Which is a perfect example why political correctness is such a detriment to the free world. A society that increasingly cannot accept truth eventually succumbs to it, usually violently.
Thanks to 40 years of affirmative action and political correctness, pretty much all the 'science' around sex differences has been polluted beyond repair and must be called into question at this point. If some 'study' enters the mainstream media, you can be almost certain it is meant as propaganda and not to educate.
At best, a 'coffeeshop' style feminist wants men around as ATM machines and 'tough job' handlers.. These are the ones who think feminism is nothing more than equality between the two sexes, and think that men are or really should be women with penises...except when equality gets too hard for them, then they want their white knight to save the day.
In the past, the militant kind wanted men reduced in population, made subservient to women, or just outright used as slaves or eliminated. Today, they express that same misandry by pushing policies supporting that mentality in education, media programming, civil law, criminal law, and, are now making/funding their presence in subcultures, like technology and gaming. You have to be careful with this kind of thing, as the poison is in the implied, 'unintended' outcomes of said policies: Schools focus on girls because supposedly they're such victims, and, now, boys are left behind and/or are made to comply effeminately, at the college level, 2/3 graduates are women as male populations continue their decline, media/entertainment has been softened and made more about relationships and feelings (everything is now a 'reality' soap opera), employers must meet quotas and build office policy around feminine imperatives as defaults (destroying male psychoaccoustic spaces and making them female), product design and advertising now also focuses almost exclusively on feminine imperatives.
It is NOT about anyone's liberation. It uses women's desire for protection and provision to help bootstrap tyrannical power. Like those stories about people making deals with the devil, initially it's great for the recipient, but in the end, everyone gets burned.
Uh, it sucks regardless of which party is in power. In order to protect everyone's liberty, the state isn't supposed to have such powers in the first place. Otherwise, small interest groups can use it to push the rest of us around. This is the mainstay of today's political arena, and the source of most of its problems.
..or they've just been conditioned over several generations to submit. They've got their clean, orderly streets, and the only reason there are no tanks patrolling them is because they aren't needed.
Sure beats apps with names that leave you guessing their purpose, esp when exposed on user interfaces. At least xbox media center describes exactly what the project is.
Why is it that OSS projects always seem to pick names that are, at best, obscure, and at worst, completely nondescriptive, yet have cutesy sounding names? I think it started somewhere around 2000. Please stop. Pick more functional names so I don't have to explain to people, "no, dolphin is the file manager and konqueror is the browser.'
This also applies to libraries too. For example, anyone know what 'liborc', 'libnettle', 'libenchant', 'libmagic' or 'libcanberra' are without looking it up? I just picked these at random from/usr/lib. There are plenty more.
I suggest you get over that whole democrat good, republican bad mantra. That's the circus part of 'bread and circuses'. Reality is far more complicated.
Uh what? No, the left wants to increase the size of state. The neocons want to use that state to enforce laws that benefit their corporate benefactors. Of course, there is cross over, too, as democrats have many corporate backers and repubs certainly have ideological tenets they want pushed on the population.
Too bad neither of them remember what individual liberty is.
Are you kidding? Efficient design peaked somewhere in 2000. Today, they're too simplistic, too spartan, and waste too much real estate, and then try to cover it up by sticking search boxes all over everything. The gap is only apparent because methods to complex processes have since been dumbed down for the benefit of illiterate users at the expense of making it as quick as possible for users who do know what they're doing to get at what is needed. This has made them harder to use for all but the simplest tasks.
Based on what? I could say that you see it because the government is a bastion of political correctness where people are chosen based on quotas rather than on experience, and the statement would have the same validity.
Problem is, privilege is stereotyped. White males are assumed to be privileged, women and other races are assumed to be victims. Ask 10 slashdotters if white male hiring managers would use race and sex in their ratings of resumes, or if women and non whites would use race and sex in their ratings of resumes, and I'll bet they'll rate the white male highest in using those discriminators.
The reality is that identity politics is building this bias into the culture and legal system under the guise of fighting it everywhere. We are supposed to default to the assumption that white males are privileged and everyone else is not, when it is everyone else who is privileged by the system so long as they lack whiteness and/or maleness.
1. No, he doesn't. 2. You argue from popularity (all those liberals must be right). 3. Insights are obvious once you have them. 4. It doesn't require a completely unbiased take on the world to have a correct insight on one specific aspect. Hell, it doesn't even matter if you have unfounded biases about the subject in question. What matters in context is whether you're correct in that one instance.
In this case, he is. Left wing politics is just as backstabby and self serving as neo-right politics. I find it laughable that the left wing organizations most well known for 'civil rights' are only defending the needs and whims of some, granting them de facto privilege over the rest. This applies across race, sex, orientation, and any other front these activists can cobble together (eg: anita sarkeesian, sarah sharp, rebecca watson, etc). If they were honorable, their actions would match their rhetoric about equal rights for everyone.
Well, idiots tend to argue with fallacies like argument from popularity as you've done here. Like you said, though, the world is not binary. People don't have to accept ads if they dont' want to look at them but still want to view sites because there is software out there that allows this. The internet is not cable tv, thankfully.
Slashdot Mirror
redneck is a derogatory term for whites.
Which is a perfect example why political correctness is such a detriment to the free world. A society that increasingly cannot accept truth eventually succumbs to it, usually violently.
Most of the time, the primary motivator for cooperative behavior is the improvement (or at least continuation) of their social status.
Thanks to 40 years of affirmative action and political correctness, pretty much all the 'science' around sex differences has been polluted beyond repair and must be called into question at this point. If some 'study' enters the mainstream media, you can be almost certain it is meant as propaganda and not to educate.
mmmm... no. That is a no true scotsman fallacy.
