloggers can't do investigative reporting (yet), but I think that's just a subset of what "journalism" is. Ultimately, the ones who decide which ones are the best journalists are the consumers of the product: the ones who are actually viewing the output of the journalists. In other words, the market. And you can't dispute that the market is starting to shift away from the mainstream media and to alternative sources of media (don't forget talk radio!).
I imagine your defense to that could be, "The people who consume talk radio / blogs / podcasts are too stupid to know what real jornalism is" -- and that is exactly what I would expect from an elitist who pours his adoration into journalistic uber-snobs who deserve to get fired by bloggers.
Did you honestly think I thought the human beings in the mainstream responsible for the content they create were infallible?
No. I think you believe that whatever lack of objectivity you think exists in the mainstream media is so small that it's not worth mentioning.
So no one is perfectly objective. Does that mean we just throw up our hands, say "fuck it", and just listen to we want to hear without weighing anything that may legitimately contradict our beliefs? That it is somehow wrong for someone to even try to be objective in their reporting?
Of course not. My point is not, "No one is objective, so let's all spew out the most dishonest propaganda possible." My point is: I think the mainstream media is just as biased and just as unprofessional as many of the bloggers you abhor. You think the mainstream media is "a breed apart" and I dispute that. My point is not to elevate the worst of the bloggers, but to point out that the mainstream media is not worth trusting to the degree that you do.
I didn't intend to sweep any of this under the rug. They deserved to get called on for what they did and they deserved what they got.
That's disputable. It's not something that makes the mainstream media look objective, trustable, and professional, does it? It goes beyond a mere "error" -- like a spelling mistake. Maybe accusing you of trying to hide it goes to far, but I think you've made efforts to make it look as insigificant as possible. I understand why you would.
How could I ever have read your come, measured, unemotional defenses of the blogs and think of you as their champion. How silly of me.
You fail to realize that alternatives to mainstream media are not encompassed by what you perceive as "blogs". They can be podcasts, mailing lists, USENET, and many other forms. I'm not a blogger's champion. I'm an enemy of the mainstream media. Blogs happen to be "hip" right now, so they're being targeted for derision by the mainstream media and their supporters. The fact is that the Internet will allow many more forms of alternative media than just "blogs", and this is a good thing. The mainstream media will continue to lose readership and there's nothing you can do to stop that.
Seeing as how the mainstream media (especially newspapers) are under constant criticism by consumers on a daily basis and risk being sued for slander for certain mistakes, I kinda doubt that's the case. Do you think your average blogger has to worry about the same things as much?
I don't think the mainstream media is one tenth as worried as any businessman or physician for being sued. How often does the New York Times get sued for being unobjective and unprofessional? Did it get sued of Jayson Blair? I think you are exaggerating this threat.
A popular blogger can just keep on churning out content after doing the exact same stuff. They just have to keep pandering to their base . See the point yet?
No, I don't, since I see exactly the same behavior in the mainstream media. You keep insisting that they're "a breed apart" which is false (not to mention elitist). Lots of people are realizing this, and it's part of the reason that the mainstream media is losing.
They're not better people. It's just that most of them go to school to learn what it is to be a good journalist. Would it be elitist of me to go to a trained engineer to design a bridge rather than some random guy off the street to just wing it?
You are equating journalism school with enginering school. That's similiar to equating theology school with engineering school. In both casese, the former is about how to preach and proselytize while the latter is about hard science. If you are bad at math and science, you will fail at being an engineer and fail miserably, possibly getting people killed. If you are a bad journalist, then you can still get a job with the New York Times or 60 Minutes. I don't think
You're making up my feelings to try and support your own argrument. I don't dislike the standards, criticisms and repurcussions that the mainstream media faces at all.
I never claimed you disliked those standards, criticisms, or repurcussions, so I dispute your claim that I'm making up your feelings. I mentioned that the mainstream media as those standards, criticisms, and repurcussions only because they deserve to have them because of their (waning) power.
Yes, Captain Obvious. Every source of media has a viewpoint. Yes, mainstream media make factual mistakes and skewed reporting that they must be called on. But they, to a much greater extent than your beloved blogs, derive their power from how well they can establish that they are doing accurate, honest journalism.
Thanks for admitting that the mainstream media is not objective (contrary to your prior implications). Now you're backpedaling and claiming that they're just not *as* biased as other sources of information (where did I say that I loved blogs?). I'm wondering how you measure this. Do you just assume it to be true merely by the fact that the mainstream media has more power? In any case, it's false that the mainstream media has more power because they're less biased. They have power because they are established media that's been around for decades and built into our culture. Guess what! Our culture is changing, the Internet is allowing new media sources to wrest control from the mainstream media, and your beloved sources are losing power by the day. And there's nothing you can do about it. Arguing with some dickhead on Slashdot (that would be I) certainly isn't going to help.
Why are you so sure that blogs will thrive or fail based on this type of merit?
Because the "consumers" (for lack of a better term) of information will pick their favorites. Not everyone is going to be as turned on by what you perceive, subjectively, as "honest(TM) journalism". Like all humans, you included, people will want to hear what confirms what they already know to be True. More and more, people are turning away from the mainstream media. This is a statement of fact.
Many blogs I see become successful by pandering to an ill-informed, opinionated group of people (left-wing, right-wing, whatever), saying the most outlandish statements they can think of to appeal to them, and keeping the echo-chamber going. And since they don't need to live up as the same standards as other news sources, they get away with it. What kind of merit is that?
And why should I take you as an objective source on blogs? You're horribly biased and, for that reason and other reasons, have probably viewed a small fraction of blogs. It is in your self-interest to smear all blogs as reactionary garbage.
I think it's great that somebody called powerful people in the mainstream media on errors. FANTASTIC! STUPENDOUS! Give yourself and your fellow bloggers a big round of applause on these individual victories.
Sure thing! I can gloat on and on about it. And they didn't merely "call powerful people on errors". They got Dan Rather FIRED for being exactly the things that you claim define the mainstream media and exclude blogs: being non-objective and being unprofessional. Fabricating a document, passing it off as "true", failing to check sources, and doing it all to destroy a political enemy are all swept under the rug as mere "errors" to you.
