It's not always homophobic to mockingly refer to someone as a homo, or even a submissive bottom homo. Not every pejorative homosexual joke is homophobic or offensive. Sometime it's just boys being boys.
CowboyNeal enjoys ruggedized USB sticks up his bunghole. See, it's all good.
A: This code works, let's add it to the proj... B: WAIT WAIT WAIT, did you check the genitals? A: Not yet B: *disapproving look* A: Okay, give me a minute *runs off* [10 minutes later] A: *pant pant*... It's... *pant* a vagina B: *right click, delete*
On hindsight, I should have been glad with the cheaper Packard Bell my dad had wanted to get instead of pouting until he gave in. Still, it was a wonderous and life changing experience. Computer City was like a next level toy store for a 12 year old, just couldn't leave.
Wikileaks: I need guarantees that you will use this information to the benefit of your users rather than the government Microsoft: We'll get back to you on that Media: Wikileaks isn't helping Microsoft unless demands are met Media Consumers: WTF I HATE WIKILEAKS
For example, Kellyanne Conway is known for saying/writing things (including untruths) which results in a torrent of hostile and trolling tweets sent her way.
Other prominent figures such as journalists and activists are also known to say things (including untruths) that result in hostile tweet storms directed their way.
Would a barrage of calling someone dumb constitute abuse and harassment? We need clarity and transparency.
When you were a supporter, Wikileaks was leaking mostly information that was embarrassing or damaging to the United States. Was that bias against the US? If not (since you imply they used to not be biased), then how can they be biased for releasing information that was embarrassing or damaging to a US political party?
Was Wikileaks anti-American when you were a supporter? If they were, why did you support them and falsely claim they were unbiased. If they weren't, how can you claim that they have only now become biased?
Are you judging "bias" through your own political filters?
If you're verified, your real name is out there with your consent. If your real name is out there, then a whole host of publicly available information about you is accessible. Nothing proposed by Wikileaks here deals with private or secret information. Relationship graphs of real people are what Twitter and Facebook ALREADY POSSESS internally, and they sell that information to businesses for a price. Wikileaks proposes to build its own just like what Twitter and Facebook ALREADY POSSESS, accessible to all not locked away for the highest bidder.
If this is troubling then the mere existence of Twitter and Facebook should be troubling.
If sanctions didnt work for Ukrane, they wont work here.
Sanctions have hurt Russia, and as a tool they are highly effective for the US, HOWEVER don't expect new sanctions to be a response to hacking. Any new sanction will most likely be a response to US setbacks in Syria that are made in the guise of responding to hacking during the election.
Why do I say this? China has hacked the US many times in the past with few repercussions outside of reprimands. Sanctions in response to hacking would be extraordinarily atypical.
What happened that we truly know of:
1. In the summer of 2015, someone (evidence points to Russian) spear-phished passwords from unsavvy staffers on the DNC email server
2. Almost a year later, Wikileaks publishes a dump of DNC emails. It is assumed by many to have come from the previous infiltration, though there are other ways Wikileaks could have obtained the data, and no definitive link connecting the two events have so far been presented.
3. Through the email dump, the American public is able to see the DNC's inner workings, including:
- party officials colluding to hinder Bernie Sanders
- party insider helping the Clinton campaign to cheat during debate
- astroturf campaign to create illusion of spontaneous public protest against opponent
- journalists coordinating with party officials to ensure party messaging is on track 4. Some voters may have reconsidered their voting decisions, or even the decision to participate in this cycle, due to the above information. 5. Critical states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania which were assumed to be safe states for Clinton (and who as a result did not campaign aggressively there), instead fall to Trump during the general election, ensuring a GOP win.
What the press & defeated party instead want you to think:
1. Russia hacked America
2. Trump is now the President
3. "... we're not saying Trump administration is a creation of the Russian state... *wink wink nudge nudge* but the Trump administration is obviously a creation and stupid dumb puppet of the Russian state... for realz tho... also, don't listen to fake news"
There is an immense effort right now to make us take mental shortcuts, to skip certain events in our memories, to forget that certain misdeeds were done not by Russians but by Americans.
You use "this is not a surprise" as a defense against "this is evil" It is non sequitur, it does not follow, it is not rational A rational defense would attempt to explain why "torpedoing Bernie Sanders campaign" was not evil.
