Any excuse to de-platform conservatives will be takes.
I'm not conservative, but unlike you I don't hate conservatives, and certainly not nearly enough to equate the whole of conservatism with white supremacy. What I want to know is why you despise conservatives so much? It's not healthy.
That's what happened here, gab hosted white supremacists and one off then went off and did some actual white supremacist sort of things and now lots of people don't want to do business with gab any more.
Bonus points if you reply with whataboutism involving antifa.
BBC Basic, the Jupiter ACE (which ran FORTH), the ZX-Spectrum, these were computers that were *critical* to understanding.
As someone who still owns a master and a real original ace (including the cutely written book), I disagree.
At the age of the kids in the article I didn't understand that much. By 12 I was starting to get the hang of it and could program simple games and build very simple circuits by following instructions. I did later dive much deeper and learned 6502 asm using the inline assembler on the Beeb. I got my full understanding later though after I moved onto a PC.
I guess because it's "conservative" that it's automatically bad.
You're equating a white supremacist who shot up a synagogue with "conservative" (the backlash was for hosting that guy). You must really really despise conservatives.
Amoral is not the same as immoral. The GPL is the way it is because RMS is taking a moral stance on software. Using a permissive license is in his view amoral because it is taking no moral stance. It's not in his view immoral (against his morals).
How on earth is that relevant to anything. You don't like what RMS has to say so you dismiss his well thought out carefully worded essays and his work setting up the FSF and GPL as "simply screaming".
. It's the same reason why London's streets are a medieval rat's nest, even in areas that were bombed into oblivion by the Luftwaffe during WWII
It's the same reason they're a medieval rats nest after the entire city burned down in 1666. The government started planning a new city with wide, straight roads but the populace rushed back and started to rebuild so they didn't lose their land. It was rebuilt along exactly the same lines as beforeb of course.
I've not used gnu step since the late 90s I think! It looked cool, but I always went back to FVWM.
I know what you mean about clipboard managers. I too have flirted with them. It seems like a really cool idea and about every 7 years I get enthusiastic about it, set one up, lean the shortcuts and in about 3 weeks I find I'm simply not using it. There's a bunch of different ones, and I can't remember the ones I've tried. Thing is I think a clipboard is somewhat immediate in that I don't generally think in terms of what I pasted an hour ago.
Personally I love the dual clipboard mechanism. It seems that on their quest you first make Linux a cheap Windows knockoff, then make it a cheap OSX knockoff, the gnome people want to kill the middle click paste thing. They're never going to realise that Linux will not ever be a better Mac than Macs and perhaps they should stick to its merits instead.
This is all paranoid conspiracy bullshit. There was never any evidence for Eric Raymond's claims. Now you're just layering perverse fantasy on top of evidence free claims.
Not sure about shift+insert: that was the common sequence back in the old DOS days, it was never especially prevalent on Unix from what I recall.
I've not encountered any cases recent where I'd have expected ^C/V to work and it didn't (it doesn't in vim, but would anyone expect that? Vim supports X clipboards via the old named buffer mechanism from vi). Explicit copy/paste should always use the CLIPBOARD and select middle click should always use the PRIMARY buffer.
Old motif programs used Alt not control. Control only happened when the usual suspects insisted everything had to be like Windows to win. We can see how well that worked, but that's ancient history. Some other very old programs from the days of yore also didn't do the clipboard thing properly, but I've not encountered one of those in maybe 15 years now.
There's a lot of overblown complaints about X, either form people very ignorant or with an axe to grind. Often the complaints are about old things for which there are more modern API calls, but because X calls them extensions (API wasn't a common term in 1987) people flip their shit.
X certainly isn't prefect, it's warty in places but very battle tested and does a lot. Often half the features aren't interesting to someone, so the supposed replacements don't implement them, but it turns out not everyone's use case is the same.
1. Client asserts it has copied data 2. Pastee requests data owner id from the server 3. Pastee asks owner for a list of data types it offers 4. Pastee asks owner for data of a given type and tells owner where to send it 5. Owner sends.
A few details. In 1 and 2 they have to name which buffer. This is usually PRIMARY, CLIPBOARD or one with Xdnd in the name for drag and drop operations. Others exist in theory, but only those 3 are remotely common.
