He's made a lot of "small" liberal progress on over a hundred issues but his hands are tied by the party of "no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO NO no no no!"
I still don't get this name calling. Aren't they different parties? Don't they have different views on how to do things? Haven't they always opposed each other?
Aren't the Democrats voting "No" as well on Republican led initiatives?
In short, why is it that side's fault that Congress can't get anything passed? Do you think blaming them makes the process better?
Its quite possible that upgrading the interconnect would all of a sudden cause Verizons network to melt down (i.e. push their overall utilization from a nice manageable number to something unmanageable.)
But if that is true it simply means Verizon is not charging THEIR customers enough to provide THEIR customers with the traffic that THEIR customers have requested.
Yes it is Netflix that is the source of the traffic. But it is Verizon CUSTOMERS that are requesting that traffic based on representations made by Verizon (pay this much and we will allow you to download XXMbits/s.) If Verizon cannot provide that download then they are not doing the job they are being PAID to do.
That would be conjecture. Perfectly reasonable and probable (why else would Verizon anger their own customers by restricting Netflix access?), but still a guess.
However, it was not mentioned in Level 3's post. Good network engineers (good problem solvers in any field) would not simplify the issue so much as to make it incorrect by virtue of being incomplete. I think Level 3 is being horribly disingenuous.
So when Netflix decided to pay Comcast, they were able to upgrade all of those remote trunks in ~24 hours, even though they cost of fortune?
Are you being cute? Or dense?
Like any responsible business, Comcast (and Verizon) keep a buffer between what they're capable of doing, and what they're required to do (in terms of providing their services), to account for usage spikes and to be able to acquire new customers.
When the buffer reaches self-defined limits, they increase their total bandwidth until the buffer is acceptable.
Comcast would only have had to do the magic you're implying if they were already at capacity. The only thing that did happen is their buffer took a hit. So now they either have to increase bandwidth or stop acquiring customers, before they can continue.
I don't see any mention of that in Level 3's response.
While I'm not doubting the actually connection point could just use a couple network cards to get all that additional traffic onto Verizon's network, what does that do to the rest of Verizon's network?
If allowing all of Level 3's traffic pushes Verizon's bandwidth usage at any point in their system to unacceptable levels, then that part needs to be upgraded as well... which may cost a lot more than a couple network cards.
So, how much traffic is Level 3 pushing? What are the costs to upgrade all of Verizon's weak-points to accommodate the additional traffic? How much do Verizon's customers pay towards that? How much do the peering contracts pay towards that?
Hating Verizon is not enough to answer those questions.
The reason why it is ridiculous, is because Thor is Odin's son, not Odin's daughter. Its a name, not a title.
Says who? The same people that made Gaea his mother? The same ones that had him meet himself (Hercules)? I can list 100 things that are not Norse/Roman/Greek myth. I can list even more things that were re-written later in comics to no longer follow Norse/Roman/Greek myth. So picking one particular trait, that just happens to be the sex of the character, and clinging to it like the world will end if anybody doesn't use that particular aspect of the Norse myth in their own fantasy writings, doesn't make sense unless it is misogyny... or you can explain your reasoning behind why that particular trait is immutable and all others can be thrown to the wind.
P.S., it sounds from your post that you think the original Thor actually had a sex change. That didn't happen. Some other human girl picked up his hammer and gained the powers.
This is just lazy pandering. Do they have such little creativity that they best they can do is make a female Thor? This is as pathetic as the Hollywood remake movie spree of the last few decades.
How many stories & myths from our history have male warrior leads?
How many stories & myths from our history have female warrior leads?
Inspiration obviously comes from many places. But if you consider the amount of historical & current inspiration available for male characters of this type, and the clear lack of inspiration for female characters, I'd say the male Thor is a better example of lazy pandering.
I would point out that at no time have I said that Thor cannot or should not be a woman. I pointed out that I do not believe that there was any misogyny as was implied.
I too have not shared my opinion. I merely pointed out that when something looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it appears to be a duck. So when a few quacks in this thread were modded up, I decided to try looking under the feathers.
I did not say that feminine attributes make the new Thor weaker; I was pointing out a weakness in the armor.
You pointed out the change in the armor as a sign of misogyny by "putting a weakness in the new Thor". When in fact, he went from cloth/latex/whatever his body suit was made of, to armor, however shitty nerds consider that armor to be (their logic is sound, I did not dispute it). But then, wearing latex, instead of actual armor, is "putting a weakness in the old Thor"; also to enhance his masculine features. As I've pointed out, all super heroes get that treatment. So to then complain only when it happens at a change from enhancing masculine features, to enhancing feminine features, it looks like the complainer has a problem with women.
