Foremost, I'd like kill files, both by user and by keyword. Kill files should kill either postings or whole subthreads. There are some people I simply don't want to read anything from, ever.
Other suggestions: better threading, better mobile support, mobile app, Markdown default, Unicode support, and opt-in/opt-out direct private messaging.
Anyway, you're pretty much wrong. Totalitarianism tends to form from single-party (or even no-party) systems of government. When multiple parties have real power, this doesn't happen.
What is "real power" supposed to mean? When you have half a dozen squabbling parties in parliament, necessarily, none of them have real power; they need to make backroom deals and engage in horse trading for what they want. And small parties often end up contributing the key votes, giving them disproportionate amounts of power.
Hitler's Nazi Party became the strongest party prior in the years leading up to the Enabling Act of 1933, which essentially gave him dictatorial powers.
That's nonsense. Hitler did not have an absolute majority in parliament. The Enabling Act could not have passed without the active support of other parties, foremost the Catholic Center Party. And prior to that, Hitler could not have become chancellor without the active support of other parties. And the reason parliament and the people wanted Hitler to have that power is because they said that parliament didn't get anything done and a strong executive branch leader was needed to fix Germany. Kind of like what progressives believe about Obama today.
The Third Reich was absolutely not a multiple-party system. I don't understand why you would think it was.
You need to learn to read. Nowhere did I say that "The Third Reich" was a multiple-party system. The Weimar Republic was a multiple-party system, up to its very end, when it effectively voted to abolish itself and turn itself into "The Third Reich". After that, of course, it wasn't a "multiple-party system" anymore. That ought to be so obvious that it shouldn't require spelling out.
A new voting system would reduce or even eliminate the ability for two parties to hold onto power in that fashion.
Yes. What it would do is sweep socialists, communists, fascists, and various other extremists and airheads into power, and they would invariably follow the course of European parliamentary systems.
The US is a two-party system (it has multiple parties but two parties share and trade most of the power). But the two parties seem more like two sides of the same coin.
Indeed. The US political system forces both parties towards the ideological center of the country, excluding any point of view that isn't substantial enough for either party to take serious to be excluded from being represented in Congress. That is a feature, not a bug. European parliamentary systems have tried to emulate that by setting minimal percentages that political parties need to achieve in order to enter parliament, but that doesn't work as well.
So your problem is that you don't think representative democracy works?
No, I'm saying that there is no agreement on what "representative democracy" is or ought to be, and there can never be. That's because no matter how government makes decisions, it always ends up harming someone.
The traditional liberal solution to those issues are subsidiarity and small government. Once you adopt those, the details of how you choose representatives don't matter much. The reason why people like you are obsessed with voting systems is because you want government to fix bigger and bigger problems (poverty, racism, inequality, pollution, wearing socks with sandals, whatever), problems it can't fix, and when it fails to do that, rather than recognizing your own folly, you blame voting systems for it (or the media or the Koch brothers or whatever).
Because spending large piles of money is exactly what Republican's don't want to do; plus, being pro-business, it was in their interests to let some third-party company profit from this mandate.
Government favoritism to specific companies isn't "pro-business", it is, in fact, quite anti-business.
And although Republicans are also guilty of it, that kind of relationship between government and business is a core part of the ideology of Democrats.
And with the OSS font you get? A shitty font because people who are good at spending the many long hours of work required to make good fonts DONT FUCKING DO IT FOR FREE.
There are plenty of excellent free fonts, including free versions of highway fonts. People make high quality open source fonts for the same reason they make high quality open source anything: they enjoy it and/or they get paid for it.
Before you promote something OSS there has to be at least one instance of that type of object that doesn't suck, and as far as fonts are concerned, OSS is absolute shit.
Actually, at this point, probably the majority of computer users read almost everything in royalty free fonts.
I suppose it depends on which you believe better: the words and platforms that the Nazis used while building support to assume power, or the actions of the Third Reich once Hitler was supreme leader.
The Nazis delivered largely what they promised and what Germans wanted: they created massive government stimulus programs, instituted government by experts, ended profiteering, put government in charge of evaluating "responsibility and performance" of workers, put the government in charge of health care, education, and retirement, even founded VW in order to create cheap cars for the masses. Nazi Germany wasn't a bait-and-switch, it is what happens when you follow progressive ideology to its bitter end.
