I assume you're talking about social justice warriors?... or are you talking about the ones they label bigoted haters? The ambiguity of your post makes me wonder.
As far as I'm concerned, the people who demand censorship to silence expression their feelings cannot abide are the ones ruining it for everyone else. On my internet, you're free to disagree and voice that disagreement, anonymously if you choose. I'm not so sure the other side would be so generous towards those with differing views to their own.
..and, of course, the social status quo is known for its objectivity in determining what qualifies as cowardice, misogyny, and racist, right? I'm sure it would be handled with the wisdom and rationality of the Salem witch trials. The Scarlet letter also comes to mind, but it's only white, straight men, so who cares? Let us all burn them at the stake for great social justice!! Hate is great when you're the state!
Stopping one board's users from spamming other boards is not the same thing as a system wide policy that effectively bans certain speech. A lot of times it's the self-claimed victims who actually aggress in this manner. They do this by shaming authority (in this case reddit's sysops/owners) into silencing other boards critical of their position, calling it 'hate' or some other undesirable thing, and then try to 'expose' it to the world in order to get compliance. A typical example that's been a hotbed on many sites lately would be feminism vs men's rights. If the bid for victimhood status is successful, feminism is discussed openly, but criticism of it is not.
People start to bitch about the lack of free speech when ideologues start demanding the silencing of reality that conflicts with the ideology. Modern societies (used to) understand that in order give reality a chance to be explored and understood, the trolls and idiots must also be given the same right. The way to handle this is to debate the 'troll' positions as though they were genuine for the benefit of other participants, and/or for individual participants to ignore them. Authority enforced hugboxes create rabid conformity, with very little rational discussion that leads to any new understanding. When the stupid has you shadowbanned or modded -1 every time, there's no real discussion at all.
The issue isn't whether reddit (and other sites) were created as free speech havens or not, but that they are moving further AWAY from that, much further in some cases. This is part of a culture war that's been pushed over the last 60 years (more?) and is now impacting online culture. Like many of these proponents, you conflate mass censorship of 'undesirable' expression as no different than rules against shouting fire in a theater or filtering irrelevant spam. This is fallacious and you know it.
This relatively new expectation of infinite 'social justice' just drives what people really think underground, and it comes out as passive aggressive behavior that makes things worse, not better. In the last few years, there's been a real push to make net culture conform to crazy levels of political correctness, labeling ever growing percentage of critical opinion (and contradictory fact) as 'hate speech' or bigotry. So while there are still places to go, they are dwindling, and that does not change the fact that a lot of mainstream sites used to allow it and now don't. Apparently, net culture can't be all things to all people, at least according to those who think they should police the speech of others with compulsion and blackmail of those running the stages.
4chan used to be a bastion of free speech, but poole sold out in case you haven't heard. I was actually surprised. Considering the history of the site, I didn't expect him to fold so easily to feminists.
Facebook is about selling your personal info to advertisers and anyone else willing to pay in return for 'free' access to interactive services easily found elsewhere. The user is the product being sold. Personal info includes, your stats, your likes/dislikes, your social relations, any chats, your behavior, and anything else they can eek from your browser habits on the many sites that run facebook javascript. Records are kept of all transactions. As I hope you're aware, it's a lot riskier to have your info and social interactions broadcast online in a permanent record than within your real life circle. What's innocent banter today, is 'problematic' tomorrow. It doesn't take much for a little off color commentary between college buddies to blow up (or as online SJWs put it, 'signal boost') into a shit storm that destroys careers and lives. Facebook's EULA coupled with probable government collusion are hardly consolations either.
Since you read slashdot, I'm puzzled why I have to explain why it's bad to air your social interactions online tied to a massive online dossier. Calling people names doesn't make much of a case, either.
Selecting from a few predefined themes and colors is hardly flexible compared to past editions of windows. I shouldn't have to edit the registry to get rid of all that white space (and color) either. Those themes also don't affect the majority of the window, which stays white. The metrics are also not editable in the GUI either, and the defaults are terrible. Sure, the 'high contrast' themes are there, but they don't resolve the metrics issue, are much more limited in what can be colored, and all of this requires editing text files and hoping they don't get clobbered. If you're working on a domain controlled machine, forget it, you're stuck with white on white hell (or green and black hell).