I believe that addressing codpieces or physical attributes of other female superheroes either in favor of or against is an attempted trap, and will simply acknowledge other superheroes, which are well known to put their endowedness on display, both male and female alike.
You cited her attire, which by your description serves the same purpose as a feminized cod piece (enhancing and displaying a specific body part), as a negative trait of the new Thor. To both understand why you dislike the feminine display and discount that dislike as simple misogyny, one would also need to understand your viewpoint on similar pieces when used for male characters. That makes it relevant to the discussion, not a trap.
[...] Nobody is complaining about Thor being turned into a title. [...]
Personally, I think that turning Thor into a title is the absurdity here. I felt the same about Captain America. I think Thor would have worked as a female in, for example, the Marvel Ultimate universe. One of my favorite Thor moments was in the Marvel vs. DC crossover when Wonder Woman was able to wield Mjolnir; I was disappointed that the Amalgam comics went in a different direction with her.
Then you should have mentioned it, instead of focusing on irrelevant attributes. Instead, all that was mentioned was things that further the appearance of misogyny: Thor was a man in myth; her armor doesn't help.
Actually, I am trying to engage in thought-out, intelligent dicussion,
Yea, that is why I responded. I assumed because you weren't AC, you were not one of the modders.
but ultimately, I seems you are trying to build a straw man out of my arguments to then refute, which disingenuously undermines what I have said while simultaneously undermines my ability to respect the speaker.
I'm trying to find out why people think Thor being changed to a woman is "Ridiculous". You provided a reason, I offered my counter. Sorry you don't like it. I'll try somewhere else.
Turning the established white male character Iron Man with his side kick and one of his best friends, a black man
Like Green Lantern? (p.s., Loki often went about as a woman)
The misogyny is actually in the new character of the female Thor, wherein Thor's breastplate now has protrusions for breasts (commonly referred to amongst roleplaying-, comic- and self-proclaimed nerds as "boobplate").
That is misogynist? Are female super heroes supposed to be flat chested? Is there historical context for plate armor built for women? Depicting ideal forms in comics, or any other entertainment, is how it is done. People read comics, or watch movies, or attend plays, to be taken away from reality. Not to be reminded of it.
Btw, how do you feel about codpieces?
It has been argued (link; I know, it's just a blog post and the authority of it is beyond suspect) that a strong enough blow would be plenty to break a sternum. Thor is a warrior that is often engaging in battles of super-human strength, which would qualify as a strong enough blow. They are putting a weakness on the new Thor in order to make her pretty parts more clearly on display. That, I feel, is the true misogyny.
A weakness?! The male Thor wore a (latex?) body suit and a helmet. Since when is cloth or latex better than armor, even poorly designed armor, at stopping a weapon?
The misogyny, as pointed out, lies in the double standards being applied to rate the characters. Changing Green Lantern from one guy to an entire corps, with the "original" (the rewritten story included a Chinese Green Lantern predating the original comic character) being made gay, one of the replacements black... all that is ok. Nobody is complaining about Thor being turned into a title. "Thor" now being whoever holds the hammer is apparently fine with everybody. The complaint is not "Thor's character was changed", it is just "Thor is a woman". So far every reason I've seen presented here for not liking the change has been a double standard.
Also noticed on my side of the computer is that every woman I've told about this has said: "Omg that's awesome!"
The complaints have all come from men, here.
I'd browse around for more... but honestly, I'm not inclined to do so considering the single word "Ridiculous!" is considered +5 Insightful with this crowd, while obviously thought-out, intelligent calls for discussion by opposing views are considered trolling. Too many signs its time to leave slashdot.
Its a fking comic book. THERE IS NO LOGIC TO BE FOUND. There can not be a "CORRECT" answer as to weather or not Thor can be a woman. His argument against is equally as logical as yours against. Its like arguing about the bestest color ever amoungst five year olds.
Either way, my takeaway from your post is that if anyone were to say that George Washington did not have female reproductive organs, they must be a misogynist.
My takeaway is that if your only argument against the change is "Thor was a male", and you cannot come up with a real, valid, logical argument against the change, then most likely, you're misogynist.
Thor is a male god.
Thor is an established character, based on the mythical Thor.