But now consider how many of you would get into hot water if held to the same standards that they (correctly) were and you might not feel so hot anymore.
Who is this "you" you're talking to? I'm not the blogger's champion. In any case, I always invite people being held to standards of accuracy, honesty, and transparency. It's the mainstream media which has a problem with that. They think that they're superior to all the unsophisticated, non-journalist trash. They think that they're beyond judgement. For that, they suck. Dan Rather's firin
There are varying degrees of journalism. Calling "60 Minutes" "journalism" is like calling somebody who whipped up a blog a computer programmer.
I'm sure there are plenty of investigative reporters, fact checkers, and journalists on the 60 Minutes crew who would be immensely insulted by that statement. Why should I take your word for what "True(TM) Journalism" is?
Better still, there's lots and lots of real journalism that doesn't rely on video in any way, whatsoever.
Yes, of course. Take, for example, the New York Times. They can post stories that fit their agenda on the front page, over and over again (Abu Ghraib Scandal) whereas they can bury stories on page 16 that don't fit their agenda (American successes in Iraq). There are many examples of mainstream media bias on all levels. It all comes from a viewpoint. No one is without an agenda.
Elitism? Snobbery? Because I don't think that anyone who writes a blog is a "journalist"? Call it what you will. I also don't call my mom a software engineer because she can create an email.
You misunderstand me. I didn't call you elitist or snobbish because you failed to call bloggers journalists. I called you those things because you treat journalism as some kind of holy profession that non-journalists are too stupid to understand. You think journalists are in a higher class than non-journalists. You think their essence is superior. It's rank elitism, and you deserve to be taken down a notch for it.
To call a blogger a "journalist" is to shit on every real journalist that has ever existed. A "blogger" is somebody who writes a diary online. It's nothing more than narcissism at its worst.
Where did I call a blogger a "journalist"? I wasn't trying to elevate bloggers. I'm trying to take journalists down a notch -- something that they sorely deserve.
You're not a journalist.
I don't know how I'd live with myself if I was. I see little difference between a journalist and a movie maker. Both are merely creating realities that they would prefer existed.
That doesn't give you the right to call yourself and every other 75 IQ person who can write a scathing expose on their adventures baking bread a "journalist". You have no right to insult journalists that way.
Actually, I do have a right to insult anyone I please. This right is granted by the same thing which allows journalists to show their whole asses: the first amendment. And since when did I have a scathing expose on anything? My point here is not to elevate bloggers. It's to point out that being a journalist is not very hard, not very special, not very useful, and not very noble. Millions of people are realizing this, and that's why the mainstream media is losing more and more power every day. And guess what? Being some elitist jackass to me ("You have no right!") will do nothing to stop the winds of change. It truly is a pleasure to see pompous "journalists" losing their power.
OK. Now hold all the bloggers you know out there to the same standards, criticisms and repercussions that people in mainstream media face. How many do you think will survive?
The cream will rise to the top, now that we have a much, much, much more open market on the dissemination of information. The reason why the mainstream media faces the standards, criticisms, and repercussions that you dislike is because of the incredible power that they (used to) wield.
I'm not saying that such mistakes by the mainstream media are excusable. It's just that if you compare the amount of objectivity and professionalism present in blogs and the mainstream, the mainstream is the obvious winner.
If it really was so "obvious" that the mainstream media is more objective and professional than alternative soures of media, why would you need to say it? Most everyone now knows that every source of media has a viewpoint. Mainstream media is not nearly as objective and professional as you want them to be, nor will any claims (or facades) or said objectivity and professionalism save them from their imminent demise. Almost anyone can be a journalist now, and a meritocracy will arise. In other words, what happening in software (anyone can write software and publish it via the Internet) is happening in the field of journalism. It must be a painful and frightening time for members of (and supporters of) the mainstream media.
So blogs got a couple up on the major news sources. Big fucking deal.
Some "non-objective", "unprofessional" bloggers got Dan Rather, one of the most powerful names in the mainstream media, FIRED for being, of all things, non-objective and unprofessional. If that isn't a big fucking deal, then I don't know what is. But I understand why you want to downplay it. Perhaps you also understand why I like to talk about it with schoolgirl-like glee. My, how the mighty have fallen!:)
So that means it's better to get news from The Drudge Report rather than The New York Times or The Washington Post? Not bloody likely.
That, of course, merely your opinion, and it won't hold back the flood of people who, in increasing numbers, prefer to get their news from sources other than the New York Times and the Washington Post. Their readership will continue to decline and there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. Posting elitist messages on Slashdot certainly won't help your cause!
They all seem to have some major backer that I don't feel I can trust to give me honest, unbiased news.
You don't want unbiased news.
I'm not trying to tell you what you want and don't want. I'm trying to state a fact of human nature. You don't want unbiased news. You want news that confirms what you already know (or, in some cases, suspect) is true. News that contradicts what you know is true is something that you will usually ignore or, in the rare case that you're feeling punchy, come up with counterarguments against.
This is not an attack on your character. Most human beings, myself included, are exactly like this. We don't need to be told The Truth. We already know The Truth. And we need to hear other people tell us that we're right because it feels good.
(That is also why I don't watch television news, but they have a whole other type of corruption going on there!!! *coughs..fox *coughs*)
You probably don't need me to tell you that FOX News is Lies, right? You already know that it's all Lies, and that's why you don't watch it. Am I close?
There's nothing wrong with this. Everyone does it. (Well, lots of people know that FOX News is The Truth, but I think you catch my generic drift.)
You mean the arrogance of a Slashdot editor telling editors of more professional and more successful sites how to do their jobs?
If Slashdot really is as unimportant as you imply it is, then why should you care what it says about anyone else? (Behold: the power of information slipping from the newspapers' fingers!)
You mean like when Slashdot editors merge their own opinions into the article summaries, arrogantly assuming that their biased opinion is hard fact, and arrogantly assuming that anyone cares what they think?