In-window ddraw seems to work fine, it's full screen that doesn't. If it's trivial to scale the UI with the gpu, then it's trival to scale ddraw buffers, or just honor the exclusive video mode switch like past windows editions (even windows 8.1 disables dwm while doing this). Whether it's 4k,2k, or 640x480, d3d and opengl applications' requests are honored, so why not ddraw? Better yet, make these scaling options toggles in an advanced pane. Of course, this solution is anathema to the U'X' hipsters running things now.
No, it's not simple like or dislike. Online social dynamics were better when they were more anonymous. Sites like facebook trashed these old rules by forcing people to use real identities and linking them to other real life details online. This way they could fuel adolescent-like narcissism and insecurity in users as they interacted with each other, keeping them psychologically and socially dependent on the service. The company uses this fermented mentality to continually extract information on its user base to sell to advertisers and anyone else willing to pay. Net culture would be a lot better off if it and other sites like it died. Hell, real life interactions might also improve.
There is no such thing as 'free' transport. Somewhere, someone has to pay for it. Inevitably, I'll want to go somewhere at some time when it isn't available. I'll keep my car, thanks.
1. They still have two separate control panels: The windows vista era one, and the one that uses that butt-ugly 'modern UI' that looks and works like something thrown together on linux 15 years ago, complete with badly rendered fonts. They didn't even try to consolidate them either. Fucking idiotic.
2. The new scheme follows office2013/16's 'all white' mantra, making it hard on the eyes. Like windows vista and up, this is not easily editable. Window metrics are fixed and unchangeable without hacks, like win 8.1.
3. The start menu is usable again, but still isn't as flexible as previous ones. Startisback++ exists and works fine, but still.
4. They totally hosed ddraw fullscreen support which breaks a lot of backward compatibility. There's no reason for this either. Hacks that existed for win 8.1 no longer work (disabledwm.exe).
5. More pointless 'metro' apps that also look like shitty linux X11 from 15 years ago. What's worse is that some of these have replaced traditional windows utilities like calculator.
These are the issues I've noticed. This list is not meant to be all encompassing.
Yup. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It's obvious the change was made long after the story was written and edited. It's really bad when the whole story is butchered in the process (making Thor a woman for ex, or replacing Wolverine with X-23).
Do you not see the loop here? "Give us at-will unfettered access so we can 'get work done'" -- > infection --> "WTF if you did your job we wouldn't have this mess" --> locked down access (repeat until admin is fired for the incompetence of those above him)
If I am held accountable for security, it's my rules. If I'm not accountable, then I ask for it in writing and assume they'll still try when someone/thing finally does get in. Otherwise, I'll quit before the in-charge idiot's insane expectations cause the company problems that cost me my credibility.
Any time a woman 'feels uncomfortable' about something a man has done, she can sue the company and him for sexual 'harassment.' Concepts like 'mind your own business' don't apply when a woman has been 'oppressed' by something a male employee is reading during his lunch break. Therefore, the 'only' choice is to sterilize the fuck out of everything so that no one could possibly be offended by anything ever, even if it negatively affects performance. Again, concepts like 'get the fuck over yourself' and 'mind your own business' don't apply. It has been a long time since sexual harassment actually referred to someone getting groped or repeatedly passed at. Now it means whatever she (and the women running the HR dept) say it means, and the law backs their play.
HR departments have become the fifth column political enforcement wings in business. They are not dissimilar to political officers in the Soviet navy. They are there to enforce political correctness in employee behavior.
No. In other words, we are rational people that do not need the state or anyone else to police our thoughts for compliance with particular ideologies and their assumptive positions. This new age 'social justice' stuff reeks of cultish brainwashing.
Like other institutions with left wing fifth columns, Hollywood will do whatever it takes to drag 'diversity' into everything they do, whether it applies or not. It's about 'making the personal political.'
Jar jar binks isn't racist. It's just fucking stupid and impossibly annoying.
So your entire argument is "just agree with me, thanks"? Brilliant. Considering how the EU is falling apart, I'm not sure I'd want my country to embrace your union's economic policies.