If you consider everything else about the mythical Thor that Marvel ignored, one really has to wonder: Why would somebody be so concerned about the character's sex? Is this the very first time an "established character" was changed significantly? Is sex the only significant difference between the mythical Thor & the new (or old) Marvel character? Obviously the myth behind Thor is very significant to the poster since that is the only issue raised... But the myth is not significant enough for the poster to even notice the insanely long list of other discrepancies. Just sex.
So as Geekoid pointed out, there is no difference between the complaints about Thor changing to a girl, and the complaints about any other role that has an established male precedent. Soldiers can't be girls. The President can't be a girl. Thor can't be a girl.
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the United States
In other words, don't assume YOUR side will always be enforcing those laws you want enacted.
And takes us back to the age-old disagreement of which is more important: the benefits, or stopping the wrongs it can bring.
Now you're talking about two conflicting Constitutional questions. Totally different issue because the Constitution tells exactly how to resolve that dispute: the courts.
That is what I have been saying.
You said slander. Different issue.
Also agree, but then the problem of language is always there. Two people can read the same sentence in the Constitution and think it means two different things. To quote Bill Clinton "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
That is not a problem. Like I said, that is what SCOTUS is for. And once scotus makes a ruling, if the people don't like it, they can amend the Constitution to make it more palatable. If the government ignores the constitution, what is the people's remedy? There is none. The Constitution is the only remedy for all disputes with the government.
I mostly agree, but now we get to the crux of the problem. My statements have been about how rights have exceptions because at times they will conflict with other rights, and only one can be honored.
This is also where you're getting distracted from the actual issue. The point is, the people's rights never conflict for they are not involved in this or any other dispute with the government. This isn't a question of "who's rights are more important". This is a question of "Can the Federal government ignore the 4th Amendment (or any other section of the Constitution) because national security (or any other non-constitution based reason) is more important?". The Constitution very specifically states what rights the Government has. If the Feds ignore the 4th, they're ignoring the entire document.
The basic argument regarding the NSA's actions is to what degree do actions to protect your right to live in this country and have it continue to exist (i.e. right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) balance against other rights such as those contained in the fourth amendment.
Where does the Constitution give the Government the power, the right, or the authority to guarantee or pursue life, liberty and happiness? It doesn't. That is the goal of the document (as implied by the declaration of independence), not the how. The how is in the list of powers given to the feds. ALL other powers reside with the States or the People. The wording you're using still suggests that you believe the Constitution is defining our rights. But as I've said, it is there to define the government's rights. So if the Constitution doesn't say the feds have the power, then they don't. It is an open & shut case as long as you abide by the Constitution. The 4th Amendment MUST be upheld.
I believe it is not an all one way or the other, and I think there is a valid argument regarding the need for balance. I also think the NSA and the President have gone beyond their powers and acted unconstitutionally. And before someone says it, no, this is not a contradiction of thought or cognitive dissonance.
Its not a contradiction, it is just short-sighted. If you argue for "balance" in ways that allow the government to violate the Constitution, you nave no argument to stop them from doing it.
I agree that there is never a need or justification to deliberately violate the Constitution, but when Congress or the courts balances one right against another, is that a violation, since if so, it is a no-win situation. One of the rights must be violated since they conflict and cannot both be honored.
So if a person gives aid and comfort to the enemy (Article Three, Section 3) by revealing state secrets, let's say in print in a paper, during a war as declared by Congress (Article One, Section 8), which right wins: the constitutional definition of treason, or the right to free speech contained in the First Amendment? Remember, you said "your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats".
Now you're talking about two conflicting Constitutional questions. Totally different issue because the Constitution tells exactly how to resolve that dispute: the courts.
It's just that I can see that the world is in color, not just black and white.
It is not about the world or how I or you think it should be or is. It is about acknowledging that we will always disagree about what color the world is; and agreeing to some guidelines that both of us think is acceptable enough to make the world as awesome as possible. It is about what the Constitution says, or doesn't say; why it says it; and what happens if you ignore it. That document is the end-all-be-all of our entire system of government. It is supposed to sit there for those moments when there is doubt as to whether or not something the government is doing is acceptable by the people. It is supposed to answer whatever burning question you have as to whether or not the government has the right to do something. That is truly what the Constitution is: a definition of the government's rights, not ours; we KNOW our rights for they are inherent and inalienable. We collectively decided that we will "give up" some, specific, rights in the interest of obtaining all the benefits a central government has to offer. To make it absolutely clear which rights we were willing to give up, and what the government could do with them, the Constitution was written. It can only do its job if we always agree on what it says. Not what it should say, but what it actually says.