See, this GP and reply is exactly the conversation I seem to see most often online about Musk/Tesla/SpaceX. An ostensibly right-leaning (or libertarian) commenter will praise Musk for doing something privately that rivals and even surpasses NASA. Which is then followed by a rebuttal by an ostensibly left-leaning commenter who tries to point out the subsidies and public research further up the stream that fed into these successes.
This is why it's very weird to read this Slashdot post about right-wing people trying to take down Musk. In my experience, the right wing folks have been very enthusiastic in holding him up as a triumph of capitalism, and as a literal John Galt brought out of the pages of fiction into our reality.
Some just wanted job protection, and others wanted to stick it to the establishment. Climate change skepticism was hardly on anyone's minds on the right. They're probably still euphoric from seeing the left break down in tears on election night, and will forgive broken promises for now.
You know what's funny? Seems like if you want to get things done, you need a Democrat to start wars, and a Republican to protect the environment. That way, the left largely stays silent as countries get attacked, and the right largely stays silent as regulations are imposed.
"[...]The argument that to tell the truth would be ‘inopportune’ or would ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books." -George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature
The truth remains the truth, even if unsavory people are beneficiaries of it.
No. It's much simpler. You don't pay a price, whether professionally or in terms of social capital, when voicing your support for Clinton. You pay a tremendous price when voicing your support for Trump. There are also costs, though comparatively less, to adamantly staying neutral while the media speculates over your political beliefs. Therefore, publicly coming out as pro-Clinton is the safest choice, and all the better if you really do support Clinton.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh... it's on par with saying Hillary's a cock-sleeve for the Saudi royal family
It's crude, but not offensive in the least. Especially when you factor in the actual evidence of Clinton-Saudi relationships.
It's not always homophobic to mockingly refer to someone as a homo, or even a submissive bottom homo. Not every pejorative homosexual joke is homophobic or offensive. Sometime it's just boys being boys.
CowboyNeal enjoys ruggedized USB sticks up his bunghole. See, it's all good.
A: This code works, let's add it to the proj... ... It's... *pant* a vagina
B: WAIT WAIT WAIT, did you check the genitals?
A: Not yet
B: *disapproving look*
A: Okay, give me a minute *runs off*
[10 minutes later]
A: *pant pant*
B: *right click, delete*
On hindsight, I should have been glad with the cheaper Packard Bell my dad had wanted to get instead of pouting until he gave in. Still, it was a wonderous and life changing experience. Computer City was like a next level toy store for a 12 year old, just couldn't leave.
AT&T/Verizon: "Of course we won't sell individual or personal data. Bulk anonymized data is neither individual nor personal. Heheheheheheheheeh"
Wikileaks: I need guarantees that you will use this information to the benefit of your users rather than the government
Microsoft: We'll get back to you on that
Media: Wikileaks isn't helping Microsoft unless demands are met
Media Consumers: WTF I HATE WIKILEAKS
You can already buy a netbook equivalent for $350. In fact, I've been consistently using my Kindle HDX with the keyboard cover for the past 4 years.
Who else would want this but the crybully?
it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
Another one who doesn't understand the difference between free speech and the 1st Amendment.
Liberally who?
Do this. Do this more often. Exactly this.
None of that "up to moderator discretion" BS.
For example, Kellyanne Conway is known for saying/writing things (including untruths) which results in a torrent of hostile and trolling tweets sent her way.
Other prominent figures such as journalists and activists are also known to say things (including untruths) that result in hostile tweet storms directed their way.
Would a barrage of calling someone dumb constitute abuse and harassment? We need clarity and transparency.
The right has now usurped what was once the sole domain of the left -- Relativism.
When you were a supporter, Wikileaks was leaking mostly information that was embarrassing or damaging to the United States. Was that bias against the US? If not (since you imply they used to not be biased), then how can they be biased for releasing information that was embarrassing or damaging to a US political party?
Was Wikileaks anti-American when you were a supporter? If they were, why did you support them and falsely claim they were unbiased. If they weren't, how can you claim that they have only now become biased?
Are you judging "bias" through your own political filters?