Yet, your post reads just like the conservatives' stereotypes of the modern left suggest. Quoting a left biased blog that tries to pass itself off as non-partisan is hardly an argument. The NYTimes on political issues? Seriously? Would you take studies from the Heritage Foundation seriously? I doubt it. Instead of just quoting sources, why not try to argue a point on your own?
You defend an ideology that builds bias and multilateral resentment into society (affirmative action law). It also misrepresents the parts of history that violate its narrative (reeducation/'social studies' vs history). It tears down any unapproved expression of individuality, especially if it doesn't come from the right class (gay rights good, men's rights bad). Then you speak of America's revolution, rights for everyone, and its fight against the whims of an oppressive state. Does not compute. Neither does your comment about failure projection. It's the left that constantly blames some group for the failures or misfortunes of individuals in another.
Sorry, I don't buy it. The last century has shown much evidence suggesting these kinds of ideologies are little more than well crafted destabilization tools for those looking for power grabs, whether it's out of simple lust or from severe insecurity and entitlement attitudes.
It depends how you define 'basic needs.' In socialist hellholes, 'basic needs' are a mud hut and a few kernels of corn picked from pig shit. Why? Because being 'equal' is more important than maximizing your potential. (where have we been hearing these implications recently?) This is also a convenient way to keep the masses subjugated by the state.
Perhaps you should move someplace where your delicate sensitivities are protected by law. There are plenty of places like that to go (try western europe or the UK). Those of us who prefer our free speech unfettered wish to retain that right (among others). Despite your fallacious attempt to link these rights to slavery, the reality is that slavery is 180 degrees out from them: slaves did not have free speech, right of self defense, or the right to peacefully assemble, either.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume you're talking about social justice warriors?... or are you talking about the ones they label bigoted haters? The ambiguity of your post makes me wonder.
As far as I'm concerned, the people who demand censorship to silence expression their feelings cannot abide are the ones ruining it for everyone else. On my internet, you're free to disagree and voice that disagreement, anonymously if you choose. I'm not so sure the other side would be so generous towards those with differing views to their own.
..and, of course, the social status quo is known for its objectivity in determining what qualifies as cowardice, misogyny, and racist, right? I'm sure it would be handled with the wisdom and rationality of the Salem witch trials. The Scarlet letter also comes to mind, but it's only white, straight men, so who cares? Let us all burn them at the stake for great social justice!! Hate is great when you're the state!
Stopping one board's users from spamming other boards is not the same thing as a system wide policy that effectively bans certain speech. A lot of times it's the self-claimed victims who actually aggress in this manner. They do this by shaming authority (in this case reddit's sysops/owners) into silencing other boards critical of their position, calling it 'hate' or some other undesirable thing, and then try to 'expose' it to the world in order to get compliance. A typical example that's been a hotbed on many sites lately would be feminism vs men's rights. If the bid for victimhood status is successful, feminism is discussed openly, but criticism of it is not.
People start to bitch about the lack of free speech when ideologues start demanding the silencing of reality that conflicts with the ideology. Modern societies (used to) understand that in order give reality a chance to be explored and understood, the trolls and idiots must also be given the same right. The way to handle this is to debate the 'troll' positions as though they were genuine for the benefit of other participants, and/or for individual participants to ignore them. Authority enforced hugboxes create rabid conformity, with very little rational discussion that leads to any new understanding. When the stupid has you shadowbanned or modded -1 every time, there's no real discussion at all.
The issue isn't whether reddit (and other sites) were created as free speech havens or not, but that they are moving further AWAY from that, much further in some cases. This is part of a culture war that's been pushed over the last 60 years (more?) and is now impacting online culture. Like many of these proponents, you conflate mass censorship of 'undesirable' expression as no different than rules against shouting fire in a theater or filtering irrelevant spam. This is fallacious and you know it.
Yeah, define 'harass' though. Anti 'fat shaming' SJW types would not see a difference at all.
That's where it starts. Then some people start trying to enforce their idea of 'civil terms' on everyone else...
