1. defending the idea that liberty applies for everyone (not just non white non straight non males) is not defense of bigotry. Imposing and reenforcing the idea of 'victim' castes is. 2. They're doing their damnedest to kill free speech, yes. These days, these crusaders destroy the careers of people who refuse to step into line. 3. That last bit of advice is better suited to proponents of modern 'social justice.'
They're simply enforcing Iran's version of political correctness. As stalwart adherents of PC here in the west, we should welcome such diversity in the behavioral expectations forced on people for the sake of the insecure and easily offended.
No. The point of the court is to interpret the constitution without being bound by political dynamics, not to rule in favor of party lines. Of course, this has been a moot point for decades but at least they try(ied). If the court fails to rule in ways agreeable to people, then the constitution needs amending (or people need their heads checked). So far, the state has taken the easier route of ignoring the document whenever it's inconvenient. The reason it's easier is due to apathy on the part of the population.
There's a reason these people demand special treatment under the guise of equality.
1. Rebecca watson was not raped or abused in an elevator. Someone 'might' ( and I say might as there is no evidence) have asked her out, which she declined, and that was the end of it. 2. Brianna wu was not abused by colbert. 3. anita sarkeesian was not stereotyped by video games any more than men are. 4. adria richards was not oppressed by two guys sharing jokes. 5. zoe quinn was criticized for her sexual behavior tied with buying favor for coverage of her game and 'cause.' She was never criticized for being a woman gamer, developer or anything else. Her game was criticized for sucking and she was criticized for lying.. It was justified. 'Depression quest' is a shitty game and she is a liar.
There are no vagarities here. None of these are examples of systemic oppression. They are lying opportunists cashing in on the 'social justice' bandwagon for attention and cash.
I said that the organizers are not responsible for the behavior of attendees. That has nothing to do with understanding whether there was or was not any foul play between attendees.
The entire concept of delivering the ideology of Diversity and Feminism to a bunch of geeks on a long-standing technology news website has had the net effect of killing the readership while radicalizing and dividing the group.
This is the intended result. Radicalized, divided groups are too busy squabbling to notice being robbed.
No it's not clear. In fact most of this is made up rubbish by attention whores (eg anita sarkeesian, brianna wu, adria richards, rebecca watson) looking to leech momentum and resources from organizations. Organizers should not be held accountable for behavior between other adult attendees. The key is not always to strike a 'reasonable balance' (whatever that means), but to arrive at the truth.
You do realize that your list is likely the very reason these sorts of people push this crap? One other thought: Taking the mean between two opposing sides is not automatically the truth or the correct solution.
Simple. The way to ensure that irrelevant things like race and sex are not considered is to focus on merit. This conduct code ensures that race and sex are at the forefront of everyone's mind at the event instead of program code and technology. A typical example of parasitical left wing political takeovers of organizations.
No. There is no systemic 'gender discrimination'. The hoopla is mostly noise generated by political activism. They like to assume that fewer women must mean discrimination by men. That's quite a leap. I think they don't fork because they don't have the need. Like men, women also like merit and understand the value of earned respect (instead of having it handed to them by socjus).
So they post a paper with some stats generated from rather large assumptions and now they're experts? Kofink is clearly an activist and activists are typically emotionally invested in their positions, many times to the point of radicalism (truth doesn't matter if it conflicts). These people should not be trusted to do objective studies in their areas of activism. If there was truly an oppressed yet technically superior minority in oss, they would fork the projects and outpace their oppressive inferiors.
For me, it's the super laggy performance the new widgets seem to have, especially the document objects and popups. In contrast, 2k7 and 2k10 are quick (not as fast as office 2003 though).
WTF they need quit grafting crap on top of crap on top of crap on top of win32.
Slashdot Mirror
1. defending the idea that liberty applies for everyone (not just non white non straight non males) is not defense of bigotry. Imposing and reenforcing the idea of 'victim' castes is.
2. They're doing their damnedest to kill free speech, yes. These days, these crusaders destroy the careers of people who refuse to step into line.