In 3 the data types agree a mix of mime types these days and usually a few old X yours like TEXT.
In 4 there's no indication of the owner has preferred type.
5 is a little messy of the data is large since the connecting is remote and so it has to be cut into chunks and sent one at a time.
. The last 3-4 times I replied to your posts you responded with childish insults.
I did? Perhaps, but I don't keep track of you so I couldn't confirm or deny that. And there's a chance that if you said something aggressively stupid then I treated your post with the contempt it deserved. Or maybe I was in a bad mood. Who knows!
No you wrote some stuff then quoted my comment. What you wrote was however utterly disconnected from what you quoted.
What claims, about you specifically, am I supposed to be providing evidence for?
The opinions you claim I hold.
You are simply taking what I said an pretending I said the opposite.
Incorrect: I'm taking what you said and following it to its logical conclusion. If the premise leads to an absurd conclusion then the problem lies with the premise, not the conclusion.
I am opposing rules that punish, deter, and exclude people from working, participating, and expressing their views. Anyone should be allowed to express an opinion, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to reshape the rules to reflect that opinion.
That sounds like you want to prohibit people from acting on their opinions in a legal manner: you wish to prohibit freedom of association, something I consider every bit as important as free speech.
You can't have it both ways: if you (the general you, not you in particular) have the freedom to express that I should be killed, I have the freedom to call you an asshat and refuse to have anything to do with you. Further, I have the right to use my free speech to convince other people to have nothing to do with you.
So far all you have done is advocate restriction of my speech because you don't like what I have to say. I think free speech only means you won't be thrown in gaol because anything more is a restriction of someone else's speech.
IOW free speech means you won't be imprisoned for being an arsehole, it doesn't mean you have a legal right to have friends provided for you. You will claim you have not said that: that it true after a fashion. You didn't explicitly say it, but there is no other consequence of your idea so you are nonetheless promoting that.
shouldn't exclude the hiring and continued employment of an outspoken neo-nazi anymore than they exclude the hiring and continued employment of an outspoken butch lesbian
For some reason, we as a society have decided that shagging someone with the same genitals and refusing to be apologetic about it is less bad than advocating genocide. You are proposing an equivalence between them. I'm not a moral relativist so I do not accept your proposition.
I actually can't be arsed to even look up three comment of mine you're replying to. Your comment is so astoundingly generic that it's clear you're not remotely interested in discussing in good faith, instead you will simply splat down your talking points regardless of how well they fit.
You have also as I predicted angrily refused to provide any evidence for your claims about me.
speaking your views should not prevent you from pursuing or continuing your career or hobbies or otherwise live your life unless it objectively obstructs your job function in some way.
Anyone should be allowed to express an opinion unless it's an opinion you don't like (I.e. An opinion about something someone said). Sorry dude, that will never fly with the first amendment.
What am I serious about? Are you sure you can figure that out? Is there a point to my rants?
Well on a whim I had a look at your posting history. As far as I can tell you're deadly serious about never ever writing a post which demonstrates any hint of insight or a point. It is actually sort of impressive. My best guess is you're testing the slashdot mod crowd you see if you can maintain a positive karma without ever making a contribution to a discussion or expressing an opinion of any sort. That's actually quite a difficult task and both more interesting and more honest than simply expressing whatever opinion you think might get modded up.
Though it was kind of tedious reading your interactions with tedious ACs. You can sometimes get upmods from those of you deliver a really good smack down, but you're just as likely to get a down mod from people who don't want the conversation polluted with AC related crap.
Good luck though, I shall follow your karma score with interest.
Where in this conversation did "difficult" to date women come into play?
I'm not going to do your reading for you. If you follow the thread it becomes entirely clear. However you have to read what both myself and AmiMojo wrote in it's entirety going back quite a bunch of posts, something I'm confident you won't do.
Getting dates and getting laid is relatively easy.
Not for everyone I guess otherwise there wouldn't be whole communities of people will can't and an entire industry devoted to helping/extracting money from them.
weaponized #meetoo
That's not a thing. If you feel you've fallen foul of it why don't you tell us about it and let us see for ourselves.
