Except "Black" is now definitely on the "slur" grounds. Apparently "African-american" is still acceptable (but god save you if you call a Jamaican that!)
So I assumed wrong. You correct me. I apologize. No big deal, no bad intent, nobody ever remembers the meaningless incident, we're cool.
That's a normal reaction.
Meanwhile, SJWs try to make it into a punishable offense with disciplinary consequences.
Every conversation becomes a minefield, each remark is a danger, you best avoid all contact with any minorities because what you honestly believed to be a completely neutral remark may be taken as a microaggression. This is sick.
Last I used "people of color" on Slashdot, some SJW called me out on this too. Apparently it's no longer an acceptable phrase anymore. The goalposts keep moving.
Or the aforementioned "n-word" in "Uncle Tom's Cabin". It's literally an attempt at eradicating the very thought of the concept from the society, removing any reflection of it, replacing it with an empty, shallow mantra - erasing the memory, erasing the history.
And the effect are the inevitable: who doesn't learn the history, is bound to repeat it. Racism in entirely new forms abounds, but since critical thought and understanding of the reality and nature of racism has been largely eradicated, since the new forms don't contradict the empty mantra, they are no longer recognized - and we get such curiosa as "Blacks can't be racist."
Being transgender doesn't grant immunity from being mentally ill.
Being mentally ill, on the other hand, often leads to various misguided ideas concerning own sexuality, often driving one to the gender change operation.
And it's quite close-minded, to think mental illnesses are only a problem among straight cisgender people, and never touch the LGBT community - and so is thinking no mentally ill person will ever have their mental illness lead them to gender-related confusion.
Blanket claim that no transgender is ever mentally ill is just as bigoted as transgender is a mental illness.
Except you're missing a fairly broad margin of "professional victims" whose lie was NOT exposed - or at least, they managed to cover their tracks well enough, that whoever exposed their lie, didn't manage to gather enough rock-solid evidence to make their case.
If you look close at many of the "victim cases", there's very often something stinky, something dodgy, something suspicious - but since "they are the victims, they are suffering", any attempts to dig deeper are seen as most despicable carrion-eater activity, attempts to harm the poor victims! That way a lot of fraudsters can get by with total impunity, safe in their conviction that their lies will never be exposed.
Seriously, step out of your echo chamber and google "[name] is a fraud". You will only very rarely find any solid proof - but you WILL find suspicious activity - which you will not be able to trace down, neither prove or disprove, due to the "victim protection" atmosphere.
Still need Anita Sarkeesian to lose her position. She's been shown as a fraud, she's been shown as totally ignorant in the field she claims to be an expert, and she has a devout following of rabid fanatics who happily swallow every her lie and attack anyone who points out how she keeps stealing their money, keeps blatantly lying in her videos, and how she blames every single complaint against her on misogyny.
Personally, I believe the correlation goes in the reverse direction. People who write high quality code, also fill their profiles more thoroughly and are more likely to reveal their gender as result.
The article makes it seem like the choice of accepting or rejecting a push request is an arbitrary decision based solely on factors associated with perception of the accepter of the personality of the submitter and has nothing in common with actual code quality. No. GOOD push requests are accepted. BAD push requests are rejected. The blame for having a push rejected sits entirely on the submitter.
A lazy submitter, who can't be bothered to fill in personal detail is more likely to submit bad code. An inexperienced woman who is not a regular on Github is more likely to submit bad or useless patches (I've seen an argument where some lady pushed edits to comments which she believed might be offensive due to not being gender-neutral; patch rejected for creating a clutter and not contributing to code quality; lady outraged...) An inexperienced man... is more likely to register.
--- as a real obstacle in accepting the self-driving cars.
There was such a situation once already. Early Kindle model had an excellent automatic text-to-speech feature, so good, that it was godsent to blind people who could listen to books paying the regular Amazon price.
Didn't last long, because the organization of publishers of audiobooks for the blind sued Amazon and forced it to remove the feature - because it was undercutting their market: they were able to charge roughly 5x paper version price for an audiobook for the blind. And blind would choose Amazon now, instead of having to pay super-premium for their handicap.
