And don't expect to see comments sections when you do find it.
Why's that? Does your personal definition of journalist require that he believe himself the final arbiter on truth? There's a difference between due diligence and belief. Allowing comments shows readers conviction that due diligence was done as well as a willingness to accept constructive criticism. Those who can't handle this are often those who don't like having their beliefs challenged. These people make better propagandists than journalists.
No they don't have to. It's just better for society if they do. The fact that many so-called journalists and their employers no longer want to speaks volumes.
Yes. The flaw is you cannot tell the difference between stating what is true, and what should happen.
'The point' has nothing to do with journalism at all. It has to do with the internet providing a place where people can discuss what was said by journalists. This used to be celebrated as a new form of free expression. Now, the trend is to silence criticism of narratives. This is not good.
The papers can do what they like of course but that doesn't mean their newfound intolerance of criticism is a good thing for free society. A free, objective press is critical to its health.
If the paper's content was journalism, most people wouldn't bother commenting. The problem is that most 'journalism' today is yellow at best. Nothing incites commentary like propagandists pretending to be journalists.
Apparently, you're still trying to white knight your way out of some insecurity or other. Does your wife wear the strapon or do you? See? I can hurl insults too! Can we be friends now?
Nice false dilemma. The SJW moniker is apt. It indicates how 'social justice' has become oppressive in its own right. However I give you props for at least implicitly admitting its marxist underpinnings.
The first argument out of your keyboard was ad hominem. Not a great start.
1. Trash talk is part of relating to players. You're not supposed to get offended. you're supposed to up the ante and throw some back. why? It shows the other players that you have a sense of humor and a good competitive attitude (ie can handle losing). The ones who don't, fail the test by taking the trash talk personally, so they just leave, or never join in the first place. This filters the skinned whiners who are often sore losers, and they really are toxic to a game community. The more competitive the game, the more this is true.
2. Yours is, apparently.
Then most people in your social group are too timid to handle losing, or too thin skinned to take the ire of a sore loser, so you stick to private games. That's fine, but the rest of the world should not be responsible for keeping itself sanitized to your specific standards. It sounds like you are the one with limited social and emotional skills if you're that affected by someone calling you names for owning him in a game. You could also be a bit more pragmatic and just shut the chat off while you play online.
No. If there's a Y chromosome in there, the sex is male. It could be they have a disorder with a biological basis, but the sex is still male. Those 'researchers' are likely political activists first, scientists second. They're the first cause for the 'gender' self assignment craze.
Time to get Marx' cock out of your mouth and learn to interpret the world as it is. The fat single mom watching crap on TV exists because it is a common occurrence. there's a reason the majority of the shows on tv target low IQ, impulsive people. They're the ones who respond to advertising.
They did the same thing with T'pol. Every other episode she was losing her cool, crying, or running around with nothing on. Nice eye candy, but that's not the reason I would want to watch a sci-fi show.
Well, actually, most organizations have some kind of CoC because of our easily offended lawsuit happy society. The exception has been online communities, which encouraged a free thinking, merit rules culture. All that matters is accomplishment. Recently, this culture achieved enough cultural relevance to clash with people who have political agendas not related to the purpose of the community. Expecting one's feelings to be coddled is at odds with meritocracy.
There are plenty of online dev communities with little to no face to face. They razz each other all the time and things are fine. In fact, they are probably some of the most honest communities you'll find anywhere, face to face, or online. The razzing keeps things from getting too stiff and acts like a filter that keeps the whiners out.
Slashdot Mirror
And don't expect to see comments sections when you do find it.
Why's that? Does your personal definition of journalist require that he believe himself the final arbiter on truth? There's a difference between due diligence and belief. Allowing comments shows readers conviction that due diligence was done as well as a willingness to accept constructive criticism. Those who can't handle this are often those who don't like having their beliefs challenged. These people make better propagandists than journalists.
No they don't have to. It's just better for society if they do. The fact that many so-called journalists and their employers no longer want to speaks volumes.