I think every Internet-savvy person is aware enough now to know that all sources of media, traditional or otherwise, have a viewpoint.
Most people not buying newspapers are instead getting their news from TV or the Internet. When they use the Internet it's for convenience, not because of a lack of 'elitism'.
That must be a comforting thought for you, but you have no way of showing that it is true. From what I read, charges of elitism in traditional news sources are so-talked out that it's become a boring refrain. Perhaps media elitism is not considered an "important" story in the sources that you usually frequent. I hardly wonder why.
How can you have the audacity to criticise newspapers for arrogance and elitism, and then hold blogs up as an alternative?
Perhaps because a blog got Dan Rather and Mary Mapes fired? That sure was a good day!:)
What people (bloggers and their fans) don't understand is that journalism deals with being able to write coherently, using facts, and as little bias as possible.
I think you *want* to believe this, but I just don't see that from many journalists I've been exposed to. In fact, I think the primary difference between a journalist and a movie maker is that the former doesn't have to pay his/her actors. In both instances, the end product is a *creative* act.
I became aware of this after watching my brother (who's a grad student in film) doing what he called "editing". "Editing" is a gross misnomer for what this process actually is: a highly creative act. Basically, the shots are the building blocks that are then highly and severely manipulated and coerced into a final product that causes the audience to suspend disbelief.
And journalists are somehow immune from this kick-ass power? The shots that are the building blocks of "journalism" are also "edited" into a final product, particularly for highly-produced, pulpit-like "news" programs such as "60 Minutes". I think journalists are keenly aware of the hold that they have over an audience staring blankly into a television screen at a super-polished, expertly-"edited" product.
Journalism is a real skill/profession that people such as yourself just don't understand.
On the contrary. I think I understand this peculiar institution quite well, and that's why I distrust it so highly. I think your elitist attitude comes from an individual whose losing his monopoly on being able to create alternative (and preferred) "realities". Then again, maybe you're not in the "journalism" business, in which case the reason behind your snobbery eludes me.
Any chance we can just enjoy the tradition as it is currently enjoyed by millions of people?
Not without causing some America-haters some real distress. To them, America and anything that Americans enjoy and espescially any parts of their culture that anyone might be aware of must be derided and linked to evil. This is why we are hearing more and more of this "You should feel really guilty, American pig!" around all of our holidays. They tell us that if we should feel anything, we should only feel guilty about horrible things that happened in the past for which we are not responsible.
Guilt, guilt, guilt. It's like the Christian message, only more whiney.
The sucky thing is that I can't type this message without it sounding like a horrible troll. Before you mod me troll, please consider the following: I'm through with guilt. I want to live a positive, moral life. I want to remove the things from my life that make me feel bad for no good reason. This is why I no longer have any tolerance for the constant guilt messages from other groups who I think are merely trying to manipulate me into doing something that they want me to do. I don't mind that they say what they want to say -- I just want them to do it far away from me and I'm not interested in their message at all. Is it wrong for me to tell them to shut the hell up on a holiday where I like to get together with family members that I don't get to see very often? My sister is flying in from the U.K., and I don't see her but once a year perhaps. Is it okay for me to to enjoy my time with her without feeling guilty about something my ancestors did, and to tell anyone who feels differently (and insists on trying to make me feel guilty), "I disagree with you, and I will never agree with you, so fuck off!"?
Slashdot Mirror
However, the poster's careful specification that both of the store clerks he spoke to appeared to be Indian, and the immediate presumption that the second was talking to the first, and the further presumption that the talking was sneaky and to the detriment of the customer, is racist.
How did the parent poster's action indicate that he
A. believed in separate races
B. believed that his own race was superior to another race
?
Please explain. You claim to know what "racism" is, but I don't believe you yet.
And, no, racism, is NOT equivalent to bigotry. Bigotry does not imply a belief in separate races -- much less a belief that one's own race is inherently superior to another.
Oh, come on! I started my post with this comment: "The worst thing about Perl is its coders. I willfully self-impugn with that statement."
Of course it's not Perl's fault! It's *always* the coder's fault!
Here's another one:@args, @data, %hash, $tmp, and, as an extra bonus, $tmp2! All in an ultra-meaningfully-named function called "Tmploop". I'm glad that the comment "for every variable if defined" was included, as the ultra-obscure meaning of the for loop was severerly clouding my understadning of what $tmp2=0;@{$args[0]}>$tmp2;++$tmp2 was trying to convey.
I've described debugging this former associate's code as "the herpes of this job".
It is settled; we agree. :)
I apologize for butting heads with you and saying things that might have been too harsh. I accept your apology as well. It's a shame that some anti-me moderator had to kill three of my karma points before we got to the agreement stage (pox on you, whoever you are), but I wouldn't let that deter me. My child is too important to me, and I felt like I was arguing on his behalf.
only because of the fact that there is a sucker born every minute.
This is a horrible quote.
It's a quote that was born from the realization that someone could take advantage of a trusting public on a mass scale. In other words, someone could easily make money through fraud using the trust of an inexperienced public as the lube, so to speak.
This means that the public likely hasn't encountered an asshole as big as the person saying, "There's a sucker born every minute." The notion of calling them "suckers" is a way of making it seem like they *deserve* to be defrauded. Have you had "friends" who thought it was smart/funny/cool to take advantage of your trust? Do you have a high opinion of a human who wants to make a *career* of that skill?
To me, the fact that the quote exists and isn't derided in the same way that we deride "Let them eat cake" is a sign of degeneracy in our culture. Yes, that's a value-judgement-charged statement, and I make no apology for it. We all have to stand somewhere, and I think fraud (and especially the notion that some people deserve to be defrauded) sucks to high hell.
Mod me down if you must, but the inference that two 'foreigners' at different stores were in cahoots against the shopper - only evidenced by one's use of a walkie-talkie and a language the shopper didn't understand - smacks of racism.
/. troll post. ;)
Racism is the belief that one's own race is inherently superior to another's race. (Or that another's race is inherently inferior to one's on race.)