Here is the problem. This is the statement of an extremist and how he stereotypes and characterizes everyone who disagrees with him. Of course the only thing disagreeing with him means is an argument for preserving due process in a nation which has as it's most sacred legal concept "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you replied to the wrong post beast what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. Nah just kidding.
Here's a tip from the professionals: if you want me to disagree with you, you have to actually express an opinion rather than a grab bag of ad homenin non sequiteurs.
I did like your enough jump from absolutely nothing to how I want to end due process. Funnily enough I was taking about just such wild jumps earlier with AmiMojo. The usual thing that happens next is I ask for evidence where you link to a post where I express such an opinion. What follows from that is that you get angry and deflect.
So go on let's play this game. You post evidence for your claims about me.
Like I said, if you're not able to navigate those kind of situations then then best advice is certainly to not try to. My happily married friends who met spouses at work would certainly disagree with you.
You're correct that the potential for badness is high if you do something stupid (actually thinking now I have seen that, it looked stupid at the time--dating a close co worker's's subordinate--and it imploded messily). Dating someone outside your department has much, much less potential for disaster.
But your me too complaints are just overblown. I don't know anyone and have never then heard of anyone who had their career ruined simply for dating at work.
Try being a grown-ass man rather than a 16 year old horn dog (assuming you're a dude). Most of us are capable of keeping instincts in check day to day because we are in control of ourselves. That's one of the things you learn as you grow up.
And ultra-left? WTF? It takes a perverse kind of stupidity to call one of the largest monuments of present day capitalism "ultra left". Unless of course you have absolutely no idea what the left even is, never mind the hard left.
The simple fact is that realistically all it would take is a whiff of impropriety and you're fucked
That's flat out not true.
But the sad truth though is given the many, many avenues of meeting people -- trying to fish off the company pier is probably the worst out of all of them.
Also just plain wrong. If you hit on your immediate co workers, then yes that's a recipe for disaster. Or if you treat the company like a speed dating event and systematically ask out everyone who's got a pulse and not physically glued to the floor then that's also going to be a problem.
For everything else, it's not nearly such a big deal. Once a company grows over a couple of hundred people for example, then there's going to be whole departments of people you almost never see and certainly don't interact with for day to day work. Even if you don't both manage to be slurs and have a bad breakup it's not going to make much practical difference, and it gets smaller the larger the organisation grows.
If the other person is sufficiently removed and you at least have some sort of chemistry before you ask them out you'll be fine. If you don't feel you can judge either of those yourself then yes, it's not for you.
Yes: much as it stinks, retroactively changing the law is incredibly dangerous. The law as it was written when the crime occurred had stupidly small fines. The law as it is written now would allow a fine of about $2 billion or so I believe.
The old law was written in 1998 when this kind of thing just wasn't an issue, and as usual laws are generally written to fix today's problems, but tomorrow's. That's usually a good thing because the future is hard to predict.
Eventually, tomorrow happened and the laws weren't updated for far too long until the EU stepped. As usual the EU is slow but definitive and tends to act only when the member states can't manage to sort themselves out on their own. Again that's a somewhat reasonable position too: local problems after best solved locally and so it's better for the EU to be somewhat conservative rather than impositional.
Finally, the law is usually a giant game of whac-a-mole. Most laws come about as a result of a pressing need rather than people sitting round inventing new ways for things to be illegal. That's also not a bad idea because no one wants random busybodies interferingand also the problems are only clear when they're present rather than imagined. It's hard enough to avoid unintended consequences with actual problems, never mind invented ones.
So, I can't defend it from a general moral point of view, but it's the result of a sequence of entirely reasonable steps. Not optimal steps, but reasonable: they've proven to be a robust way of building civilisations over the years and while they're not problem free, alternatives have proven worse.
Absolutely. It's pointless and annoying when companies are caught and the fine is far less than the profit gained. Fortunately we have the GDPR now so fines are going to get much much heavier. The rule of law is important though so we'll see weedy fines for crimes dating back to the time on the older laws for a while yet.
That sucks badly and it sucks badly that the old rules were so pathetic, but it's much, much worse retroactively changing the law.