When somebody decides "Section {whatever} doesn't apply in situation X because I don't think it should" (and that is what any argument boils down to if you're not citing some other part of the Constitution), they change the Constitution. The moment somebody justifies violating the Constitution with a reason other than some other part of the Constitution, that justification has just been implicitly included in the document. As those other reasons are not codified in the Constitution, they are included arbitrarily and open to any interpretation the powers de jour feel like. And as the entire decision to include or exclude is without rules or bounds, that means the government's powers are likewise without rules or bounds.
By saying there are exceptions to the rules as specified in the Constitution, you are saying there is no limit to the government's power for any right, at any time, can be justified as being too important; or too minor; or not intended by the framers; or not applicable to the times; to deny to the government. That is why we're here today, in this situation. Because at some point in the past, somebody decided that Section XYZ didn't apply. So now anybody and their mother is using that same logic to say the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. The debate going on today is "when can the government violate citizen's rights?", but that question was already answered over 250 years ago with a detailed list!
If the President or Congress feels there is a situation where the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, they can damn well put it to a vote and have the Constitution changed legitimately; for that process is detailed clearly and has been used successfully many times. There is never a need, justification, or right for the government to violate the Constitution.
Another example is a person's right to free speech does not include libel and slander. When two or more rights conflict, lawmakers and the courts must sort out who's rights win. So from a purist's point of view, there are valid reasons to "violate" certain rights, since use or protection of one right may violate another.
The problem with that argument is that your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats. Your right to not be slandered is not. The Constitution grants Congress various powers. None of which include violating the Constitution in any way, shape or form.
So from a true purist's point of view, there is never a valid reason to violate certain rights, because nobody has that right.
Does your right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have more or less weight than your rights under the 4th amendment et.al.?
That is up to me to decide, not the Federal Government, because nobody ever gave them the right to decide.
It is not a black-and-white problem as is often portrayed on Slashdot, such as you have done above.
I think it is. But I know I'm in the tiny minority that believes if you want an exception to the Constitution, you're supposed to pass an amendment.
Wait, what? All of a sudden we've decided that violating rights is OK if it makes us more secure? When did we decide that? I don't remember any court decisions that said "well, it's unconstitutional, sure, but it's OK because..."
Why do you think it is sudden? Congress, with the courts approval, have been infringing on Constitutional rights since the Constitution was written. They make exceptions all the time: when you can speak (no "fire" in a crowded theater); when you can assemble (Sorry "Occupy", move along... move along...); which guns you're allowed to buy (all without infringing on your right to keep & bear!); and when a warrant is required to execute you (Drone, zooooom, boom!).
The ends justify the means in each of those cases, so it does now too, and will again in the future.
Progressives complain that corporations only worship profit, and then when they act on other values, they demand they only worship profit.
Not funny at all. That is what happens when you attempt to apply individual thought processes to ever shifting groups.
Some progressives complain about worshiping only profit. Some progressives demand it. Some progressives stupidly do both.
Conservatives complain about government interference.
Conservatives demand the government stop gays from getting married.
Conservatives complain about welfare.
Conservatives get bailouts for their businesses.
My kidneys are MINE thank you very much, don't hook me up to another person as a dialysis machine against my will, even if it saves that person's life. It puts ME at risk and is a great imposition on me. And even if I agree to it at some point, I can change my mind about continuing to risk my life by providing dialysis.
Pregnancy is very much analogous.
--PM
I agree with you elsewhere so don't shoot me, but that is a horrible analogy... unless you include your choice to shoot the other person in the kidney.
Far more people choose pregnancy, or the action that obviously results in pregnancy, than kidney failure.
Seriously, come on. Do you PERSONALLY know ANYONE who was affected by this? Neither do I.
I don't know any Japanese held in US internment camps during WWII either.
That was still unethical, deserves outrage, should never be repeated, and should be known.
Slashdot Mirror
He's made a lot of "small" liberal progress on over a hundred issues but his hands are tied by the party of "no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO NO no no no!"
I still don't get this name calling. Aren't they different parties? Don't they have different views on how to do things? Haven't they always opposed each other?
Aren't the Democrats voting "No" as well on Republican led initiatives?
In short, why is it that side's fault that Congress can't get anything passed? Do you think blaming them makes the process better?
Its quite possible that upgrading the interconnect would all of a sudden cause Verizons network to melt down (i.e. push their overall utilization from a nice manageable number to something unmanageable.)