I'll note that the Nazis persecuted the communists with a profound zeal
As I was saying: The idea that fascism is "right wing" probably comes from the fact that Nazis and socialists/communists were political arch-enemies in Germany, but that really tells you little about their actual political ideologies.. In fact, it makes rational sense for related political ideologies to persecute each other much more harshly than politically distant ideologies.
exceed only by the fires they reserved for the jews and homosexuals, none of those groups having much in common with what we'd think of as "conservatism."
Well, that's because your perspective is a bit limited. Jews and homosexuals have been widely persecuted by socialist and communist regimes; such regimes viewed both as aspects of decadent and bourgeois society (something I sadly experienced first hand). Christians persecuted Jews and homosexuals because supposedly God disapproves. A century ago, progressives tried to keep Jews, blacks, American Indians, and homosexuals out of the labor force, out of society, and out of the gene pool, believing that science had proven these groups to be genetically inferior and therefore incapable of making it on their own; these days, progressives do the same thing because they believe that science has shown that all these groups have "inherited" (in some vaguely defined non-genetic sense) psychological, economic, and social "damage" and "burdens" and are therefore incapable of making it on their own. Everybody, left and right, likes to play political football with Jews, homosexuals, and minorities.
And no business should ever be put in a position to be told what their customers can or cannot say in their establishment or on their platform.
Bullshit. Customers can and do tell business how to operate, and they can put quite a bit of muscle behind it by voting with theid dollars. If you are incapable of dealing with that, don't run a business.
I dont have to allow it. And any of my customers that dont like that can go find another business.
They can do other things too, like encourage other customers not to do business with you, picket you, criticize you in the media and online reviews, and point out your hypocrisy. Which is, incidentally, what I'm doing with Twitter, after I stopped using them.
As I was saying:
They are free to censor him
Legally? Sure. But that doesn't mean they are beyond criticism. After all, they have aspirations of being a communications platform and social network and that requires more than merely being legally above board.
Every one of these media outlets posts what promotes their agenda, and in the light they choose to present it.
"Media outlets" have a small number of gatekeepers and content creators; that necessarily and unavoidably biases their publications even if they try to be unbiased and spend no money on censorship.
But Twitter isn't a "media outlet". "Media outlet" implies that a company "lets out" (distributes) "media" that it itself created internally. But the media on Twitter are created by users, not by Twitter. It need not have any more bias than a telephone. Unlike "media outlets", Twitter censorship is an active and deliberate policy and requires spending extra money and effort to implement.
(And let's not forget that Nazism and racism were progressive ideologies, so they fit the pattern.)
Hur hur Nazi is German for National Socialism, so all socialists are Nazis.
No, socialists are not Nazis: socialists want public ownership of the means of production, while fascists want to keep the means of production in private hands but regulate it tightly. But there is a lot of agreement as well. The idea that fascism is "right wing" probably comes from the fact that Nazis and socialists/communists were political arch-enemies in Germany, but that really tells you little about their actual political ideologies.
The close historical connections between American progressivism and German fascism aren't really subject to debate, they are a simple historical fact. If you can't be bothered going back to the original sources like I did, you can read about them in Kuhl's "The Nazi Connection", Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism", and Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society". Hitler and Goebbels, in fact, referred to specific progressive American sources when asked about the origins of their policies.
You can also just take it from the horse's mouth:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Adolf Hitler (from John Toland, "Adolf Hitler", p224).
Which American politician does that sound like? Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? Ben Carson? Seems to me that's more like Obama, Clinton, and Sanders.
After WWII, every major ideology and party was quick to try to distance itself from the Nazis, which is why progressives invented all sorts of stories to reinterpret their history, including pretending that the new progressives have nothing to do with the old progressives, and the Catholic church pretended to have staunchly opposed the Nazis all along.
You are a buffoon.
That may be, but you are ignorant, and that's far worse in this context. I understand where your ignorance comes from: I used to be a progressive myself, until I started actually questioning the inconsistencies in the progressive party line and read up on history, including checking the original sources.
A second problem you probably have is trying to fit politics into a linear left-right dichotomy. In fact, it's multidimensional, which means that your (apparent) implicit reasoning like "fascism is right wing, progressivism is left wing, therefore they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum" don't work.
Yeah, the video makes the same invalid assumptions that people who want more complex voting systems usually make.
As I was saying: "The real problem with any voting system is that you apparently want democracy to do something it can't do, and no voting system is going to fix that."
