Meaning that it must be ok to speak regardless of hurt feelings so that truth can be heard and false statements called out. I never said that no means yes. Of course, you're equating the former with people who think the latter, which is an ad hominem fallacy.
Sorry, but when it comes to truth, no one should expect exemption from it at others' expense. The more we enable these hugboxes, the less society is capable of dealing with reality.
That's the kind of mentality that leads to witchhunts and dark ages. Stable societies depend on free flow of the truth, regardless of how upsetting it might be to some.
..and yet here you are claiming supposed intellectual superiority with appeals to antiquity. You think it invalidates their arguments, and yet you still can't help dragging yourself down to the level of those 'pear shaped basement dwelling virgins' anyway. Name calling doesn't make an argument. Neither does the use of stuffy, insufferable language.
Back when these people still called themselves socialists and communists, they tainted those words with duplicitous action and false appeal. When the true nature of what they wanted to impose was finally obvious to most, they simply distanced themselves from those terms. Now they call themselves 'liberals' instead, stealing the term from classic liberalism (roughly aligned with today's libertarian). It's only natural that any cause they use for leverage gets tainted in the process. 'Social justice' is one of the more recent ones, with gaming being one of the more recent online targets (from anita sarkeesian to DIGRA). I would call it neo-social justice at this point, because it has a marked difference from the rosa parks era: It focuses on appeals to narcissistic entitlement and victimhood to propagate support for these 'liberals' rather than equal representation in law and in society.
Gawker is the last to have any credible objectivity on subjects like this. It's basically the breitbart of the left. None of their sites can be trusted. They're all fronts that use a subject (eg gaming) as gaudy facades to push their politics.
So when feminists demonize, lie about, and stereotype men, or when someone like al sharpton makes generalizations about whites, they aren't also bigoted assholes? See the problem here is one of double standards. If you're going to preach tolerance you also have to practice it. Liberals today are little different than those neo-conservative religious 'fucktards': They both want to use the state to impose a cultural package on the country.
ARG! slashdot users criticize specific aspects of yet another change that $VENDOR insists is an improvement. Slashdot $USER has triggered me by not taking the feelings of mouthbreathing idiots into account, despite the fact there are plenty of simpleton alternatives for them. If only more useful features were stripped out for lots of wizards that force workflow unnecessarily, and sensible layouts replaced with oversized widgets that waste screen real estate, then the bottom denominator would be happy. They're all that matters, after all. Professionals and enthusiasts are just whiny spectrum disorders who should be shunned from society anyway. I will always submit to whatever $VENDOR throws in my face as an improvement because newer is always better.
Even in windows it's gotten worse. Look at the control panel in win2k, then xp, then vista, then 8, then 10 (the new 'settings' one).. Each refresh takes more white space while offering less functionality. This is an industry wide problem that gnome has embraced wholeheartedly.
Yeah until one of these stupid laws actually passes and then apple is compelled to backdoor ios. It's not as if apple hasn't already. Thanks to NSLs and the gag orders that surround them, we'll never know for sure, which is exactly what the TLAs and the state want.
Its kernel was updated, yes, but so was winxp's over win2k's.. They all hail from NT. It's really the same operating system underneath all the retread they've managed to layer on top of it over the years.
It's = it is Its = possessive..and people around here are so enamored of and want to pump more money into public education without fixing its problems (yes, 'its').
and this would protect against groupthink powered populist witchhunts how exactly? These days, most governments are more than willing to 'cooperate' when dealing with dissent in any one of their countries (eg: multilateral surveillance to get around civil protections). It would be relatively easy to put the squeeze on those nine people. It's hard enough to both design and implement crypto correctly as it is. It's a waste of time to bother implementing purposely compromised crypto.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets deal with threats like ISIS at their source rather than playing wack-a-mole with our liberties here at home.
..and I said that societies that allow such nonsense to infiltrate law and culture are doomed to failure. What's your point?
Meaning that it must be ok to speak regardless of hurt feelings so that truth can be heard and false statements called out. I never said that no means yes. Of course, you're equating the former with people who think the latter, which is an ad hominem fallacy.
Sorry, but when it comes to truth, no one should expect exemption from it at others' expense. The more we enable these hugboxes, the less society is capable of dealing with reality.