This relatively new expectation of infinite 'social justice' just drives what people really think underground, and it comes out as passive aggressive behavior that makes things worse, not better. In the last few years, there's been a real push to make net culture conform to crazy levels of political correctness, labeling ever growing percentage of critical opinion (and contradictory fact) as 'hate speech' or bigotry. So while there are still places to go, they are dwindling, and that does not change the fact that a lot of mainstream sites used to allow it and now don't. Apparently, net culture can't be all things to all people, at least according to those who think they should police the speech of others with compulsion and blackmail of those running the stages.
4chan used to be a bastion of free speech, but poole sold out in case you haven't heard. I was actually surprised. Considering the history of the site, I didn't expect him to fold so easily to feminists.
Facebook is about selling your personal info to advertisers and anyone else willing to pay in return for 'free' access to interactive services easily found elsewhere. The user is the product being sold. Personal info includes, your stats, your likes/dislikes, your social relations, any chats, your behavior, and anything else they can eek from your browser habits on the many sites that run facebook javascript. Records are kept of all transactions. As I hope you're aware, it's a lot riskier to have your info and social interactions broadcast online in a permanent record than within your real life circle. What's innocent banter today, is 'problematic' tomorrow. It doesn't take much for a little off color commentary between college buddies to blow up (or as online SJWs put it, 'signal boost') into a shit storm that destroys careers and lives. Facebook's EULA coupled with probable government collusion are hardly consolations either.
Since you read slashdot, I'm puzzled why I have to explain why it's bad to air your social interactions online tied to a massive online dossier. Calling people names doesn't make much of a case, either.
Selecting from a few predefined themes and colors is hardly flexible compared to past editions of windows. I shouldn't have to edit the registry to get rid of all that white space (and color) either. Those themes also don't affect the majority of the window, which stays white. The metrics are also not editable in the GUI either, and the defaults are terrible. Sure, the 'high contrast' themes are there, but they don't resolve the metrics issue, are much more limited in what can be colored, and all of this requires editing text files and hoping they don't get clobbered. If you're working on a domain controlled machine, forget it, you're stuck with white on white hell (or green and black hell).
In-window ddraw seems to work fine, it's full screen that doesn't. If it's trivial to scale the UI with the gpu, then it's trival to scale ddraw buffers, or just honor the exclusive video mode switch like past windows editions (even windows 8.1 disables dwm while doing this). Whether it's 4k,2k, or 640x480, d3d and opengl applications' requests are honored, so why not ddraw? Better yet, make these scaling options toggles in an advanced pane. Of course, this solution is anathema to the U'X' hipsters running things now.
No, it's not simple like or dislike. Online social dynamics were better when they were more anonymous. Sites like facebook trashed these old rules by forcing people to use real identities and linking them to other real life details online. This way they could fuel adolescent-like narcissism and insecurity in users as they interacted with each other, keeping them psychologically and socially dependent on the service. The company uses this fermented mentality to continually extract information on its user base to sell to advertisers and anyone else willing to pay. Net culture would be a lot better off if it and other sites like it died. Hell, real life interactions might also improve.
Despite flash being a scourge, it would be better for the internet to pick a day to kill off facebook.
There is no such thing as 'free' transport. Somewhere, someone has to pay for it. Inevitably, I'll want to go somewhere at some time when it isn't available. I'll keep my car, thanks.
It really is in a lot of ways.
1. They still have two separate control panels: The windows vista era one, and the one that uses that butt-ugly 'modern UI' that looks and works like something thrown together on linux 15 years ago, complete with badly rendered fonts. They didn't even try to consolidate them either. Fucking idiotic.
2. The new scheme follows office2013/16's 'all white' mantra, making it hard on the eyes. Like windows vista and up, this is not easily editable. Window metrics are fixed and unchangeable without hacks, like win 8.1.
3. The start menu is usable again, but still isn't as flexible as previous ones. Startisback++ exists and works fine, but still.
4. They totally hosed ddraw fullscreen support which breaks a lot of backward compatibility. There's no reason for this either. Hacks that existed for win 8.1 no longer work (disabledwm.exe).