You seem to be extraordinarily concerned with getting people into power that somehow "represent" the population. But there is no way of doing that. It isn't even a well-defined goal. And it is not the job of democracy to give the majority what it wants, nor do democracies get better the more parties they have. Your kind of thinking often leads to totalitarian governments getting into power, the most prominent example being the Hitler government in Germany, which rode to power on making a whole bunch of political promises and coalitions in order to rule Germany. And European democracies haven't been doing particularly well post-WWII either.
The US system has been quite good at preventing a slide into totalitarianism and delivering growth and wealth to the entire population. If the price for that were that the president and Congress are "less representative" of the will of the people by whatever definition you happen to pick, that would be a price worth paying. However, since there isn't even a useful measure of how representative government is of the people, we aren't even paying that price.
Not really. As far as practical operating systems go, Hurd doesn't make the cut. So the only "choice" we might be making is about principles of operating system designs and implementation, and the Hurd is as obsolete in that regard as Linux.
Thanks to the microkernel architecture you will no longer have to reboot system just to get rid of that stale lock on an accidentally removed USB disk or unmountable
There is an implicit false dichotomy there, namely "ancient design monolithic kernel" and "ancient-style microkernel". There are many other choices.
I could transparently restart crashed ntfs.sys emulated under Linux in 2003 while Linux kernel still can't do that with its native filesystems.
Actually, since NTFS under Linux runs in user space, yes you can. In fact, for many kernel services (USB, file systems, networking, etc.), the kernel can call upon separate servers to handle those services. And that's another problem with microkernels: their design focuses not on what users need and the question of how to best provide that, but rather on a mechanism.
Well, and Twitter can turn itself into Pravda or the Volkische Beobachter for all I care, it's their business to wreck. However, it is still a good thing to point out what they are and what their biases are so that people are aware of their biases.
Really? Yeah. The idea that your singular experience somehow applies to everyone else's is the real bullshit. And what the hell does playing a *game* as "a man" vs "a woman" have to do with Twitter harassment?
Because the story social justice activists are pushing that merely by appearing as a woman or gay man online, people get harassed. That story is bullshit. Most gay men and women are online without getting harassed, and not just in games but also discussion forums, and the Internet has been a boon and a blessing for everybody who has been oppressed. And that's not just my experience, it's the experience of many people, friends, family, and coworkers.
And you blame the victim for "trolling" and deserving it. You're awesome!
Sarkeesian is no "victim", she actively and deliberately provokes comments and thrives on the insults and "threats" people hurl at her; it allows her to feel like a victim, attribute her personal problems to her victimhood, gets her speaking engagements, and pays the bills. You're right that she doesn't "deserve" these comments: instead of feeding trolls like her, people should starve her of comments.
Of course, a good number of those tweets are likely to be fabrications by social justice activists themselves, created through sock puppet accounts. Others are simple, meaningless trolls where people just compete to say the most offensive and outrageous things they can think of. You have to be extremely gullible and naive to take such tweets at face value.
I assume from your post you assume it's all ok just because that woman on Twitter said... well, I'm at a loss... NOTHING ANYONE COULD SAY WARRANTS THIS.
Speech doesn't need to be "warranted" or "justified". Offensive and insulting language is part of free speech, and as such is justified.
Oh... so you are a "gamergate" hater.
Oh, so you are an privileged ignoramus who hates free speech and supports the exploitation of minorities for political and financial purposes. Thanks for clearing that up.
Not very well; both the Catholic and the protestant churches were deeply involved in the Nazi regime. Also, Christianity had a 600 year head start. Furthermore, what pacified Christianity was the growing wealth and power of the West.
Please provide any evidence this is actually true. The only examples I have ever seen where post made towards feminists resulted in a ban, those posts involved fairly blunt threats of rape, murder, or other explicit harassment.
Thunderf00t was banned from Twitter for a while. No, he did not "explicitly harrass" Anita Sarkeesian; his account was eventually reinstated when her accusations were found to have been utterly groundless and when there was a wave of criticism.
If you could see the types of things that are spewed daily at women on Twitter, even you might be shocked.
I'm a gay man and a gamer. I've played and posted as a man, as a gay man, as a transsexual, and as a woman. You know what I have had "spewed" at me? A very occasional "fag". That's it. The idea that women or gay men are subject to massive abuse online simply for what they/we are is bullshit.