So - by court order - cheap auto-translated audiobooks were taken away from the blind people so that they would have to pay arm and leg to the hyenas.
This is a very similar case. These, who benefit from car accidents will fight self-driving cars tooth and nail.
Also - there almost certainly, were thousands of subpoenas to grant access to accounts, with judical oversight, and without the NSL's obligation of secrecy - in other words, Google made to do exactly what they were made to do here, except not forced to stay silent about it - all interested parties informed of the fact.
Primaries were fixed by means that were technically perfectly legal.
Stuff like: block out convention center area in several blocks radius for all traffic, "for security reasons", haul Clinton supporters by bus, make Sanders supporters spend hours trying to find parking place and not reach the voting on time. Or find some serious violation of the voting protocol, and completely lawfully call in repeat of the voting the next day. Clinton's supporters were invited to some kind of party, so they stayed on site, while Sanders' people had left and were impossible to gather and bring back on time. What a coincidence. Quite a few such actions, perfectly legal and absolutely dirty. Not a single thing they could be dragged to court for - but simultaneously quite enough to make Sanders' voters choose Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
Except "Black" is now definitely on the "slur" grounds. Apparently "African-american" is still acceptable (but god save you if you call a Jamaican that!)
I believe African-american.
Which is particularly silly if you talk about people outside USA.
So I assumed wrong. You correct me. I apologize. No big deal, no bad intent, nobody ever remembers the meaningless incident, we're cool.
That's a normal reaction.
Meanwhile, SJWs try to make it into a punishable offense with disciplinary consequences.
Every conversation becomes a minefield, each remark is a danger, you best avoid all contact with any minorities because what you honestly believed to be a completely neutral remark may be taken as a microaggression. This is sick.
Back to your echo chamber.
You'd see the outrage about male and female plugs and sockets! :D
Oh, actual racist, yes.
But apparently if I call an afro-american "black" that makes me a racist. And I'm not really happy about being called that.
Last I used "people of color" on Slashdot, some SJW called me out on this too. Apparently it's no longer an acceptable phrase anymore. The goalposts keep moving.
Newsflash number two: They are a majority.
Then your awareness is severely lacking.
Look up:
donglegate (forking someone's repository is a sexist slur)
Ban on chanting 'USA' because it can be used as abbreviation of 'You suck ass'.
List of microaggressions according to University of Wisconsin
What about Yale students supporting repealing the 1st amendment?
Or some quotes by prominent feminist celebrities?
Also, look up feminist glaciology, sexist carbon fiber and sexist snow plowing for more absurds spewn by SJWs.
Or the aforementioned "n-word" in "Uncle Tom's Cabin". It's literally an attempt at eradicating the very thought of the concept from the society, removing any reflection of it, replacing it with an empty, shallow mantra - erasing the memory, erasing the history.
And the effect are the inevitable: who doesn't learn the history, is bound to repeat it. Racism in entirely new forms abounds, but since critical thought and understanding of the reality and nature of racism has been largely eradicated, since the new forms don't contradict the empty mantra, they are no longer recognized - and we get such curiosa as "Blacks can't be racist."
I really hope SJWs will realize their fight to purge the language of "bad words" is in fact persecution of thoughtcrime.
If you ban "Uncle Tom's Cabin" from schools "because it uses the 'n' word and that's offensive", you're doing precisely what 1984 warns about.
For these, a mass delete would be too gentle and too easy. Admins should instead open up the firewalls and disable antiviruses. Fate worse than death.
Maybe, by fellow female prison mates. 'Cause she'd be in prison for misappropriation of funds from her Kickstarter.
Being transgender doesn't grant immunity from being mentally ill.
Being mentally ill, on the other hand, often leads to various misguided ideas concerning own sexuality, often driving one to the gender change operation.
And it's quite close-minded, to think mental illnesses are only a problem among straight cisgender people, and never touch the LGBT community - and so is thinking no mentally ill person will ever have their mental illness lead them to gender-related confusion.
Blanket claim that no transgender is ever mentally ill is just as bigoted as transgender is a mental illness.