I don't believe in races. I believe in one race: the human race. The belief in "separate races" is a cultural belief, not a scientific belief, and is the core of all racist beliefs. If you read my words as saying, "If you believe in separate races, then you are a racist", then you read me correctly.
That said, I see nothing racist in the parent poster's words or actions. Perhaps it was bigoted, but not racist. Perhaps the actions of the shopkeepers were also bigoted. Hard to tell from the average
Depends how you define "total failure". Personally I rate art and culture over the Big Mac and SUVs. YMMV.
What a poorly-conceived dig against the USA! Perhaps reflexive America-bashing is a "cool" thing to do in the culture you live in, but there are several aspects of it that deserve attention.
1. The Big Mac is part of American culture. Sure, I don't eat them, but millions of non-Americans do. If they were such crap, and the cultures you think are superior are so superior, then why do those cultures not reject Big Macs as the crap that you perceive them as? Are those cultures incapable of understanding your refined tastes?
2. Are you trying to claim that the United States has "no culture"? This is a common and retarded canard. Of course the United States has a culture! In fact, it has many, many cultures as you might expect a country of 300 million people and millions of square miles of land to contain. Do you think the cultures of Seattle, New Orleans, New York City, Lubbock, San Franciso, San Diego are all equal(ly crap)?
3. The USA isn't the only country that drives or makes SUVs.
4. The USA has artists too. In fact, they're so good that the government forces individuals to pay them!
5. Do you admire the cultures of Saudi Arabia and Iran? Many Euro-elitists can endlessly bash the machiavellian evil of Biggie Fries, but they can't seem to generate the energy to criticize the *hideously* anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-democracy record of more than one middle eastern country.
I will say that I enjoy reading Ayn Rand's books for instance, but I do not agree with all of her philosophical rantings and beliefs. I read books as stories.
I guess I feel sad reading that. I dislike Ayn Rand's storytelling. I particularly dislike her awkward way of writing love stories (which all come out sounding like rape fantasies). Her philosophy, on the other hand, is something that I really admire.
And hither cometh the hate posts...
Thank you for your response. I, too, oppose "civil confinement", since it is seemingly undifferent from an extension of a jail sentence and thus an arbitrary improsonment. If it can happen for predatory child rapists, then why can't it happen for any other action by an "undesirable" (gay men for instance)?
If this is the only part that you opposed, I wish you would have come out and said it from the beginning and let me know that you weren't sticking up for the rights of predatory child rapists. Insinuations that I would be comfortable with communist-style roundups of any political threat is not helpful.
Seriously though, when my total mutt of a moggy has just had a skin graft and is about to undergo chemotherapy, I have to start to wonder - am I taking this too far?
...) that would make teriffic pets but live miserable lives and then die. Are you not going far enough in saving them?
It's a tough call. Keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of cats (and dogs, and birds, and
The point here is not that you are going overboard with your cat nor being malicious with the potential pets that you don't care for. The point here is that the pet is in your life for the enhancement of *your* quality of life. When you find that the cuddliness of the cat does not outweigh the pain you go through to keep the alive, then you will let the pet die. This is the fate of most pets, and the most difficult and painful decision a pet owner has to make (in regards to her/his pet). My heart goes out to you.
i have no problem with life in prison for child rapists, in fact i fully support it. What i have a problem with is the exploitation of fear to move certain crimes into a "anything goes as long as we punish them" category.
I think this illustrates the crux of our disagreement. We are like two ships passing in the night.
You seem to take issue with what you perceive as the exploitation of fear as a pretext for unlimited abuse of a politically unpopular class of people. (As a gay man, I can sympathize with that point of view.) What I take issue with is the defense of child rapists in the name of an "Everyone is Speical (except those damn captialists, who should be summarily executed)" socialist mindset, even if said defense happens at the expense of endangering my own child.
Could it be that there is truth in what you say AND truth in what I say? Meaning, could it be that one of us being (partially) right does not necessarily imply that the other is (completely) wrong? I am willing to accept that.
I don't think child rapists should be allowed out of prison. ever. But if the law/sentance says 5 years let them out after five years. the problem is weak laws.
I think weak laws is but one of several problems. The initial problem is that people choose to rape children. Another problem is that they tend to do it over and over again (meaning, getting caught and convicted does not "cure the problem"). Another problem is that there are some people who want to coddle these predators, consequences be damned. I'm not accusing you of being one of those people, but I think it's ignorant to pretend that such coddlers do not exist.
Allow me to illustrate: suppose I enroll my son in community baseball. After six weeks, I find out that the baseball coach had two prior convictions of sex with children younger than 12, and that a liberal judge gave him probation for those crimes. (In case you didn't know, most child predators will actively seek out job positions where they can be around children.) Do you think my concern at that moment should be about "weak laws" or about the safety of my child? If I argue that this man should be monitored and removed from his job position, do you think I should feel receptive to liberals who lambaste me and accuse me of being a Nazi because "that man already paid his debt to society"? If I'm going to be forced to choose between protecting the well-being of my child and protecting the rights of a predtory child rapist, I will choose the former over the latter every single time. Do you regard that as unethical?
the ACLU is one of few recognizing that the latest pedophile witch hunt is just that, a witch hunt. there has not been an increase in number of child molestations and rapes.
"Witch hunt" is tired rhetoric.
The issue here is the liklihood of an individual who molests a child to do it again. There have been numerous cases of individuals who rape children receiving light sentences (say, probation) who then proceed to get convicted again for raping children. Are you one to argue that probation for those individuals was a better sentence after the second child was raped? Keep in mind that the perpetrators only get punished for the rapes for which they were caught. I believe that predatory child molesters prey on many children. Go visit www.pervetedjustice.com if you would like more insight, but it's an ugly, ugly read.
It's interesting that you accuse me of engaging in a "hunt". Do you think it's fair to characterize predatory child rapists' actions as "hunting children?" Will you also decry that particular "hunt"? From my point of view, it doesn't seem like their actions bother you all that much. You save your ire and outrage for people like me who want to decrease the quality of life of those people.
here in NY die fuehrer patacki has used "civil confinement" to arbitrarily extend prison sentances after the fact.