When people like Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu have nasty things sent to them, it is not because of their sex organs (whatever they may be), it is because they are Internet trolls trying to provoke other people into insulting them and stirring up controversy. And what makes their trolling even more offensive is that they attack one of the few safe spaces and most accepting environments for minorities and outcasts, namely gaming, and they are doing so for personal gain.
And right wing politics, Neo-nazis and racists, and terrorist groups. It's a pretty equal opportunity shitshow.
No, I'm sorry, that's not true. The political bias of Twitter has been studied, and it is far more "liberal" (in the US sense of "progressive") than the US population as a whole. That represents the politics of educated, privileged, upper middle class techies, both in terms of users and in terms of the censors. (And let's not forget that Nazism and racism were progressive ideologies, so they fit the pattern.)
Catholics have a core text that can at least be invoked to "love your fellow man", "turn the other cheek", and "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's".
Catholicism has an even more ruthless and bloody history than Islam. And the Calvinists were pretty much like the Taliban.
That's no accident either: all of these religions pray to the same God, and that God is a mass murderer and psychopath, as documented in the OT. Like many mass murderers and psychopaths, God has his occasionally charming side, but that doesn't excuse His crimes.
You may like the government-imposed social conformity, the lack of choice, and the lily-white nature of the Nordic Countries, but when it comes down to cold, hard finances, the Nordic Countries aren't doing all that well for their citizens:
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
Take it from someone who immigrated from there: you don't want the Nordic Model, and much of what you believe about the Nordic Model is about as mythical as Shangri-La.
Most of these guys spend 2 hours a day commuting to their shitty jobs listening to Rush. They spent their childhood being told that if you work hard and play by the rules and don't get ahead it's your fault.
And guys like you spend 2 hours a day commuting to your white collar jobs, working for bosses and corporations you secretly hate, listening to NPR and reading HuffPo, and lacking the skills to make it on your own. And then you project your own ignorance and insecurity onto people who you deem inferior. It's no wonder that socialism originated with, and has been most ardently pursued, not by workers, but by educated, underperforming scions of middle class families.
I've tried reasoning with them but it's no go.
Yeah, I have tried reasoning with ignorant people like you as well, but it's no go.
They are free to censor him because they think his views are bad, because they hate his guts, or because it's a full moon on Saturday.
Legally? Sure. But that doesn't mean they are beyond criticism. After all, they have aspirations of being a communications platform and social network and that requires more than merely being legally above board.
The thing is, this isn't even true: "Donald Trump spews forth a trolling stream of hate and other abuses that would cause any average Twitter user to be terminated in a heartbeat."
I think it is true, actually: while, in general, Twitter sets the bar for bans fairly high, if you draw the ire of feminists or social justice advocates on Twitter, Twitter will ban people at the drop of a hat.
(In case you're wondering, no, I have never been banned on Twitter, but I also stopped using Twitter a few years ago because it seems to have been a quagmire of social justice advocacy, progressive politics, and self-promotion by third rate celebrities.)
"None of the above" is nice but doesn't really fix the problem of strategic voting. If we're going to change the ballot, I'd rather get rid of plurality voting altogether. Change it to a ranked, approval, or any of the numerous systems which are better than plurality.
The real problem with any voting system is that you apparently want democracy to do something it can't do, and no voting system is going to fix that.
So, first state your criteria of "better", and then we can talk about whether we agree on that. And only then does it make sense to talk about voting systems.
Why Does Twitter Refuse To Shut Down [Donald Trump] itself?
FTFY
Twitter's heavy handed censorship has already made them little more than a political echo chamber with a few trolls and self-promoting celebrities thrown in. They are in a death spiral.
Right, my point is that suppressing worker wages is never alright.
The idea that a policy of no cold calling "suppresses worker wages" is absurd.
And who are we talking about? These "workers" are people in the top few percent of the US income distribution, many of them in "the 1%". These are the kinds of people the Democrats want to greatly expand taxes on. You don't want to "suppress their wages"? Don't vote for people who want to "raise taxes on the wealthy".
People who stand on the line of "technically this isn't illegal" enable abusive practices to flourish.
It's people like you who are responsible for the massive abuse of power by our legal system and by police.
In any case, I didn't even make the argument that it was "technically not illegal", I'm saying that what they did was actually reasonable and perfectly alright.
Slashdot Mirror
Other suggestions: better threading, better mobile support, mobile app, Markdown default, Unicode support, and opt-in/opt-out direct private messaging.