Except you're missing a fairly broad margin of "professional victims" whose lie was NOT exposed - or at least, they managed to cover their tracks well enough, that whoever exposed their lie, didn't manage to gather enough rock-solid evidence to make their case.
If you look close at many of the "victim cases", there's very often something stinky, something dodgy, something suspicious - but since "they are the victims, they are suffering", any attempts to dig deeper are seen as most despicable carrion-eater activity, attempts to harm the poor victims! That way a lot of fraudsters can get by with total impunity, safe in their conviction that their lies will never be exposed.
Seriously, step out of your echo chamber and google "[name] is a fraud". You will only very rarely find any solid proof - but you WILL find suspicious activity - which you will not be able to trace down, neither prove or disprove, due to the "victim protection" atmosphere.
Still need Anita Sarkeesian to lose her position. She's been shown as a fraud, she's been shown as totally ignorant in the field she claims to be an expert, and she has a devout following of rabid fanatics who happily swallow every her lie and attack anyone who points out how she keeps stealing their money, keeps blatantly lying in her videos, and how she blames every single complaint against her on misogyny.
Eh, it had a lean lander of a good hundred km/s of delta-V.
Specifically, they don't need to wait through that unskippable crap. Only legal customers are actually penalized.
A *real* hard sci-fi. Something like The Martian - the book (as opposed to the movie).
You're not entirely accurate.
Tighter control of pedestrians adhering to crosswalks fails to boost public transport usage.
Higher penalties for failure to use turn signals found inefficient in encouraging drivers to drive straight across crossroads.
New, draconian fine for not using seatbelts found inefficient in boosting motorcycle helmet sales.
Among git-specific terminology there's also forking someone's repository. Watch out where you say that, you might get fired over it.
Personally, I believe the correlation goes in the reverse direction. People who write high quality code, also fill their profiles more thoroughly and are more likely to reveal their gender as result.
The article makes it seem like the choice of accepting or rejecting a push request is an arbitrary decision based solely on factors associated with perception of the accepter of the personality of the submitter and has nothing in common with actual code quality. No. GOOD push requests are accepted. BAD push requests are rejected. The blame for having a push rejected sits entirely on the submitter.
A lazy submitter, who can't be bothered to fill in personal detail is more likely to submit bad code. An inexperienced woman who is not a regular on Github is more likely to submit bad or useless patches (I've seen an argument where some lady pushed edits to comments which she believed might be offensive due to not being gender-neutral; patch rejected for creating a clutter and not contributing to code quality; lady outraged...) An inexperienced man... is more likely to register.
--- as a real obstacle in accepting the self-driving cars.
There was such a situation once already. Early Kindle model had an excellent automatic text-to-speech feature, so good, that it was godsent to blind people who could listen to books paying the regular Amazon price.
Didn't last long, because the organization of publishers of audiobooks for the blind sued Amazon and forced it to remove the feature - because it was undercutting their market: they were able to charge roughly 5x paper version price for an audiobook for the blind. And blind would choose Amazon now, instead of having to pay super-premium for their handicap.
So - by court order - cheap auto-translated audiobooks were taken away from the blind people so that they would have to pay arm and leg to the hyenas.
This is a very similar case. These, who benefit from car accidents will fight self-driving cars tooth and nail.
Also - there almost certainly, were thousands of subpoenas to grant access to accounts, with judical oversight, and without the NSL's obligation of secrecy - in other words, Google made to do exactly what they were made to do here, except not forced to stay silent about it - all interested parties informed of the fact.
Primaries were fixed by means that were technically perfectly legal.
Stuff like: block out convention center area in several blocks radius for all traffic, "for security reasons", haul Clinton supporters by bus, make Sanders supporters spend hours trying to find parking place and not reach the voting on time. Or find some serious violation of the voting protocol, and completely lawfully call in repeat of the voting the next day. Clinton's supporters were invited to some kind of party, so they stayed on site, while Sanders' people had left and were impossible to gather and bring back on time. What a coincidence. Quite a few such actions, perfectly legal and absolutely dirty. Not a single thing they could be dragged to court for - but simultaneously quite enough to make Sanders' voters choose Trump.