I don't, or at least I don't think it in and of itself is enough to show that. He's said multiple times that he prefers black men - which could be racist, depending on objectification, etc. but it doesn't make him a white supremacist.
He's a pretty effective troll. I think he targeted her because of the Ghostbusters frenzy the alt-right whipped themselves into, and her past tweets indicated she would respond poorly to racist remarks. Trolls use what tools they can to get a rise out of someone - it doesn't always mean that they actually believe what they're saying. And it didn't help matters that she started actually having a meltdown caused by a lot of his followers. I doubt he intended it to go as far as it did. He was definitely trying to get a rise out of her, but being banned from Twitter isn't good for him in the long run.
angry white men how they're responsible for most of today's ills, whether rapes, mass shootings, extermination of species and people, child molestation and child rape
The only one of those that's even arguably true is extermination of species and people, and even that has the caveat of only applying to the last few centuries. Plenty of people and cultures were wiped out by non-white people farther back.
I think it was less "so much harassment - we have to ban it" and more "a movement targeting (among other things) the media, advertisers don't want anything to do with that because it goes directly against their interests".
That in and of itself isn't hypocritical unless they try to force him to stand. You're allowed to criticize other people's speech, but trying to prevent them from speaking at all is different (and worse). Yes, the NFL and colleges are (mostly) private property, they can decline to host events or give a platform, etc. but one of the major reasons for going to college is to be exposed to new ideas and learn how to think better. You can't do that if you refuse to listen to any points of view besides your own.
Milo is hardly a white supremacist or neo-Nazi. He's pretty far right, to be sure, and I can't say I disagree with the "hate monger" characterization, but "white supremacist" doesn't fit, and neither does neo-Nazi.
I don't understand the Left's objections to Citizens United. Without it, non-profit corporations like unions and the ACLU, among others, would have a much smaller voice. Moreover, a lot of people are pointing out how much money Hillary has gotten from Wall Street or Saudi Arabia because that's normally something Democrats rail against, but they don't seem to care all that much when it's someone on their side. It's usually interesting and worthwhile to point out hypocrisy.
According to this site, there certainly hasn't been a great reduction in suicides since the shooting overall, although the demographics have changed. In general, making it harder to own guns doesn't change the long-term suicide rate by much, if at all; you maybe see a dip but then it goes back to historical trends.
Actually, in most cases, long-term suicide rates don't change when you take guns away. You get a dip initially, but people who want to commit suicide generally have those impulses more than once.
EpiPen equivalents are dramatically cheaper in the EU, where there are several different competitors. You are wrong. The problem in the US is bad regulation - there are generic EpiPens, but pharmacies can only give them out if a doctor specifically writes a prescription for the alternative. For most drugs, if they write the brand name, the pharmacy can substitute a generic and it's fine, but for devices like these, they have to give exactly what's written.
Also, the majority of new drugs are not just new formulations; there are modifications of old formulations, but those can have substantial benefits, and don't cost less to test. New indications for old drugs are cheaper to test, but still pretty expensive.
It is if the guy in question is a pitiful idiot. The proper moderation is "Insightful".
Now that would get +1 Funny.
I still think the name-calling doesn't serve a useful purpose in discussions, even if it's true, unless all other avenues have been exhausted. I generally wouldn't say downmodding for insults is unwarranted.
That's a fair response, and I agree with the sentiment, although I'm not sure it entirely applies in this case. One can point out flaws in both candidates without supporting either one - there's enough to criticize about each candidate this year that you should be able to point it out without being assumed to support the other one.
So, yes, there have been cases of police unlawfully killing people. It may or may not be murder (since that requires specific characteristics). Those are terrible and we should be prosecuting them more. However - while an investigation is going on, they should be getting paid. If they actually didn't do anything wrong, they shouldn't lose out on their salary.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with the characterization, I'm just saying that insults like that often get modded down, and that's reasonable. Someone might be an idiot, but saying that rarely contributes to the conversation, and you'd expect a downmod accordingly.
I don't usually see libertarians wanting to prevent these companies from going against their political agenda via force of law. They complain about it, but that's their right too. Twitter can suppress whatever speech it likes, and we can complain about it as much as we want, and go to a different network instead when it gets too bad. Those are the rules.
Telling other people what to do can be extremely hard at times. It's hard in a different way than working in a field is, but it's still hard.
Even then, you aren't - and shouldn't be - paid for how hard you work. You're paid for the value of what your work does. Engineers (generally) don't lift things all day, but they create very useful things and spent years of their life learning how to do that. That's what they're paid for.
Why bring Trump into this? Okian Warrior didn't say anything about Trump, and didn't say the lying was exclusive to Hillary. Pointing out bad things about one candidate doesn't mean you support a different one.
Power imbalance reinforced by exposure to stereotyped junior roles for women causes girls at the earliest ages to avoid IT due to lack of role models.
I see this idea, a lot, and it's interesting to think about. There probably is some amount of truth to it, but it's almost certainly not the only explanation. I doubt it's even the majority of the explanation personally, but I could be wrong. The problem is, how do you prove it?
I'd also like to point out that while there are plenty of men in IT, IT in general is still not seen as an exciting job by society, and the men there tend to get very unflattering characterizations in the media - "tech bros", "neckbeards", etc. Why are these negative stereotypes not a problem for boys?
Slashdot Mirror
The Left hardly has a monopoly on assuming "everyone less extreme than me is bad".
I don't, or at least I don't think it in and of itself is enough to show that. He's said multiple times that he prefers black men - which could be racist, depending on objectification, etc. but it doesn't make him a white supremacist.