What is "real power" supposed to mean? When you have half a dozen squabbling parties in parliament, necessarily, none of them have real power; they need to make backroom deals and engage in horse trading for what they want. And small parties often end up contributing the key votes, giving them disproportionate amounts of power.
That's nonsense. Hitler did not have an absolute majority in parliament. The Enabling Act could not have passed without the active support of other parties, foremost the Catholic Center Party. And prior to that, Hitler could not have become chancellor without the active support of other parties. And the reason parliament and the people wanted Hitler to have that power is because they said that parliament didn't get anything done and a strong executive branch leader was needed to fix Germany. Kind of like what progressives believe about Obama today.
You need to learn to read. Nowhere did I say that "The Third Reich" was a multiple-party system. The Weimar Republic was a multiple-party system, up to its very end, when it effectively voted to abolish itself and turn itself into "The Third Reich". After that, of course, it wasn't a "multiple-party system" anymore. That ought to be so obvious that it shouldn't require spelling out.
Yes. What it would do is sweep socialists, communists, fascists, and various other extremists and airheads into power, and they would invariably follow the course of European parliamentary systems.
Indeed. The US political system forces both parties towards the ideological center of the country, excluding any point of view that isn't substantial enough for either party to take serious to be excluded from being represented in Congress. That is a feature, not a bug. European parliamentary systems have tried to emulate that by setting minimal percentages that political parties need to achieve in order to enter parliament, but that doesn't work as well.
No, I'm saying that there is no agreement on what "representative democracy" is or ought to be, and there can never be. That's because no matter how government makes decisions, it always ends up harming someone.
The traditional liberal solution to those issues are subsidiarity and small government. Once you adopt those, the details of how you choose representatives don't matter much. The reason why people like you are obsessed with voting systems is because you want government to fix bigger and bigger problems (poverty, racism, inequality, pollution, wearing socks with sandals, whatever), problems it can't fix, and when it fails to do that, rather than recognizing your own folly, you blame voting systems for it (or the media or the Koch brothers or whatever).
Government favoritism to specific companies isn't "pro-business", it is, in fact, quite anti-business.
And although Republicans are also guilty of it, that kind of relationship between government and business is a core part of the ideology of Democrats.
There are plenty of excellent free fonts, including free versions of highway fonts. People make high quality open source fonts for the same reason they make high quality open source anything: they enjoy it and/or they get paid for it.
Actually, at this point, probably the majority of computer users read almost everything in royalty free fonts.
The Nazis delivered largely what they promised and what Germans wanted: they created massive government stimulus programs, instituted government by experts, ended profiteering, put government in charge of evaluating "responsibility and performance" of workers, put the government in charge of health care, education, and retirement, even founded VW in order to create cheap cars for the masses. Nazi Germany wasn't a bait-and-switch, it is what happens when you follow progressive ideology to its bitter end.
As I was saying: The idea that fascism is "right wing" probably comes from the fact that Nazis and socialists/communists were political arch-enemies in Germany, but that really tells you little about their actual political ideologies.. In fact, it makes rational sense for related political ideologies to persecute each other much more harshly than politically distant ideologies.
Well, that's because your perspective is a bit limited. Jews and homosexuals have been widely persecuted by socialist and communist regimes; such regimes viewed both as aspects of decadent and bourgeois society (something I sadly experienced first hand). Christians persecuted Jews and homosexuals because supposedly God disapproves. A century ago, progressives tried to keep Jews, blacks, American Indians, and homosexuals out of the labor force, out of society, and out of the gene pool, believing that science had proven these groups to be genetically inferior and therefore incapable of making it on their own; these days, progressives do the same thing because they believe that science has shown that all these groups have "inherited" (in some vaguely defined non-genetic sense) psychological, economic, and social "damage" and "burdens" and are therefore incapable of making it on their own. Everybody, left and right, likes to play political football with Jews, homosexuals, and minorities.
Bullshit. Customers can and do tell business how to operate, and they can put quite a bit of muscle behind it by voting with theid dollars. If you are incapable of dealing with that, don't run a business.
They can do other things too, like encourage other customers not to do business with you, picket you, criticize you in the media and online reviews, and point out your hypocrisy. Which is, incidentally, what I'm doing with Twitter, after I stopped using them.
As I was saying:
Is that so hard to grasp?