I disagree with civil confinement, but a person who seeks out, abducts, and rapes a child deserves to be monitored for the rest of his/her life. I notice that you vilify the governor for depriving child rapists of their rights to freedom. Why don't you vilify the child rapists for depriving children of their (quality of) lives?
how long before drug dealers and drunk drivers, they are up there on the "skewer for political benefit" list.
I don't care about the "political benefit" one iota. I loathe government in general. What I want is to deprive predatory child rapists of their freedom. What I want is to protect my child's life. Why don't you? I see you sticking up for the child rapist. Why won't you stick up for my kid instead? Do you believe that once a child rapist gets caught he'll never do it again?
they can already confiscate your home if pot is growing in your yard without a trial. they can confiscate your car without a conviction and you have to sue and win to get it back.
You and I probably already agree that the War on Some Drugs is moronic. It is waged largely to pad the feelings of hatred that many people have toward drug users and to line the pockets of self-indulgent, abusive drug warriors. No action should be illegal unless it deprives another individual of life, liberty, or property.
fuck it let's get a 3x5 notecard and make a list of decent human beings in politics, then draw and quarter the rest
It looks like you're engaging in some demonizing blowhard rhetoric in order to draw attention away from the fact that you're arguing for the quality of life of predatory child rapists. Why am I the Nazi here? You are the one who's saying, "Let's not hurt predatory child rapists. Let's give them light sentences, then not incovnenience or watch them at all after the fact. After all, what's the worst thing that could happen?"
So if it were up to you, Neo-Nazis who want to kill millions of people would get freedom of speech, but muslims who want to kill millions of people wouldn't. Interesting; I'm not entirely sure what the logic is there.
It's called a strawman argument.
I support the right of Neo-Nazis and Mujahideen to say that they hate and are superior to everyone. I do not support the right of Neo-Nazis and and Mujahideen to make threats.
Here's my plan: How about if we let everybody have freedom of speech, just don't let them kill or rape people.
Do you remember the Nuremberg files online? That was a website by a pro-life nutcase who listed the names and addresses of abortion providers. When one of those abortion providers happened to be killed by another pro-life nutcase, the owner of the website would scratch out the victim's name from the list. Does that qualify as "free speech" to you? The owner of the website wasn't killing or raping anyone.
You seem to be sugesting that the ACLU defends peoples right to be "serial predatory child rapists" or "violent totalitarian jihadi zealots" as opposed to just defending peoples right to free speech regardless of who they are. Of course, you can't really be saying that can you? Because that would be completely idiotic.
Good thing I didn't suggest it then. I do not maintain that the ACLU defends a person's right to be a serial predatory child rapist or a violent totalitarian mujahideen. At the same time, the ACLU definately stands up for the civil rights of those people. You seem to think that their civil rights are worth saving, and, on that point, you and I violently disagree. Those fuckers should be shot, not defended. Shame on the ACLU for sticking up for those bastards. They want to molest/kidnap my child and murder me. I'm supposed to be concerned about their rights? They have the right to die, god dammit!
Never mind.
You call yourself "progressive"? Tell me, how gay-friendly is Islam? How woman-friendly is it? Please help me figure this out, becuase I see a lot of "progressives" sticking up for muslim fuckers (who would gladly cut off my genitals because I'm a faggot), and I think they do it all in the name of their intense, irrational, seething hatred for Chimpy McBushitler. Is me and my family worth sacrificing to the muslim god in the name of destroying BushCO? It certainly seems that ay.
References, please
7
... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad
p ?id=727&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
How smug of you.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/56
You need only search a little bit to figure out what CAIR's agenda is, and the ACLU supports CAIR, which means they support this:
"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam
As a gay man, how should I feel about the organization which stands up for the people who want to make Islam the highest authority in America and who gives money to offensive mujahideen?
As far as defending child predators goes, it's a quick search, too. Shame, shame, shame on me for posting a link to the concerned christian bitches of America, but it's not like a liberal website is going to report on this:
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.as
Here's the money quote:
"If I murdered or raped someone before, I can go to the parks," Falk said.
How should I feel about the group that stands up for that person's right to be around my 5-year-old in the park? Does my son not deserve to be safe from harm?
If I were you, I would answer back about "he having served his time" and what not, which means that you would gladly put my son in danger of a serial predatory child molester because you certainly wouldn't want a serial predatory child molester's rights infringed upon. If I were you, I would answer that with, "It's not about his rights, it's about everyone's! Because if they can do it to him, they can do it to you!" Wrong again! I'm not a serial predatory child molester.
And that seems to be what the ACLU is about: sticking up for the rights of the mujahideen and the serial predatory child molesters in the world. When it comes to victims of frivolous lawsuits, or victims of emininet domain abuse, or victims of hate crimes where the "wrong" colors are involved, then the ACLU is no where to be found! So, quite frankly, fuck them right up the ass with a red-hot iron poker. They don't care about individual rights to life, liberty, or property. They want their own weird "Everyone is Special" agenda.
The ACLU supports civil rights. The way "the system" works is that it takes away the civil rights of the most despised (terrorists, etc.) and disenfranchised (poor, underclass) first and most people support these actions since these people are "evil".
The ACLU does support the mujahideen, granted. But it's not just "poor" people that it supports. It also has supported NAMBLA and serial predatory child rapists. How's that for civil rights? Not only does it support the right of people to raise money for suicide-bombing jihadists who would gladly kill me for being gay (I am gay), would gladly kidnap my child (adoptive parents have no rights in Islam, an e-mail debate from a rep of whyislam.org confirmed this), and would gladly kill me for being an infidel (I'm an atheist, not a "protected" "person of the book") -- but the ACLU also sticks up for the rights of people who would want to rape and kill my child and then lobby for that person's right to NOT be executed after they do so.