But if that is true it simply means Verizon is not charging THEIR customers enough to provide THEIR customers with the traffic that THEIR customers have requested.
Yes it is Netflix that is the source of the traffic. But it is Verizon CUSTOMERS that are requesting that traffic based on representations made by Verizon (pay this much and we will allow you to download XXMbits/s.) If Verizon cannot provide that download then they are not doing the job they are being PAID to do.
That would be conjecture. Perfectly reasonable and probable (why else would Verizon anger their own customers by restricting Netflix access?), but still a guess.
However, it was not mentioned in Level 3's post. Good network engineers (good problem solvers in any field) would not simplify the issue so much as to make it incorrect by virtue of being incomplete. I think Level 3 is being horribly disingenuous.
So when Netflix decided to pay Comcast, they were able to upgrade all of those remote trunks in ~24 hours, even though they cost of fortune?
Are you being cute? Or dense?
Like any responsible business, Comcast (and Verizon) keep a buffer between what they're capable of doing, and what they're required to do (in terms of providing their services), to account for usage spikes and to be able to acquire new customers.
When the buffer reaches self-defined limits, they increase their total bandwidth until the buffer is acceptable.
Comcast would only have had to do the magic you're implying if they were already at capacity. The only thing that did happen is their buffer took a hit. So now they either have to increase bandwidth or stop acquiring customers, before they can continue.
While I'm not doubting the actually connection point could just use a couple network cards to get all that additional traffic onto Verizon's network, what does that do to the rest of Verizon's network?
If allowing all of Level 3's traffic pushes Verizon's bandwidth usage at any point in their system to unacceptable levels, then that part needs to be upgraded as well... which may cost a lot more than a couple network cards.
So, how much traffic is Level 3 pushing? What are the costs to upgrade all of Verizon's weak-points to accommodate the additional traffic? How much do Verizon's customers pay towards that? How much do the peering contracts pay towards that?
Hating Verizon is not enough to answer those questions.
The reason why it is ridiculous, is because Thor is Odin's son, not Odin's daughter. Its a name, not a title.
Says who? The same people that made Gaea his mother? The same ones that had him meet himself (Hercules)? I can list 100 things that are not Norse/Roman/Greek myth. I can list even more things that were re-written later in comics to no longer follow Norse/Roman/Greek myth. So picking one particular trait, that just happens to be the sex of the character, and clinging to it like the world will end if anybody doesn't use that particular aspect of the Norse myth in their own fantasy writings, doesn't make sense unless it is misogyny... or you can explain your reasoning behind why that particular trait is immutable and all others can be thrown to the wind.
P.S., it sounds from your post that you think the original Thor actually had a sex change. That didn't happen. Some other human girl picked up his hammer and gained the powers.
This is just lazy pandering. Do they have such little creativity that they best they can do is make a female Thor? This is as pathetic as the Hollywood remake movie spree of the last few decades.
How many stories & myths from our history have male warrior leads?
How many stories & myths from our history have female warrior leads?
Inspiration obviously comes from many places. But if you consider the amount of historical & current inspiration available for male characters of this type, and the clear lack of inspiration for female characters, I'd say the male Thor is a better example of lazy pandering.
This change at least bucks the system a bit.
I would point out that at no time have I said that Thor cannot or should not be a woman. I pointed out that I do not believe that there was any misogyny as was implied.
I too have not shared my opinion. I merely pointed out that when something looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it appears to be a duck. So when a few quacks in this thread were modded up, I decided to try looking under the feathers.
I did not say that feminine attributes make the new Thor weaker; I was pointing out a weakness in the armor.
You pointed out the change in the armor as a sign of misogyny by "putting a weakness in the new Thor". When in fact, he went from cloth/latex/whatever his body suit was made of, to armor, however shitty nerds consider that armor to be (their logic is sound, I did not dispute it). But then, wearing latex, instead of actual armor, is "putting a weakness in the old Thor"; also to enhance his masculine features. As I've pointed out, all super heroes get that treatment. So to then complain only when it happens at a change from enhancing masculine features, to enhancing feminine features, it looks like the complainer has a problem with women.
I believe that addressing codpieces or physical attributes of other female superheroes either in favor of or against is an attempted trap, and will simply acknowledge other superheroes, which are well known to put their endowedness on display, both male and female alike.
You cited her attire, which by your description serves the same purpose as a feminized cod piece (enhancing and displaying a specific body part), as a negative trait of the new Thor. To both understand why you dislike the feminine display and discount that dislike as simple misogyny, one would also need to understand your viewpoint on similar pieces when used for male characters. That makes it relevant to the discussion, not a trap.