"Media outlets" have a small number of gatekeepers and content creators; that necessarily and unavoidably biases their publications even if they try to be unbiased and spend no money on censorship.
But Twitter isn't a "media outlet". "Media outlet" implies that a company "lets out" (distributes) "media" that it itself created internally. But the media on Twitter are created by users, not by Twitter. It need not have any more bias than a telephone. Unlike "media outlets", Twitter censorship is an active and deliberate policy and requires spending extra money and effort to implement.
No, socialists are not Nazis: socialists want public ownership of the means of production, while fascists want to keep the means of production in private hands but regulate it tightly. But there is a lot of agreement as well. The idea that fascism is "right wing" probably comes from the fact that Nazis and socialists/communists were political arch-enemies in Germany, but that really tells you little about their actual political ideologies.
The close historical connections between American progressivism and German fascism aren't really subject to debate, they are a simple historical fact. If you can't be bothered going back to the original sources like I did, you can read about them in Kuhl's "The Nazi Connection", Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism", and Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society". Hitler and Goebbels, in fact, referred to specific progressive American sources when asked about the origins of their policies.
You can also just take it from the horse's mouth:
Which American politician does that sound like? Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? Ben Carson? Seems to me that's more like Obama, Clinton, and Sanders.
After WWII, every major ideology and party was quick to try to distance itself from the Nazis, which is why progressives invented all sorts of stories to reinterpret their history, including pretending that the new progressives have nothing to do with the old progressives, and the Catholic church pretended to have staunchly opposed the Nazis all along.
That may be, but you are ignorant, and that's far worse in this context. I understand where your ignorance comes from: I used to be a progressive myself, until I started actually questioning the inconsistencies in the progressive party line and read up on history, including checking the original sources.
A second problem you probably have is trying to fit politics into a linear left-right dichotomy. In fact, it's multidimensional, which means that your (apparent) implicit reasoning like "fascism is right wing, progressivism is left wing, therefore they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum" don't work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We don't need no stinking carriages!
As I was saying: "The real problem with any voting system is that you apparently want democracy to do something it can't do, and no voting system is going to fix that."
You seem to be extraordinarily concerned with getting people into power that somehow "represent" the population. But there is no way of doing that. It isn't even a well-defined goal. And it is not the job of democracy to give the majority what it wants, nor do democracies get better the more parties they have. Your kind of thinking often leads to totalitarian governments getting into power, the most prominent example being the Hitler government in Germany, which rode to power on making a whole bunch of political promises and coalitions in order to rule Germany. And European democracies haven't been doing particularly well post-WWII either.
The US system has been quite good at preventing a slide into totalitarianism and delivering growth and wealth to the entire population. If the price for that were that the president and Congress are "less representative" of the will of the people by whatever definition you happen to pick, that would be a price worth paying. However, since there isn't even a useful measure of how representative government is of the people, we aren't even paying that price.
Not really. As far as practical operating systems go, Hurd doesn't make the cut. So the only "choice" we might be making is about principles of operating system designs and implementation, and the Hurd is as obsolete in that regard as Linux.
There is an implicit false dichotomy there, namely "ancient design monolithic kernel" and "ancient-style microkernel". There are many other choices.
Actually, since NTFS under Linux runs in user space, yes you can. In fact, for many kernel services (USB, file systems, networking, etc.), the kernel can call upon separate servers to handle those services. And that's another problem with microkernels: their design focuses not on what users need and the question of how to best provide that, but rather on a mechanism.
Well, and Twitter can turn itself into Pravda or the Volkische Beobachter for all I care, it's their business to wreck. However, it is still a good thing to point out what they are and what their biases are so that people are aware of their biases.
Because the story social justice activists are pushing that merely by appearing as a woman or gay man online, people get harassed. That story is bullshit. Most gay men and women are online without getting harassed, and not just in games but also discussion forums, and the Internet has been a boon and a blessing for everybody who has been oppressed. And that's not just my experience, it's the experience of many people, friends, family, and coworkers.
Sarkeesian is no "victim", she actively and deliberately provokes comments and thrives on the insults and "threats" people hurl at her; it allows her to feel like a victim, attribute her personal problems to her victimhood, gets her speaking engagements, and pays the bills. You're right that she doesn't "deserve" these comments: instead of feeding trolls like her, people should starve her of comments.