The old saying... "I may not agree with what you are saying but I will defend (to the death) your right to say it." (attributed to Voltaire)
And here's the sad part: I totally agree with this statement. It is granted by the First Amendment, and I think gay-bashing Neo-Nazis have every right in the world to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive and upsetting it is to me. What I don't understand is how you extend this to also include the protection mujahideen who would gladly detonate a dirty bomb in my bathroom and the NAMBLA creeps who are plotting to molest my child. This goes beyond protecting the right to speech. Instead, it is the most disgusting conclusion of the "Everyone Is Special" mindset that too many liberals live by. I like the way that SeanBaby put it: "Lots of people suffer from the delusion that every life is worth saving."
So while the way that the ACLU stands up for the rights of people who do things that do not infringe on others life, liberty or property (such as drug use, acts of homosexuality, death with dignity, etc.), these noble deeds are wholly eclipsed by the fact that the ACLU has unfailingly stuck up for the rights of serial predatory child rapists and violent totalitarian jihadi zealots. The ACLU has little to do with defending individual rights and everything to do with advancing a socialist agenda.
Now, if you're a socialist then you might like that, and I won't stop you from your own individual thoughts and feelings. But I wholly object to you painting the ACLU as some kind of organization which has my rights in mind. I don't think they do at all.
Perhaps he's a Christian scientist. How many times have you heard a Christian argue, "You can't disprove the existence of God, can you? You don't have infinite knowledge, do you?"
The problem with my discussion with you is that you and I saw each other as "opponents" and were biased to want to counter and dispute what the other said. I think I was more guilty of this than you were.
I became aware of this as soon as I read something from a like-minded source (today). The writer indicated that the mainstream media still rules despite the great strides made by alternative media. He commented (paraphrased): the alternative media does not report; rather, they only react to what the mainstream media reports.
I think this is partially true, and I will concede that it is a defining difference between the mainstream media and the alternative media. In most cases, the alternative media lacks the ability and resources to do investigative reporting. (Likewise, they also lack the ability and resources to do "editing" to the deceitful degree that many in the mainstream media do, but I digress.)
I do want to go back to our discussion about journalists verses engineers.
Suppose there was a group of hack engineers out there who started up a bunch of web pages which competed with and took attention away from real engineers. (You can "sed 's/engineers/journalists/g'" to understand where I'm going with this.) How would these hack engineers function?
In reality, they couldn't. Their bridges, automobiles, brain suckers (that's an actual product, see www.jarvisproducts.com), and what-not would almost certainly be of shoddy quality and cause much injury, death, and lawsuits. This is why there aren't any hack engineers out there doing this very thing.
Now, execute that sed. These "hack journalists" are what you call "bloggers". In opposition to the non-existant (and impossibly-existant) hack engineers, these hack journalists do quite well and take quite a bit of attention away from the mainstream media. I can only conclude that journalism is not that hard to do. If that were false, then there wouldn't be any bloggers.
If I were you, I would counter with, "That's not Real(TM) Journalism!" Well, what *is* real journalism anyway? I've already conceded that bloggers can't do investigative reporting (yet), but I think that's just a subset of what "journalism" is. Ultimately, the ones who decide which ones are the best journalists are the consumers of the product: the ones who are actually viewing the output of the journalists. In other words, the market. And you can't dispute that the market is starting to shift away from the mainstream media and to alternative sources of media (don't forget talk radio!).
I imagine your defense to that could be, "The people who consume talk radio / blogs / podcasts are too stupid to know what real jornalism is" -- and that is exactly what I would expect from an elitist who pours his adoration into journalistic uber-snobs who deserve to get fired by bloggers.
Yes you did
My bad.
Did you honestly think I thought the human beings in the mainstream responsible for the content they create were infallible?
No. I think you believe that whatever lack of objectivity you think exists in the mainstream media is so small that it's not worth mentioning.
So no one is perfectly objective. Does that mean we just throw up our hands, say "fuck it", and just listen to we want to hear without weighing anything that may legitimately contradict our beliefs? That it is somehow wrong for someone to even try to be objective in their reporting?
Of course not. My point is not, "No one is objective, so let's all spew out the most dishonest propaganda possible." My point is: I think the mainstream media is just as biased and just as unprofessional as many of the bloggers you abhor. You think the mainstream media is "a breed apart" and I dispute that. My point is not to elevate the worst of the bloggers, but to point out that the mainstream media is not worth trusting to the degree that you do.
I didn't intend to sweep any of this under the rug. They deserved to get called on for what they did and they deserved what they got.
That's disputable. It's not something that makes the mainstream media look objective, trustable, and professional, does it? It goes beyond a mere "error" -- like a spelling mistake. Maybe accusing you of trying to hide it goes to far, but I think you've made efforts to make it look as insigificant as possible. I understand why you would.
How could I ever have read your come, measured, unemotional defenses of the blogs and think of you as their champion. How silly of me.
You fail to realize that alternatives to mainstream media are not encompassed by what you perceive as "blogs". They can be podcasts, mailing lists, USENET, and many other forms. I'm not a blogger's champion. I'm an enemy of the mainstream media. Blogs happen to be "hip" right now, so they're being targeted for derision by the mainstream media and their supporters. The fact is that the Internet will allow many more forms of alternative media than just "blogs", and this is a good thing. The mainstream media will continue to lose readership and there's nothing you can do to stop that.
Seeing as how the mainstream media (especially newspapers) are under constant criticism by consumers on a daily basis and risk being sued for slander for certain mistakes, I kinda doubt that's the case. Do you think your average blogger has to worry about the same things as much?
I don't think the mainstream media is one tenth as worried as any businessman or physician for being sued. How often does the New York Times get sued for being unobjective and unprofessional? Did it get sued of Jayson Blair? I think you are exaggerating this threat.
A popular blogger can just keep on churning out content after doing the exact same stuff. They just have to keep pandering to their base . See the point yet?
No, I don't, since I see exactly the same behavior in the mainstream media. You keep insisting that they're "a breed apart" which is false (not to mention elitist). Lots of people are realizing this, and it's part of the reason that the mainstream media is losing.
They're not better people. It's just that most of them go to school to learn what it is to be a good journalist. Would it be elitist of me to go to a trained engineer to design a bridge rather than some random guy off the street to just wing it?