[...] Nobody is complaining about Thor being turned into a title. [...]
Personally, I think that turning Thor into a title is the absurdity here. I felt the same about Captain America. I think Thor would have worked as a female in, for example, the Marvel Ultimate universe. One of my favorite Thor moments was in the Marvel vs. DC crossover when Wonder Woman was able to wield Mjolnir; I was disappointed that the Amalgam comics went in a different direction with her.
Then you should have mentioned it, instead of focusing on irrelevant attributes. Instead, all that was mentioned was things that further the appearance of misogyny: Thor was a man in myth; her armor doesn't help.
Actually, I am trying to engage in thought-out, intelligent dicussion,
Yea, that is why I responded. I assumed because you weren't AC, you were not one of the modders.
but ultimately, I seems you are trying to build a straw man out of my arguments to then refute, which disingenuously undermines what I have said while simultaneously undermines my ability to respect the speaker.
I'm trying to find out why people think Thor being changed to a woman is "Ridiculous". You provided a reason, I offered my counter. Sorry you don't like it. I'll try somewhere else.
Oh, c'mon. It's not like being stupid and needlessly litigious is a uniquely French thing.
It is slowly spreading outside of France.
But if you bring that litigious shit to the US I'll sue you into oblivion.
Turning the established white male character Iron Man with his side kick and one of his best friends, a black man
Like Green Lantern? (p.s., Loki often went about as a woman)
The misogyny is actually in the new character of the female Thor, wherein Thor's breastplate now has protrusions for breasts (commonly referred to amongst roleplaying-, comic- and self-proclaimed nerds as "boobplate").
That is misogynist? Are female super heroes supposed to be flat chested? Is there historical context for plate armor built for women? Depicting ideal forms in comics, or any other entertainment, is how it is done. People read comics, or watch movies, or attend plays, to be taken away from reality. Not to be reminded of it.
Btw, how do you feel about codpieces?
It has been argued (link; I know, it's just a blog post and the authority of it is beyond suspect) that a strong enough blow would be plenty to break a sternum. Thor is a warrior that is often engaging in battles of super-human strength, which would qualify as a strong enough blow. They are putting a weakness on the new Thor in order to make her pretty parts more clearly on display. That, I feel, is the true misogyny.
A weakness?! The male Thor wore a (latex?) body suit and a helmet. Since when is cloth or latex better than armor, even poorly designed armor, at stopping a weapon?
The misogyny, as pointed out, lies in the double standards being applied to rate the characters. Changing Green Lantern from one guy to an entire corps, with the "original" (the rewritten story included a Chinese Green Lantern predating the original comic character) being made gay, one of the replacements black... all that is ok. Nobody is complaining about Thor being turned into a title. "Thor" now being whoever holds the hammer is apparently fine with everybody. The complaint is not "Thor's character was changed", it is just "Thor is a woman". So far every reason I've seen presented here for not liking the change has been a double standard.
Also noticed on my side of the computer is that every woman I've told about this has said: "Omg that's awesome!"
The complaints have all come from men, here.
I'd browse around for more... but honestly, I'm not inclined to do so considering the single word "Ridiculous!" is considered +5 Insightful with this crowd, while obviously thought-out, intelligent calls for discussion by opposing views are considered trolling. Too many signs its time to leave slashdot.
The topic is not a comic book. If you want to join the discussion, try a few reading comprehension classes first.
Its a fking comic book. THERE IS NO LOGIC TO BE FOUND. There can not be a "CORRECT" answer as to weather or not Thor can be a woman. His argument against is equally as logical as yours against. Its like arguing about the bestest color ever amoungst five year olds.
ssshhh. Adults are talking.
Either way, my takeaway from your post is that if anyone were to say that George Washington did not have female reproductive organs, they must be a misogynist.
My takeaway is that if your only argument against the change is "Thor was a male", and you cannot come up with a real, valid, logical argument against the change, then most likely, you're misogynist.
Thor is a male god.
Thor is an established character, based on the mythical Thor.
If you consider everything else about the mythical Thor that Marvel ignored, one really has to wonder: Why would somebody be so concerned about the character's sex? Is this the very first time an "established character" was changed significantly? Is sex the only significant difference between the mythical Thor & the new (or old) Marvel character? Obviously the myth behind Thor is very significant to the poster since that is the only issue raised... But the myth is not significant enough for the poster to even notice the insanely long list of other discrepancies. Just sex.