At best, a 'coffeeshop' style feminist wants men around as ATM machines and 'tough job' handlers.. These are the ones who think feminism is nothing more than equality between the two sexes, and think that men are or really should be women with penises...except when equality gets too hard for them, then they want their white knight to save the day.
In the past, the militant kind wanted men reduced in population, made subservient to women, or just outright used as slaves or eliminated. Today, they express that same misandry by pushing policies supporting that mentality in education, media programming, civil law, criminal law, and, are now making/funding their presence in subcultures, like technology and gaming. You have to be careful with this kind of thing, as the poison is in the implied, 'unintended' outcomes of said policies: Schools focus on girls because supposedly they're such victims, and, now, boys are left behind and/or are made to comply effeminately, at the college level, 2/3 graduates are women as male populations continue their decline, media/entertainment has been softened and made more about relationships and feelings (everything is now a 'reality' soap opera), employers must meet quotas and build office policy around feminine imperatives as defaults (destroying male psychoaccoustic spaces and making them female), product design and advertising now also focuses almost exclusively on feminine imperatives.
It is NOT about anyone's liberation. It uses women's desire for protection and provision to help bootstrap tyrannical power. Like those stories about people making deals with the devil, initially it's great for the recipient, but in the end, everyone gets burned.
Of course. Ignore all the things men have done for culture, like develop the sciences necessary to build those mythical 'sperm banks' you speak of.
This leftist utopian crap needs to die.
It may not be necessary, but that is usually the cost when government offers them for 'free.'
Uh, it sucks regardless of which party is in power. In order to protect everyone's liberty, the state isn't supposed to have such powers in the first place. Otherwise, small interest groups can use it to push the rest of us around. This is the mainstay of today's political arena, and the source of most of its problems.
I suppose 'helsinki syndrome' also applies.
..or they've just been conditioned over several generations to submit. They've got their clean, orderly streets, and the only reason there are no tanks patrolling them is because they aren't needed.
We call this mental state 'stockholm syndrome'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Sure beats apps with names that leave you guessing their purpose, esp when exposed on user interfaces. At least xbox media center describes exactly what the project is.
Not that simple, but at least the terms are either obvious or intuitive enough for most to make the leap.
Why is it that OSS projects always seem to pick names that are, at best, obscure, and at worst, completely nondescriptive, yet have cutesy sounding names? I think it started somewhere around 2000. Please stop. Pick more functional names so I don't have to explain to people, "no, dolphin is the file manager and konqueror is the browser.'
This also applies to libraries too. For example, anyone know what 'liborc', 'libnettle', 'libenchant', 'libmagic' or 'libcanberra' are without looking it up? I just picked these at random from /usr/lib. There are plenty more.
Stop. Using. Cutesy. Names.
My aren't we feeling superior today.
Not if you're careful about it.
I suggest you get over that whole democrat good, republican bad mantra. That's the circus part of 'bread and circuses'. Reality is far more complicated.
Uh what? No, the left wants to increase the size of state. The neocons want to use that state to enforce laws that benefit their corporate benefactors. Of course, there is cross over, too, as democrats have many corporate backers and repubs certainly have ideological tenets they want pushed on the population.
Too bad neither of them remember what individual liberty is.
Are you kidding? Efficient design peaked somewhere in 2000. Today, they're too simplistic, too spartan, and waste too much real estate, and then try to cover it up by sticking search boxes all over everything. The gap is only apparent because methods to complex processes have since been dumbed down for the benefit of illiterate users at the expense of making it as quick as possible for users who do know what they're doing to get at what is needed. This has made them harder to use for all but the simplest tasks.
Based on what? I could say that you see it because the government is a bastion of political correctness where people are chosen based on quotas rather than on experience, and the statement would have the same validity.
Problem is, privilege is stereotyped. White males are assumed to be privileged, women and other races are assumed to be victims. Ask 10 slashdotters if white male hiring managers would use race and sex in their ratings of resumes, or if women and non whites would use race and sex in their ratings of resumes, and I'll bet they'll rate the white male highest in using those discriminators.
The reality is that identity politics is building this bias into the culture and legal system under the guise of fighting it everywhere. We are supposed to default to the assumption that white males are privileged and everyone else is not, when it is everyone else who is privileged by the system so long as they lack whiteness and/or maleness.
ugh.. V=IR is handled in highschool these days, in physics.
1. No, he doesn't.
2. You argue from popularity (all those liberals must be right).
3. Insights are obvious once you have them.
4. It doesn't require a completely unbiased take on the world to have a correct insight on one specific aspect. Hell, it doesn't even matter if you have unfounded biases about the subject in question. What matters in context is whether you're correct in that one instance.
In this case, he is. Left wing politics is just as backstabby and self serving as neo-right politics. I find it laughable that the left wing organizations most well known for 'civil rights' are only defending the needs and whims of some, granting them de facto privilege over the rest. This applies across race, sex, orientation, and any other front these activists can cobble together (eg: anita sarkeesian, sarah sharp, rebecca watson, etc). If they were honorable, their actions would match their rhetoric about equal rights for everyone.
Well, idiots tend to argue with fallacies like argument from popularity as you've done here. Like you said, though, the world is not binary. People don't have to accept ads if they dont' want to look at them but still want to view sites because there is software out there that allows this. The internet is not cable tv, thankfully.
Not my concern what they do. They don't have a right to run their bullshit javascript on my computer.
Where's the -1 fallacious appeal mod?