That's the kind of mentality that leads to witchhunts and dark ages. Stable societies depend on free flow of the truth, regardless of how upsetting it might be to some.
..and yet here you are claiming supposed intellectual superiority with appeals to antiquity. You think it invalidates their arguments, and yet you still can't help dragging yourself down to the level of those 'pear shaped basement dwelling virgins' anyway. Name calling doesn't make an argument. Neither does the use of stuffy, insufferable language.
If that's the case, it should be easy to refute his commentary without resorting to name calling. Your appeals to complexity don't help either.
Back when these people still called themselves socialists and communists, they tainted those words with duplicitous action and false appeal. When the true nature of what they wanted to impose was finally obvious to most, they simply distanced themselves from those terms. Now they call themselves 'liberals' instead, stealing the term from classic liberalism (roughly aligned with today's libertarian). It's only natural that any cause they use for leverage gets tainted in the process. 'Social justice' is one of the more recent ones, with gaming being one of the more recent online targets (from anita sarkeesian to DIGRA). I would call it neo-social justice at this point, because it has a marked difference from the rosa parks era: It focuses on appeals to narcissistic entitlement and victimhood to propagate support for these 'liberals' rather than equal representation in law and in society.
Gawker is the last to have any credible objectivity on subjects like this. It's basically the breitbart of the left. None of their sites can be trusted. They're all fronts that use a subject (eg gaming) as gaudy facades to push their politics.
I wouldn't say chinatowns are prime examples of what 'multiculturalism' is supposed to achieve. I'd say they're 180 degrees out.
because, you know, typical humans are intellectual powerhouses.
Talking about an event is not, nor should it be, a crime... at least not in free countries. Leave that shit for North Korea or the old Soviet Union.
So when feminists demonize, lie about, and stereotype men, or when someone like al sharpton makes generalizations about whites, they aren't also bigoted assholes? See the problem here is one of double standards. If you're going to preach tolerance you also have to practice it. Liberals today are little different than those neo-conservative religious 'fucktards': They both want to use the state to impose a cultural package on the country.
Sorry buddy, but these days, stripping citizens of constitutional rights is a bipartisan effort.
NPR has less bias? They're biased by the views of their listener/doner base.
True. A sad state of affairs all around. The state of the union is definitely not strong, and the future is in serious question.
Riiight. Just like fox news is 'fair and balanced' and al sharpton's show on mslsd isn't race baiting garbage.
ARG! slashdot users criticize specific aspects of yet another change that $VENDOR insists is an improvement.
Slashdot $USER has triggered me by not taking the feelings of mouthbreathing idiots into account, despite the fact there are plenty of simpleton alternatives for them.
If only more useful features were stripped out for lots of wizards that force workflow unnecessarily, and sensible layouts replaced with oversized widgets that waste screen real estate, then the bottom denominator would be happy. They're all that matters, after all. Professionals and enthusiasts are just whiny spectrum disorders who should be shunned from society anyway. I will always submit to whatever $VENDOR throws in my face as an improvement because newer is always better.
Even in windows it's gotten worse. Look at the control panel in win2k, then xp, then vista, then 8, then 10 (the new 'settings' one).. Each refresh takes more white space while offering less functionality. This is an industry wide problem that gnome has embraced wholeheartedly.
Yeah until one of these stupid laws actually passes and then apple is compelled to backdoor ios. It's not as if apple hasn't already. Thanks to NSLs and the gag orders that surround them, we'll never know for sure, which is exactly what the TLAs and the state want.
Its kernel was updated, yes, but so was winxp's over win2k's.. They all hail from NT. It's really the same operating system underneath all the retread they've managed to layer on top of it over the years.
Nah.. More like gangnam style..
To reenforce the idea that they're just as good, not to the south koreans, but to their own.
No.
It's = it is ..and people around here are so enamored of and want to pump more money into public education without fixing its problems (yes, 'its').
Its = possessive
That may be, but that doesn't justify the expectation that people leave their systems vulnerable just to prop up the existing model.
and this would protect against groupthink powered populist witchhunts how exactly? These days, most governments are more than willing to 'cooperate' when dealing with dissent in any one of their countries (eg: multilateral surveillance to get around civil protections). It would be relatively easy to put the squeeze on those nine people. It's hard enough to both design and implement crypto correctly as it is. It's a waste of time to bother implementing purposely compromised crypto.