So as Geekoid pointed out, there is no difference between the complaints about Thor changing to a girl, and the complaints about any other role that has an established male precedent. Soldiers can't be girls. The President can't be a girl. Thor can't be a girl.
So far, it looks like misogyny.
Oh stfu you damn PC drone.
Hey be nice. In this day & age, PC drones serve a purpose too.
Like the "this is not a food" warnings on the back of spermicidal jelly, they help stupid people to not hurt themselves and others.
If you have the courage to say the same to a crying women then your next assignment will be to find some crying bitch and slap some sense into her.
Else then you are just a other 'tough guy' over the intertubes. Be proud.
Lol, thanks for the "Stand up for your beliefs" tip, Anonymous Coward.
Wouldn't they just add it to their accounts instead?
But instead they auctioned bitcoins, as an object. Now they claim they're money. All in the same case.
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the United States
In other words, don't assume YOUR side will always be enforcing those laws you want enacted.
And takes us back to the age-old disagreement of which is more important: the benefits, or stopping the wrongs it can bring.
Imho, liberty requires you "do no harm", first.
Now you're talking about two conflicting Constitutional questions. Totally different issue because the Constitution tells exactly how to resolve that dispute: the courts.
That is what I have been saying.
You said slander. Different issue.
Also agree, but then the problem of language is always there. Two people can read the same sentence in the Constitution and think it means two different things. To quote Bill Clinton "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
That is not a problem. Like I said, that is what SCOTUS is for. And once scotus makes a ruling, if the people don't like it, they can amend the Constitution to make it more palatable. If the government ignores the constitution, what is the people's remedy? There is none. The Constitution is the only remedy for all disputes with the government.
I mostly agree, but now we get to the crux of the problem. My statements have been about how rights have exceptions because at times they will conflict with other rights, and only one can be honored.
This is also where you're getting distracted from the actual issue. The point is, the people's rights never conflict for they are not involved in this or any other dispute with the government. This isn't a question of "who's rights are more important". This is a question of "Can the Federal government ignore the 4th Amendment (or any other section of the Constitution) because national security (or any other non-constitution based reason) is more important?". The Constitution very specifically states what rights the Government has. If the Feds ignore the 4th, they're ignoring the entire document.
The basic argument regarding the NSA's actions is to what degree do actions to protect your right to live in this country and have it continue to exist (i.e. right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) balance against other rights such as those contained in the fourth amendment.
Where does the Constitution give the Government the power, the right, or the authority to guarantee or pursue life, liberty and happiness? It doesn't. That is the goal of the document (as implied by the declaration of independence), not the how. The how is in the list of powers given to the feds. ALL other powers reside with the States or the People. The wording you're using still suggests that you believe the Constitution is defining our rights. But as I've said, it is there to define the government's rights. So if the Constitution doesn't say the feds have the power, then they don't. It is an open & shut case as long as you abide by the Constitution. The 4th Amendment MUST be upheld.
I believe it is not an all one way or the other, and I think there is a valid argument regarding the need for balance. I also think the NSA and the President have gone beyond their powers and acted unconstitutionally. And before someone says it, no, this is not a contradiction of thought or cognitive dissonance.
Its not a contradiction, it is just short-sighted. If you argue for "balance" in ways that allow the government to violate the Constitution, you nave no argument to stop them from doing it.
I agree that there is never a need or justification to deliberately violate the Constitution, but when Congress or the courts balances one right against another, is that a violation, since if so, it is a no-win situation. One of the rights must be violated since they conflict and cannot both be honored.
I already covered this.
230... what a great time for a typo.
So if a person gives aid and comfort to the enemy (Article Three, Section 3) by revealing state secrets, let's say in print in a paper, during a war as declared by Congress (Article One, Section 8), which right wins: the constitutional definition of treason, or the right to free speech contained in the First Amendment? Remember, you said "your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats".
Now you're talking about two conflicting Constitutional questions. Totally different issue because the Constitution tells exactly how to resolve that dispute: the courts.
It's just that I can see that the world is in color, not just black and white.