You are equating journalism school with enginering school. That's similiar to equating theology school with engineering school. In both casese, the former is about how to preach and proselytize while the latter is about hard science. If you are bad at math and science, you will fail at being an engineer and fail miserably, possibly getting people killed. If you are a bad journalist, then you can still get a job with the New York Times or 60 Minutes. I don't think
You're making up my feelings to try and support your own argrument. I don't dislike the standards, criticisms and repurcussions that the mainstream media faces at all.
I never claimed you disliked those standards, criticisms, or repurcussions, so I dispute your claim that I'm making up your feelings. I mentioned that the mainstream media as those standards, criticisms, and repurcussions only because they deserve to have them because of their (waning) power.
Yes, Captain Obvious. Every source of media has a viewpoint. Yes, mainstream media make factual mistakes and skewed reporting that they must be called on. But they, to a much greater extent than your beloved blogs, derive their power from how well they can establish that they are doing accurate, honest journalism.
Thanks for admitting that the mainstream media is not objective (contrary to your prior implications). Now you're backpedaling and claiming that they're just not *as* biased as other sources of information (where did I say that I loved blogs?). I'm wondering how you measure this. Do you just assume it to be true merely by the fact that the mainstream media has more power? In any case, it's false that the mainstream media has more power because they're less biased. They have power because they are established media that's been around for decades and built into our culture. Guess what! Our culture is changing, the Internet is allowing new media sources to wrest control from the mainstream media, and your beloved sources are losing power by the day. And there's nothing you can do about it. Arguing with some dickhead on Slashdot (that would be I) certainly isn't going to help.
Why are you so sure that blogs will thrive or fail based on this type of merit?
Because the "consumers" (for lack of a better term) of information will pick their favorites. Not everyone is going to be as turned on by what you perceive, subjectively, as "honest(TM) journalism". Like all humans, you included, people will want to hear what confirms what they already know to be True. More and more, people are turning away from the mainstream media. This is a statement of fact.
Many blogs I see become successful by pandering to an ill-informed, opinionated group of people (left-wing, right-wing, whatever), saying the most outlandish statements they can think of to appeal to them, and keeping the echo-chamber going. And since they don't need to live up as the same standards as other news sources, they get away with it. What kind of merit is that?
And why should I take you as an objective source on blogs? You're horribly biased and, for that reason and other reasons, have probably viewed a small fraction of blogs. It is in your self-interest to smear all blogs as reactionary garbage.
I think it's great that somebody called powerful people in the mainstream media on errors. FANTASTIC! STUPENDOUS! Give yourself and your fellow bloggers a big round of applause on these individual victories.
Sure thing! I can gloat on and on about it. And they didn't merely "call powerful people on errors". They got Dan Rather FIRED for being exactly the things that you claim define the mainstream media and exclude blogs: being non-objective and being unprofessional. Fabricating a document, passing it off as "true", failing to check sources, and doing it all to destroy a political enemy are all swept under the rug as mere "errors" to you.
But now consider how many of you would get into hot water if held to the same standards that they (correctly) were and you might not feel so hot anymore.
Who is this "you" you're talking to? I'm not the blogger's champion. In any case, I always invite people being held to standards of accuracy, honesty, and transparency. It's the mainstream media which has a problem with that. They think that they're superior to all the unsophisticated, non-journalist trash. They think that they're beyond judgement. For that, they suck. Dan Rather's firin
There are varying degrees of journalism. Calling "60 Minutes" "journalism" is like calling somebody who whipped up a blog a computer programmer.
I'm sure there are plenty of investigative reporters, fact checkers, and journalists on the 60 Minutes crew who would be immensely insulted by that statement. Why should I take your word for what "True(TM) Journalism" is?
Better still, there's lots and lots of real journalism that doesn't rely on video in any way, whatsoever.
Yes, of course. Take, for example, the New York Times. They can post stories that fit their agenda on the front page, over and over again (Abu Ghraib Scandal) whereas they can bury stories on page 16 that don't fit their agenda (American successes in Iraq). There are many examples of mainstream media bias on all levels. It all comes from a viewpoint. No one is without an agenda.
Elitism? Snobbery? Because I don't think that anyone who writes a blog is a "journalist"? Call it what you will. I also don't call my mom a software engineer because she can create an email.
You misunderstand me. I didn't call you elitist or snobbish because you failed to call bloggers journalists. I called you those things because you treat journalism as some kind of holy profession that non-journalists are too stupid to understand. You think journalists are in a higher class than non-journalists. You think their essence is superior. It's rank elitism, and you deserve to be taken down a notch for it.
To call a blogger a "journalist" is to shit on every real journalist that has ever existed. A "blogger" is somebody who writes a diary online. It's nothing more than narcissism at its worst.
Where did I call a blogger a "journalist"? I wasn't trying to elevate bloggers. I'm trying to take journalists down a notch -- something that they sorely deserve.
You're not a journalist.
I don't know how I'd live with myself if I was. I see little difference between a journalist and a movie maker. Both are merely creating realities that they would prefer existed.
That doesn't give you the right to call yourself and every other 75 IQ person who can write a scathing expose on their adventures baking bread a "journalist". You have no right to insult journalists that way.
Actually, I do have a right to insult anyone I please. This right is granted by the same thing which allows journalists to show their whole asses: the first amendment. And since when did I have a scathing expose on anything? My point here is not to elevate bloggers. It's to point out that being a journalist is not very hard, not very special, not very useful, and not very noble. Millions of people are realizing this, and that's why the mainstream media is losing more and more power every day. And guess what? Being some elitist jackass to me ("You have no right!") will do nothing to stop the winds of change. It truly is a pleasure to see pompous "journalists" losing their power.
OK. Now hold all the bloggers you know out there to the same standards, criticisms and repercussions that people in mainstream media face. How many do you think will survive?
:)
The cream will rise to the top, now that we have a much, much, much more open market on the dissemination of information. The reason why the mainstream media faces the standards, criticisms, and repercussions that you dislike is because of the incredible power that they (used to) wield.
I'm not saying that such mistakes by the mainstream media are excusable. It's just that if you compare the amount of objectivity and professionalism present in blogs and the mainstream, the mainstream is the obvious winner.