He's a pretty effective troll. I think he targeted her because of the Ghostbusters frenzy the alt-right whipped themselves into, and her past tweets indicated she would respond poorly to racist remarks. Trolls use what tools they can to get a rise out of someone - it doesn't always mean that they actually believe what they're saying. And it didn't help matters that she started actually having a meltdown caused by a lot of his followers. I doubt he intended it to go as far as it did. He was definitely trying to get a rise out of her, but being banned from Twitter isn't good for him in the long run.
angry white men how they're responsible for most of today's ills, whether rapes, mass shootings, extermination of species and people, child molestation and child rape
The only one of those that's even arguably true is extermination of species and people, and even that has the caveat of only applying to the last few centuries. Plenty of people and cultures were wiped out by non-white people farther back.
I think it was less "so much harassment - we have to ban it" and more "a movement targeting (among other things) the media, advertisers don't want anything to do with that because it goes directly against their interests".
That in and of itself isn't hypocritical unless they try to force him to stand. You're allowed to criticize other people's speech, but trying to prevent them from speaking at all is different (and worse). Yes, the NFL and colleges are (mostly) private property, they can decline to host events or give a platform, etc. but one of the major reasons for going to college is to be exposed to new ideas and learn how to think better. You can't do that if you refuse to listen to any points of view besides your own.
Milo is hardly a white supremacist or neo-Nazi. He's pretty far right, to be sure, and I can't say I disagree with the "hate monger" characterization, but "white supremacist" doesn't fit, and neither does neo-Nazi.
I don't understand the Left's objections to Citizens United. Without it, non-profit corporations like unions and the ACLU, among others, would have a much smaller voice. Moreover, a lot of people are pointing out how much money Hillary has gotten from Wall Street or Saudi Arabia because that's normally something Democrats rail against, but they don't seem to care all that much when it's someone on their side. It's usually interesting and worthwhile to point out hypocrisy.
Note that it was Bill Clinton who wanted that tax loophole for his rich, property-owning friends.
According to this site, there certainly hasn't been a great reduction in suicides since the shooting overall, although the demographics have changed. In general, making it harder to own guns doesn't change the long-term suicide rate by much, if at all; you maybe see a dip but then it goes back to historical trends.
Actually, in most cases, long-term suicide rates don't change when you take guns away. You get a dip initially, but people who want to commit suicide generally have those impulses more than once.
EpiPen equivalents are dramatically cheaper in the EU, where there are several different competitors. You are wrong. The problem in the US is bad regulation - there are generic EpiPens, but pharmacies can only give them out if a doctor specifically writes a prescription for the alternative. For most drugs, if they write the brand name, the pharmacy can substitute a generic and it's fine, but for devices like these, they have to give exactly what's written.
Also, the majority of new drugs are not just new formulations; there are modifications of old formulations, but those can have substantial benefits, and don't cost less to test. New indications for old drugs are cheaper to test, but still pretty expensive.
It is if the guy in question is a pitiful idiot. The proper moderation is "Insightful".
Now that would get +1 Funny.
I still think the name-calling doesn't serve a useful purpose in discussions, even if it's true, unless all other avenues have been exhausted. I generally wouldn't say downmodding for insults is unwarranted.
That's a fair response, and I agree with the sentiment, although I'm not sure it entirely applies in this case. One can point out flaws in both candidates without supporting either one - there's enough to criticize about each candidate this year that you should be able to point it out without being assumed to support the other one.
So, yes, there have been cases of police unlawfully killing people. It may or may not be murder (since that requires specific characteristics). Those are terrible and we should be prosecuting them more. However - while an investigation is going on, they should be getting paid. If they actually didn't do anything wrong, they shouldn't lose out on their salary.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with the characterization, I'm just saying that insults like that often get modded down, and that's reasonable. Someone might be an idiot, but saying that rarely contributes to the conversation, and you'd expect a downmod accordingly.
Except that's not what the data in the study actually support. This comment in a different thread summarizes the problems nicely.
I don't usually see libertarians wanting to prevent these companies from going against their political agenda via force of law. They complain about it, but that's their right too. Twitter can suppress whatever speech it likes, and we can complain about it as much as we want, and go to a different network instead when it gets too bad. Those are the rules.
Telling other people what to do can be extremely hard at times. It's hard in a different way than working in a field is, but it's still hard.
Even then, you aren't - and shouldn't be - paid for how hard you work. You're paid for the value of what your work does. Engineers (generally) don't lift things all day, but they create very useful things and spent years of their life learning how to do that. That's what they're paid for.
Why bring Trump into this? Okian Warrior didn't say anything about Trump, and didn't say the lying was exclusive to Hillary. Pointing out bad things about one candidate doesn't mean you support a different one.
Power imbalance reinforced by exposure to stereotyped junior roles for women causes girls at the earliest ages to avoid IT due to lack of role models.
I see this idea, a lot, and it's interesting to think about. There probably is some amount of truth to it, but it's almost certainly not the only explanation. I doubt it's even the majority of the explanation personally, but I could be wrong. The problem is, how do you prove it?
I'd also like to point out that while there are plenty of men in IT, IT in general is still not seen as an exciting job by society, and the men there tend to get very unflattering characterizations in the media - "tech bros", "neckbeards", etc. Why are these negative stereotypes not a problem for boys?
If you call someone a pitiful idiot, you should probably expect to be modded down. That's not moderation abuse.
I really doubt your story, sorry. I never got a clearance, but even I got briefed on what I was supposed to do if I ever found Classified material.
Actually, what she did was illegal. See here for some details.
Ah, I must have missed the part where body-shaming was acceptable under the politically correct rules. I could have sworn body-shaming was bad.
I'm not sure why this was modded troll - President Obama did, in fact, get the Nobel Peace Prize.