3. That last bit of advice is better suited to proponents of modern 'social justice.'
They're simply enforcing Iran's version of political correctness. As stalwart adherents of PC here in the west, we should welcome such diversity in the behavioral expectations forced on people for the sake of the insecure and easily offended.
because that's what they're willing to sell to us.
or just open the unit up and disconnect the mic..
No. The point of the court is to interpret the constitution without being bound by political dynamics, not to rule in favor of party lines. Of course, this has been a moot point for decades but at least they try(ied). If the court fails to rule in ways agreeable to people, then the constitution needs amending (or people need their heads checked). So far, the state has taken the easier route of ignoring the document whenever it's inconvenient. The reason it's easier is due to apathy on the part of the population.
My mistake with the name does not nullify the arguments made.
There's a reason these people demand special treatment under the guise of equality.
1. Rebecca watson was not raped or abused in an elevator. Someone 'might' ( and I say might as there is no evidence) have asked her out, which she declined, and that was the end of it.
2. Brianna wu was not abused by colbert.
3. anita sarkeesian was not stereotyped by video games any more than men are.
4. adria richards was not oppressed by two guys sharing jokes.
5. zoe quinn was criticized for her sexual behavior tied with buying favor for coverage of her game and 'cause.' She was never criticized for being a woman gamer, developer or anything else. Her game was criticized for sucking and she was criticized for lying.. It was justified. 'Depression quest' is a shitty game and she is a liar.
There are no vagarities here. None of these are examples of systemic oppression. They are lying opportunists cashing in on the 'social justice' bandwagon for attention and cash.
I said that the organizers are not responsible for the behavior of attendees. That has nothing to do with understanding whether there was or was not any foul play between attendees.
The entire concept of delivering the ideology of Diversity and Feminism to a bunch of geeks on a long-standing technology news website has had the net effect of killing the readership while radicalizing and dividing the group.
This is the intended result. Radicalized, divided groups are too busy squabbling to notice being robbed.
nah, 'reactionary' better fits these social justice types thinking everything is racist and sexist all the time.
No it's not clear. In fact most of this is made up rubbish by attention whores (eg anita sarkeesian, brianna wu, adria richards, rebecca watson) looking to leech momentum and resources from organizations. Organizers should not be held accountable for behavior between other adult attendees. The key is not always to strike a 'reasonable balance' (whatever that means), but to arrive at the truth.
You do realize that your list is likely the very reason these sorts of people push this crap? One other thought: Taking the mean between two opposing sides is not automatically the truth or the correct solution.
Simple. The way to ensure that irrelevant things like race and sex are not considered is to focus on merit. This conduct code ensures that race and sex are at the forefront of everyone's mind at the event instead of program code and technology. A typical example of parasitical left wing political takeovers of organizations.
I didn't say peer pressure wasn't a force, but humans have a choice. Lemmings do not.
It should still be optional.
I guess it depends on what you mean by best.
Humans also evolved way beyond lemmings. Anon was appealing to popularity.
No. There is no systemic 'gender discrimination'. The hoopla is mostly noise generated by political activism. They like to assume that fewer women must mean discrimination by men. That's quite a leap. I think they don't fork because they don't have the need. Like men, women also like merit and understand the value of earned respect (instead of having it handed to them by socjus).
I'm talking about society, not just slashdot.
So they post a paper with some stats generated from rather large assumptions and now they're experts? Kofink is clearly an activist and activists are typically emotionally invested in their positions, many times to the point of radicalism (truth doesn't matter if it conflicts). These people should not be trusted to do objective studies in their areas of activism. If there was truly an oppressed yet technically superior minority in oss, they would fork the projects and outpace their oppressive inferiors.
topkeke2u
Not thinking like others isn't necessarily a bad thing. Check your pack animal mentality.
ad hominem attack.
appeal to modernity
Shit deserves criticism until those who can (or are allowed to) fix, fix.
For me, it's the super laggy performance the new widgets seem to have, especially the document objects and popups. In contrast, 2k7 and 2k10 are quick (not as fast as office 2003 though).
WTF they need quit grafting crap on top of crap on top of crap on top of win32.
Fearing and demanding protection from rationality is not a position of strength.
Where 'asshole' is defined as "one capable of critical thinking, is resistant to groupthink, and does not fear voicing conclusions."