If it really was so "obvious" that the mainstream media is more objective and professional than alternative soures of media, why would you need to say it? Most everyone now knows that every source of media has a viewpoint. Mainstream media is not nearly as objective and professional as you want them to be, nor will any claims (or facades) or said objectivity and professionalism save them from their imminent demise. Almost anyone can be a journalist now, and a meritocracy will arise. In other words, what happening in software (anyone can write software and publish it via the Internet) is happening in the field of journalism. It must be a painful and frightening time for members of (and supporters of) the mainstream media.
So blogs got a couple up on the major news sources. Big fucking deal.
Some "non-objective", "unprofessional" bloggers got Dan Rather, one of the most powerful names in the mainstream media, FIRED for being, of all things, non-objective and unprofessional. If that isn't a big fucking deal, then I don't know what is. But I understand why you want to downplay it. Perhaps you also understand why I like to talk about it with schoolgirl-like glee. My, how the mighty have fallen!
So that means it's better to get news from The Drudge Report rather than The New York Times or The Washington Post? Not bloody likely.
That, of course, merely your opinion, and it won't hold back the flood of people who, in increasing numbers, prefer to get their news from sources other than the New York Times and the Washington Post. Their readership will continue to decline and there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. Posting elitist messages on Slashdot certainly won't help your cause!
They all seem to have some major backer that I don't feel I can trust to give me honest, unbiased news.
You don't want unbiased news.
I'm not trying to tell you what you want and don't want. I'm trying to state a fact of human nature. You don't want unbiased news. You want news that confirms what you already know (or, in some cases, suspect) is true. News that contradicts what you know is true is something that you will usually ignore or, in the rare case that you're feeling punchy, come up with counterarguments against.
This is not an attack on your character. Most human beings, myself included, are exactly like this. We don't need to be told The Truth. We already know The Truth. And we need to hear other people tell us that we're right because it feels good.
(That is also why I don't watch television news, but they have a whole other type of corruption going on there!!! *coughs..fox *coughs*)
You probably don't need me to tell you that FOX News is Lies, right? You already know that it's all Lies, and that's why you don't watch it. Am I close?
There's nothing wrong with this. Everyone does it. (Well, lots of people know that FOX News is The Truth, but I think you catch my generic drift.)
You mean the arrogance of a Slashdot editor telling editors of more professional and more successful sites how to do their jobs?
:)
If Slashdot really is as unimportant as you imply it is, then why should you care what it says about anyone else? (Behold: the power of information slipping from the newspapers' fingers!)
You mean like when Slashdot editors merge their own opinions into the article summaries, arrogantly assuming that their biased opinion is hard fact, and arrogantly assuming that anyone cares what they think?
I think every Internet-savvy person is aware enough now to know that all sources of media, traditional or otherwise, have a viewpoint.
Most people not buying newspapers are instead getting their news from TV or the Internet. When they use the Internet it's for convenience, not because of a lack of 'elitism'.
That must be a comforting thought for you, but you have no way of showing that it is true. From what I read, charges of elitism in traditional news sources are so-talked out that it's become a boring refrain. Perhaps media elitism is not considered an "important" story in the sources that you usually frequent. I hardly wonder why.
How can you have the audacity to criticise newspapers for arrogance and elitism, and then hold blogs up as an alternative?
Perhaps because a blog got Dan Rather and Mary Mapes fired? That sure was a good day!
What people (bloggers and their fans) don't understand is that journalism deals with being able to write coherently, using facts, and as little bias as possible.
I think you *want* to believe this, but I just don't see that from many journalists I've been exposed to. In fact, I think the primary difference between a journalist and a movie maker is that the former doesn't have to pay his/her actors. In both instances, the end product is a *creative* act.
I became aware of this after watching my brother (who's a grad student in film) doing what he called "editing". "Editing" is a gross misnomer for what this process actually is: a highly creative act. Basically, the shots are the building blocks that are then highly and severely manipulated and coerced into a final product that causes the audience to suspend disbelief.
And journalists are somehow immune from this kick-ass power? The shots that are the building blocks of "journalism" are also "edited" into a final product, particularly for highly-produced, pulpit-like "news" programs such as "60 Minutes". I think journalists are keenly aware of the hold that they have over an audience staring blankly into a television screen at a super-polished, expertly-"edited" product.
Journalism is a real skill/profession that people such as yourself just don't understand.
On the contrary. I think I understand this peculiar institution quite well, and that's why I distrust it so highly. I think your elitist attitude comes from an individual whose losing his monopoly on being able to create alternative (and preferred) "realities". Then again, maybe you're not in the "journalism" business, in which case the reason behind your snobbery eludes me.
Any chance we can just enjoy the tradition as it is currently enjoyed by millions of people?
Not without causing some America-haters some real distress. To them, America and anything that Americans enjoy and espescially any parts of their culture that anyone might be aware of must be derided and linked to evil. This is why we are hearing more and more of this "You should feel really guilty, American pig!" around all of our holidays. They tell us that if we should feel anything, we should only feel guilty about horrible things that happened in the past for which we are not responsible.
Guilt, guilt, guilt. It's like the Christian message, only more whiney.
The sucky thing is that I can't type this message without it sounding like a horrible troll. Before you mod me troll, please consider the following: I'm through with guilt. I want to live a positive, moral life. I want to remove the things from my life that make me feel bad for no good reason. This is why I no longer have any tolerance for the constant guilt messages from other groups who I think are merely trying to manipulate me into doing something that they want me to do. I don't mind that they say what they want to say -- I just want them to do it far away from me and I'm not interested in their message at all. Is it wrong for me to tell them to shut the hell up on a holiday where I like to get together with family members that I don't get to see very often? My sister is flying in from the U.K., and I don't see her but once a year perhaps. Is it okay for me to to enjoy my time with her without feeling guilty about something my ancestors did, and to tell anyone who feels differently (and insists on trying to make me feel guilty), "I disagree with you, and I will never agree with you, so fuck off!"?
Okay, rant over. Mod away. I have karma to burn.