5. More pointless 'metro' apps that also look like shitty linux X11 from 15 years ago. What's worse is that some of these have replaced traditional windows utilities like calculator.
These are the issues I've noticed. This list is not meant to be all encompassing.
Yup. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It's obvious the change was made long after the story was written and edited. It's really bad when the whole story is butchered in the process (making Thor a woman for ex, or replacing Wolverine with X-23).
Do you not see the loop here? "Give us at-will unfettered access so we can 'get work done'" -- > infection --> "WTF if you did your job we wouldn't have this mess" --> locked down access (repeat until admin is fired for the incompetence of those above him)
If I am held accountable for security, it's my rules. If I'm not accountable, then I ask for it in writing and assume they'll still try when someone/thing finally does get in. Otherwise, I'll quit before the in-charge idiot's insane expectations cause the company problems that cost me my credibility.
Any time a woman 'feels uncomfortable' about something a man has done, she can sue the company and him for sexual 'harassment.' Concepts like 'mind your own business' don't apply when a woman has been 'oppressed' by something a male employee is reading during his lunch break. Therefore, the 'only' choice is to sterilize the fuck out of everything so that no one could possibly be offended by anything ever, even if it negatively affects performance. Again, concepts like 'get the fuck over yourself' and 'mind your own business' don't apply. It has been a long time since sexual harassment actually referred to someone getting groped or repeatedly passed at. Now it means whatever she (and the women running the HR dept) say it means, and the law backs their play.
HR departments have become the fifth column political enforcement wings in business. They are not dissimilar to political officers in the Soviet navy. They are there to enforce political correctness in employee behavior.
Why can't both states coexist?
No. In other words, we are rational people that do not need the state or anyone else to police our thoughts for compliance with particular ideologies and their assumptive positions. This new age 'social justice' stuff reeks of cultish brainwashing.
Like other institutions with left wing fifth columns, Hollywood will do whatever it takes to drag 'diversity' into everything they do, whether it applies or not. It's about 'making the personal political.'
Jar jar binks isn't racist. It's just fucking stupid and impossibly annoying.
Yeah, then when one of those users infects the network, the know it all is blamed for allowing it.
So your entire argument is "just agree with me, thanks"? Brilliant. Considering how the EU is falling apart, I'm not sure I'd want my country to embrace your union's economic policies.
Yet, your post reads just like the conservatives' stereotypes of the modern left suggest. Quoting a left biased blog that tries to pass itself off as non-partisan is hardly an argument. The NYTimes on political issues? Seriously? Would you take studies from the Heritage Foundation seriously? I doubt it. Instead of just quoting sources, why not try to argue a point on your own?
You defend an ideology that builds bias and multilateral resentment into society (affirmative action law). It also misrepresents the parts of history that violate its narrative (reeducation/'social studies' vs history). It tears down any unapproved expression of individuality, especially if it doesn't come from the right class (gay rights good, men's rights bad). Then you speak of America's revolution, rights for everyone, and its fight against the whims of an oppressive state. Does not compute. Neither does your comment about failure projection. It's the left that constantly blames some group for the failures or misfortunes of individuals in another.
Sorry, I don't buy it. The last century has shown much evidence suggesting these kinds of ideologies are little more than well crafted destabilization tools for those looking for power grabs, whether it's out of simple lust or from severe insecurity and entitlement attitudes.
It depends how you define 'basic needs.' In socialist hellholes, 'basic needs' are a mud hut and a few kernels of corn picked from pig shit. Why? Because being 'equal' is more important than maximizing your potential. (where have we been hearing these implications recently?) This is also a convenient way to keep the masses subjugated by the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is, because the reality is that the commenter doesn't want to do any such thing, leaving it to be merely politically incorrect.
Gee, someone is just a tad biased.
What about when Poole was flirting with investors? At least that was the rumor at the time.
Perhaps you should move someplace where your delicate sensitivities are protected by law. There are plenty of places like that to go (try western europe or the UK). Those of us who prefer our free speech unfettered wish to retain that right (among others). Despite your fallacious attempt to link these rights to slavery, the reality is that slavery is 180 degrees out from them: slaves did not have free speech, right of self defense, or the right to peacefully assemble, either.