It is not about the world or how I or you think it should be or is. It is about acknowledging that we will always disagree about what color the world is; and agreeing to some guidelines that both of us think is acceptable enough to make the world as awesome as possible. It is about what the Constitution says, or doesn't say; why it says it; and what happens if you ignore it. That document is the end-all-be-all of our entire system of government. It is supposed to sit there for those moments when there is doubt as to whether or not something the government is doing is acceptable by the people. It is supposed to answer whatever burning question you have as to whether or not the government has the right to do something. That is truly what the Constitution is: a definition of the government's rights, not ours; we KNOW our rights for they are inherent and inalienable. We collectively decided that we will "give up" some, specific, rights in the interest of obtaining all the benefits a central government has to offer. To make it absolutely clear which rights we were willing to give up, and what the government could do with them, the Constitution was written. It can only do its job if we always agree on what it says. Not what it should say, but what it actually says.
When somebody decides "Section {whatever} doesn't apply in situation X because I don't think it should" (and that is what any argument boils down to if you're not citing some other part of the Constitution), they change the Constitution. The moment somebody justifies violating the Constitution with a reason other than some other part of the Constitution, that justification has just been implicitly included in the document. As those other reasons are not codified in the Constitution, they are included arbitrarily and open to any interpretation the powers de jour feel like. And as the entire decision to include or exclude is without rules or bounds, that means the government's powers are likewise without rules or bounds.
By saying there are exceptions to the rules as specified in the Constitution, you are saying there is no limit to the government's power for any right, at any time, can be justified as being too important; or too minor; or not intended by the framers; or not applicable to the times; to deny to the government. That is why we're here today, in this situation. Because at some point in the past, somebody decided that Section XYZ didn't apply. So now anybody and their mother is using that same logic to say the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. The debate going on today is "when can the government violate citizen's rights?", but that question was already answered over 250 years ago with a detailed list!
If the President or Congress feels there is a situation where the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, they can damn well put it to a vote and have the Constitution changed legitimately; for that process is detailed clearly and has been used successfully many times. There is never a need, justification, or right for the government to violate the Constitution.
Never.
Another example is a person's right to free speech does not include libel and slander. When two or more rights conflict, lawmakers and the courts must sort out who's rights win. So from a purist's point of view, there are valid reasons to "violate" certain rights, since use or protection of one right may violate another.
The problem with that argument is that your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats. Your right to not be slandered is not. The Constitution grants Congress various powers. None of which include violating the Constitution in any way, shape or form.
So from a true purist's point of view, there is never a valid reason to violate certain rights, because nobody has that right.
Does your right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have more or less weight than your rights under the 4th amendment et.al.?
That is up to me to decide, not the Federal Government, because nobody ever gave them the right to decide.
It is not a black-and-white problem as is often portrayed on Slashdot, such as you have done above.
I think it is. But I know I'm in the tiny minority that believes if you want an exception to the Constitution, you're supposed to pass an amendment.
Wait, what? All of a sudden we've decided that violating rights is OK if it makes us more secure? When did we decide that? I don't remember any court decisions that said "well, it's unconstitutional, sure, but it's OK because..."
Why do you think it is sudden? Congress, with the courts approval, have been infringing on Constitutional rights since the Constitution was written. They make exceptions all the time: when you can speak (no "fire" in a crowded theater); when you can assemble (Sorry "Occupy", move along... move along...); which guns you're allowed to buy (all without infringing on your right to keep & bear!); and when a warrant is required to execute you (Drone, zooooom, boom!).
The ends justify the means in each of those cases, so it does now too, and will again in the future.
Progressives complain that corporations only worship profit, and then when they act on other values, they demand they only worship profit.
Not funny at all. That is what happens when you attempt to apply individual thought processes to ever shifting groups.
Some progressives complain about worshiping only profit.
Some progressives demand it.
Some progressives stupidly do both.
Conservatives complain about government interference.
Conservatives demand the government stop gays from getting married.
Conservatives complain about welfare.
Conservatives get bailouts for their businesses.
See how that "works"?
My kidneys are MINE thank you very much, don't hook me up to another person as a dialysis machine against my will, even if it saves that person's life. It puts ME at risk and is a great imposition on me. And even if I agree to it at some point, I can change my mind about continuing to risk my life by providing dialysis.
Pregnancy is very much analogous.
--PM
I agree with you elsewhere so don't shoot me, but that is a horrible analogy... unless you include your choice to shoot the other person in the kidney.
Far more people choose pregnancy, or the action that obviously results in pregnancy, than kidney failure.
already believes the technology can help improve privacy and give parents a way to monitor their kids as they drive.
Improving privacy and increased monitoring do not go well in the same sentence.
Seriously, come on. Do you PERSONALLY know ANYONE who was affected by this? Neither do I.
I don't know any Japanese held in US internment camps during WWII either.
That was still unethical, deserves outrage, should never be repeated, and should be known.