You mean the walls made from choices that free women make willingly in order to shape their lives as they choose? Men do this, too, btw. The only thing wrong here is your assumption that the outcomes must be evenly distributed.
Well, that's next, if those running these companies wish to push their political agendas strongly enough. You should be concerned about shadow deletes of any content on the service.
Anyone, really. At least that should be the sane default. I don't buy into the idea that information is worthless unless there's an already-built consensus with the 'correct' list of who's-whos backing it up. That's too easily manufactured. It's argument from authority. Facts are facts, rational is rational, lies are lies, and irrational is irrational. It doesn't matter who expresses them. While it is true that at some point we have to take claims at face value, especially if it's not an area of focus, it doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the purveyors to demonstrating their claims before critical choices are made.
This gets pretty close to the current ideological conflict between identity politics and meritocracy. The implication of the summary suggests we're supposed to accept the former as axiomatic. 'Listen and Believe' is not healthy for society.
There's tons of propaganda from all sorts on youtube. The trick is to realize it's propaganda and take it with large chunks of salt. At the very least, think for yourself and ask "Do they make any valid arguments, and if so, what parts are still bullshit?" and compare it with other events and ideas you have read/seen/experienced.
Censorship just lends legitimacy to it in the eyes of uninformed viewers. There's also simple Streisand effect. People want to see what they're not allowed to. This is especially powerful when the censored viewpoint has at least some validity.
Sure, it might be legal in socjus shithole societies, but, no, it's not ok. it's still selecting for/against people based on traits which are supposed to be irrelevant.
A culture that must be shielded from such inanities (including screeds like yours) in order to survive is not fit for survival. Instead of teaching children to be adult snowflakes like the left does now, we should return to teaching them how to handle adversity.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the walls made from choices that free women make willingly in order to shape their lives as they choose? Men do this, too, btw. The only thing wrong here is your assumption that the outcomes must be evenly distributed.
Oh believe me, I don't think they're foolproof and I'm well aware of their political shenanigans.
subject to whatever's in the TOS though, right?
That's true. Ideologues come in many forms spouting many doctrines.
The issue with google is political (and possibly legal) not technological.
Well, that's next, if those running these companies wish to push their political agendas strongly enough. You should be concerned about shadow deletes of any content on the service.
Just because you pay for it doesn't mean it won't disappear or be subject to content 'shadow bans.'
with or without net neutrality, and with additional technical and performance caveats.
Even when we had it, ISPs still had no-server clauses in their TOS.
Anyone, really. At least that should be the sane default. I don't buy into the idea that information is worthless unless there's an already-built consensus with the 'correct' list of who's-whos backing it up. That's too easily manufactured. It's argument from authority. Facts are facts, rational is rational, lies are lies, and irrational is irrational. It doesn't matter who expresses them. While it is true that at some point we have to take claims at face value, especially if it's not an area of focus, it doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the purveyors to demonstrating their claims before critical choices are made.
This gets pretty close to the current ideological conflict between identity politics and meritocracy. The implication of the summary suggests we're supposed to accept the former as axiomatic. 'Listen and Believe' is not healthy for society.
Yes. Those of us who actually have to communicate with more than abbreviations and pansy little icons.
Well, I think it's interesting that so many guys like yourself feel threatened when a man questions a woman's accusation.
Almost like you've got something to prove to women in general. What a shame (about your feeling of impotence).
where do they go then? to other sites where they can revel in their clueless echo chambers?
Yet your post is here. You are free to moderate their posts and they are free to moderate yours. Seems fair to me.
There's plenty of upvoting for the socialist/SJW crowd too. Depends on the story and the arguments made each go around.
Expecting an even handed outcome for each story is unrealistic.
Except that on slashdot the comment moderators are at least somewhat randomized. They're not a fixed cadre of ideologues.
There's tons of propaganda from all sorts on youtube. The trick is to realize it's propaganda and take it with large chunks of salt. At the very least, think for yourself and ask "Do they make any valid arguments, and if so, what parts are still bullshit?" and compare it with other events and ideas you have read/seen/experienced.
Censorship just lends legitimacy to it in the eyes of uninformed viewers. There's also simple Streisand effect. People want to see what they're not allowed to. This is especially powerful when the censored viewpoint has at least some validity.
Very good question.
Well I'm sure. Propaganda has that effect on people.
Nah.. It's only in oppressive governments where hate speech even exists as a concept. In healthy republics it's just called speech.
Sure, it might be legal in socjus shithole societies, but, no, it's not ok. it's still selecting for/against people based on traits which are supposed to be irrelevant.
Yeah, like look at what schools are doing to kids' minds at the behest of those who set the 'education' guidelines.
A culture that must be shielded from such inanities (including screeds like yours) in order to survive is not fit for survival. Instead of teaching children to be adult snowflakes like the left does now, we should return to teaching them how to handle adversity.
You are mixing up communism with totaliarism.
No he's not. They're one and the same. You can't even approach it without big brother.
On the contrary, modern 'diversity issues' are all about opportunistic money and power grabs.