If you're verified, your real name is out there with your consent. If your real name is out there, then a whole host of publicly available information about you is accessible. Nothing proposed by Wikileaks here deals with private or secret information. Relationship graphs of real people are what Twitter and Facebook ALREADY POSSESS internally, and they sell that information to businesses for a price. Wikileaks proposes to build its own just like what Twitter and Facebook ALREADY POSSESS, accessible to all not locked away for the highest bidder.
If this is troubling then the mere existence of Twitter and Facebook should be troubling.
If sanctions didnt work for Ukrane, they wont work here.
Sanctions have hurt Russia, and as a tool they are highly effective for the US, HOWEVER don't expect new sanctions to be a response to hacking. Any new sanction will most likely be a response to US setbacks in Syria that are made in the guise of responding to hacking during the election.
Why do I say this? China has hacked the US many times in the past with few repercussions outside of reprimands. Sanctions in response to hacking would be extraordinarily atypical.
What happened that we truly know of:
1. In the summer of 2015, someone (evidence points to Russian) spear-phished passwords from unsavvy staffers on the DNC email server
2. Almost a year later, Wikileaks publishes a dump of DNC emails. It is assumed by many to have come from the previous infiltration, though there are other ways Wikileaks could have obtained the data, and no definitive link connecting the two events have so far been presented.
3. Through the email dump, the American public is able to see the DNC's inner workings, including:
- party officials colluding to hinder Bernie Sanders
- party insider helping the Clinton campaign to cheat during debate
- astroturf campaign to create illusion of spontaneous public protest against opponent
- journalists coordinating with party officials to ensure party messaging is on track
4. Some voters may have reconsidered their voting decisions, or even the decision to participate in this cycle, due to the above information.
5. Critical states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania which were assumed to be safe states for Clinton (and who as a result did not campaign aggressively there), instead fall to Trump during the general election, ensuring a GOP win.
What the press & defeated party instead want you to think:
1. Russia hacked America
2. Trump is now the President
3. "... we're not saying Trump administration is a creation of the Russian state... *wink wink nudge nudge* but the Trump administration is obviously a creation and stupid dumb puppet of the Russian state... for realz tho... also, don't listen to fake news"
There is an immense effort right now to make us take mental shortcuts, to skip certain events in our memories, to forget that certain misdeeds were done not by Russians but by Americans.
You use "this is not a surprise" as a defense against "this is evil"
It is non sequitur, it does not follow, it is not rational
A rational defense would attempt to explain why "torpedoing Bernie Sanders campaign" was not evil.
Here we go again.
Maybe he didn't mean to do it.
After all, if you don't intend to jeopardize national security, you're still in the clear.
See, this GP and reply is exactly the conversation I seem to see most often online about Musk/Tesla/SpaceX. An ostensibly right-leaning (or libertarian) commenter will praise Musk for doing something privately that rivals and even surpasses NASA. Which is then followed by a rebuttal by an ostensibly left-leaning commenter who tries to point out the subsidies and public research further up the stream that fed into these successes.
This is why it's very weird to read this Slashdot post about right-wing people trying to take down Musk. In my experience, the right wing folks have been very enthusiastic in holding him up as a triumph of capitalism, and as a literal John Galt brought out of the pages of fiction into our reality.
Some just wanted job protection, and others wanted to stick it to the establishment. Climate change skepticism was hardly on anyone's minds on the right. They're probably still euphoric from seeing the left break down in tears on election night, and will forgive broken promises for now.
You know what's funny? Seems like if you want to get things done, you need a Democrat to start wars, and a Republican to protect the environment. That way, the left largely stays silent as countries get attacked, and the right largely stays silent as regulations are imposed.
"[...]The argument that to tell the truth would be ‘inopportune’ or would ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books." -George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature
The truth remains the truth, even if unsavory people are beneficiaries of it.
Revealing past thoughts and actions during an election. Is that interference or accountability?
No. It's much simpler. You don't pay a price, whether professionally or in terms of social capital, when voicing your support for Clinton. You pay a tremendous price when voicing your support for Trump. There are also costs, though comparatively less, to adamantly staying neutral while the media speculates over your political beliefs. Therefore, publicly coming out as pro-Clinton is the safest choice, and all the better if you really do support Clinton.