Of course, a good number of those tweets are likely to be fabrications by social justice activists themselves, created through sock puppet accounts. Others are simple, meaningless trolls where people just compete to say the most offensive and outrageous things they can think of. You have to be extremely gullible and naive to take such tweets at face value.
Speech doesn't need to be "warranted" or "justified". Offensive and insulting language is part of free speech, and as such is justified.
Oh, so you are an privileged ignoramus who hates free speech and supports the exploitation of minorities for political and financial purposes. Thanks for clearing that up.
Not very well; both the Catholic and the protestant churches were deeply involved in the Nazi regime. Also, Christianity had a 600 year head start. Furthermore, what pacified Christianity was the growing wealth and power of the West.
So your criterion for a "better" voting system is minimizing strategic voting? What good is that?
Thunderf00t was banned from Twitter for a while. No, he did not "explicitly harrass" Anita Sarkeesian; his account was eventually reinstated when her accusations were found to have been utterly groundless and when there was a wave of criticism.
I'm a gay man and a gamer. I've played and posted as a man, as a gay man, as a transsexual, and as a woman. You know what I have had "spewed" at me? A very occasional "fag". That's it. The idea that women or gay men are subject to massive abuse online simply for what they/we are is bullshit.
When people like Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu have nasty things sent to them, it is not because of their sex organs (whatever they may be), it is because they are Internet trolls trying to provoke other people into insulting them and stirring up controversy. And what makes their trolling even more offensive is that they attack one of the few safe spaces and most accepting environments for minorities and outcasts, namely gaming, and they are doing so for personal gain.
No, I'm sorry, that's not true. The political bias of Twitter has been studied, and it is far more "liberal" (in the US sense of "progressive") than the US population as a whole. That represents the politics of educated, privileged, upper middle class techies, both in terms of users and in terms of the censors. (And let's not forget that Nazism and racism were progressive ideologies, so they fit the pattern.)
Catholicism has an even more ruthless and bloody history than Islam. And the Calvinists were pretty much like the Taliban.
That's no accident either: all of these religions pray to the same God, and that God is a mass murderer and psychopath, as documented in the OT. Like many mass murderers and psychopaths, God has his occasionally charming side, but that doesn't excuse His crimes.
You may like the government-imposed social conformity, the lack of choice, and the lily-white nature of the Nordic Countries, but when it comes down to cold, hard finances, the Nordic Countries aren't doing all that well for their citizens: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex... Take it from someone who immigrated from there: you don't want the Nordic Model, and much of what you believe about the Nordic Model is about as mythical as Shangri-La.
And guys like you spend 2 hours a day commuting to your white collar jobs, working for bosses and corporations you secretly hate, listening to NPR and reading HuffPo, and lacking the skills to make it on your own. And then you project your own ignorance and insecurity onto people who you deem inferior. It's no wonder that socialism originated with, and has been most ardently pursued, not by workers, but by educated, underperforming scions of middle class families.
Yeah, I have tried reasoning with ignorant people like you as well, but it's no go.
Legally? Sure. But that doesn't mean they are beyond criticism. After all, they have aspirations of being a communications platform and social network and that requires more than merely being legally above board.
I think it is true, actually: while, in general, Twitter sets the bar for bans fairly high, if you draw the ire of feminists or social justice advocates on Twitter, Twitter will ban people at the drop of a hat.
(In case you're wondering, no, I have never been banned on Twitter, but I also stopped using Twitter a few years ago because it seems to have been a quagmire of social justice advocacy, progressive politics, and self-promotion by third rate celebrities.)
The real problem with any voting system is that you apparently want democracy to do something it can't do, and no voting system is going to fix that.
So, first state your criteria of "better", and then we can talk about whether we agree on that. And only then does it make sense to talk about voting systems.
FTFY
Twitter's heavy handed censorship has already made them little more than a political echo chamber with a few trolls and self-promoting celebrities thrown in. They are in a death spiral.
The idea that a policy of no cold calling "suppresses worker wages" is absurd.
And who are we talking about? These "workers" are people in the top few percent of the US income distribution, many of them in "the 1%". These are the kinds of people the Democrats want to greatly expand taxes on. You don't want to "suppress their wages"? Don't vote for people who want to "raise taxes on the wealthy".
It's people like you who are responsible for the massive abuse of power by our legal system and by police.
In any case, I didn't even make the argument that it was "technically not illegal", I'm saying that what they did was actually reasonable and perfectly alright.