Yes. The flaw is you cannot tell the difference between stating what is true, and what should happen.
'The point' has nothing to do with journalism at all. It has to do with the internet providing a place where people can discuss what was said by journalists. This used to be celebrated as a new form of free expression. Now, the trend is to silence criticism of narratives. This is not good.
The papers can do what they like of course but that doesn't mean their newfound intolerance of criticism is a good thing for free society. A free, objective press is critical to its health.
If the paper's content was journalism, most people wouldn't bother commenting. The problem is that most 'journalism' today is yellow at best. Nothing incites commentary like propagandists pretending to be journalists.
Apparently, you're still trying to white knight your way out of some insecurity or other. Does your wife wear the strapon or do you? See? I can hurl insults too! Can we be friends now?
As opposed to left wing radicals like sjws and george soros? Do you not realize they're all part of the same problem?
Nice false dilemma. The SJW moniker is apt. It indicates how 'social justice' has become oppressive in its own right. However I give you props for at least implicitly admitting its marxist underpinnings.
Yay for racist and sexist social justice policy!
or they'll illustrate all the conflicts the law has with itself and reality..with bloody results.
They might be if they can help your guild/team/whatever win matches.
Why? Because he questioned the narrative?
The first argument out of your keyboard was ad hominem. Not a great start.
1. Trash talk is part of relating to players. You're not supposed to get offended. you're supposed to up the ante and throw some back. why? It shows the other players that you have a sense of humor and a good competitive attitude (ie can handle losing). The ones who don't, fail the test by taking the trash talk personally, so they just leave, or never join in the first place. This filters the skinned whiners who are often sore losers, and they really are toxic to a game community. The more competitive the game, the more this is true.
2. Yours is, apparently.
Then most people in your social group are too timid to handle losing, or too thin skinned to take the ire of a sore loser, so you stick to private games. That's fine, but the rest of the world should not be responsible for keeping itself sanitized to your specific standards. It sounds like you are the one with limited social and emotional skills if you're that affected by someone calling you names for owning him in a game. You could also be a bit more pragmatic and just shut the chat off while you play online.
What is so toxic about words on the internet?
He's already accused him of similar things..
http://linux.slashdot.org/stor...
Garrett has a problem with linus' unwillingness to make 'social justice' part of the mailinglist interaction style.
http://linux.slashdot.org/stor...
No. If there's a Y chromosome in there, the sex is male. It could be they have a disorder with a biological basis, but the sex is still male. Those 'researchers' are likely political activists first, scientists second. They're the first cause for the 'gender' self assignment craze.
Why would you ruin a perfectly valid critique with this kind of insulting, racist, classists nonsense?
This language kinda suggests it. Sorry if I was incorrect.
Time to get Marx' cock out of your mouth and learn to interpret the world as it is. The fat single mom watching crap on TV exists because it is a common occurrence. there's a reason the majority of the shows on tv target low IQ, impulsive people. They're the ones who respond to advertising.
I think that modern guis are part of the reason people stick with older OS.
They did the same thing with T'pol. Every other episode she was losing her cool, crying, or running around with nothing on. Nice eye candy, but that's not the reason I would want to watch a sci-fi show.
Oh goody I can't wait. Glee Trek: The Heterophobic Generation
Well, actually, most organizations have some kind of CoC because of our easily offended lawsuit happy society. The exception has been online communities, which encouraged a free thinking, merit rules culture. All that matters is accomplishment. Recently, this culture achieved enough cultural relevance to clash with people who have political agendas not related to the purpose of the community. Expecting one's feelings to be coddled is at odds with meritocracy.
Maybe. I operated under the premise of the parent.
There are plenty of online dev communities with little to no face to face. They razz each other all the time and things are fine. In fact, they are probably some of the most honest communities you'll find anywhere, face to face, or online. The razzing keeps things from getting too stiff and acts like a filter that keeps the whiners out.
The easily offended are rarely civil.