They're right: once you know for sure something is happening then you can stop worrying about it. It's the doubt and uncertainty that's the real killer. Their suggestion certainly removes all doubt on the matter.
Ok yes, there are several different things going on. The original concept of once I'm not unsympathetic to. Some people have trouble dating for various reasons andthat sticks and they want a sympathetic ear and community and that's fine.
In principle.
Unfortunately, it's become an incredibly nasty community dedicated to hating women as much as possible and no small part of it actually involves cheering on mass murder. That I have no sympathy with.
The body image thing, so that's a thing. It also has several aspects. Body issues can be very hard to shift even if you objectively know it's not really true. And probably many people will never really quite reach their ideal, and pressure to do so has caused a lot of problems for women historically and a rapidly growing amount for men too now. That basically sucks for all involved.
However it's a problem when it turns into "women are evil femoids and Elliot Rodger was a supreme gentleman, but I can't get a date because of my jawline rather than because I transparently hate women and want to murder then". It's also used to trap hapless depressed men into the community. The further in they're drawn, the harder it is to escape, because the overriding message is it's someone else's fault and you can't change anything no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
Any excuse to de-platform conservatives will be takes.
I'm not conservative, but unlike you I don't hate conservatives, and certainly not nearly enough to equate the whole of conservatism with white supremacy. What I want to know is why you despise conservatives so much? It's not healthy.
That's what happened here, gab hosted white supremacists and one off then went off and did some actual white supremacist sort of things and now lots of people don't want to do business with gab any more.
Bonus points if you reply with whataboutism involving antifa.
BBC Basic, the Jupiter ACE (which ran FORTH), the ZX-Spectrum, these were computers that were *critical* to understanding.
As someone who still owns a master and a real original ace (including the cutely written book), I disagree.
At the age of the kids in the article I didn't understand that much. By 12 I was starting to get the hang of it and could program simple games and build very simple circuits by following instructions. I did later dive much deeper and learned 6502 asm using the inline assembler on the Beeb. I got my full understanding later though after I moved onto a PC.
The Pi is a self running computer.
I guess because it's "conservative" that it's automatically bad.
You're equating a white supremacist who shot up a synagogue with "conservative" (the backlash was for hosting that guy). You must really really despise conservatives.
Amoral is not the same as immoral. The GPL is the way it is because RMS is taking a moral stance on software. Using a permissive license is in his view amoral because it is taking no moral stance. It's not in his view immoral (against his morals).
but simply screaming about it does nothing.
How on earth is that relevant to anything. You don't like what RMS has to say so you dismiss his well thought out carefully worded essays and his work setting up the FSF and GPL as "simply screaming".
That's such an immense misrepresentation.
. It's the same reason why London's streets are a medieval rat's nest, even in areas that were bombed into oblivion by the Luftwaffe during WWII
It's the same reason they're a medieval rats nest after the entire city burned down in 1666. The government started planning a new city with wide, straight roads but the populace rushed back and started to rebuild so they didn't lose their land. It was rebuilt along exactly the same lines as beforeb of course.
I've not used gnu step since the late 90s I think! It looked cool, but I always went back to FVWM.
I know what you mean about clipboard managers. I too have flirted with them. It seems like a really cool idea and about every 7 years I get enthusiastic about it, set one up, lean the shortcuts and in about 3 weeks I find I'm simply not using it. There's a bunch of different ones, and I can't remember the ones I've tried. Thing is I think a clipboard is somewhat immediate in that I don't generally think in terms of what I pasted an hour ago.
Personally I love the dual clipboard mechanism. It seems that on their quest you first make Linux a cheap Windows knockoff, then make it a cheap OSX knockoff, the gnome people want to kill the middle click paste thing. They're never going to realise that Linux will not ever be a better Mac than Macs and perhaps they should stick to its merits instead.
FFS middle click paste isn't an Easter egg.
This is all paranoid conspiracy bullshit. There was never any evidence for Eric Raymond's claims. Now you're just layering perverse fantasy on top of evidence free claims.
Not sure about shift+insert: that was the common sequence back in the old DOS days, it was never especially prevalent on Unix from what I recall.
I've not encountered any cases recent where I'd have expected ^C/V to work and it didn't (it doesn't in vim, but would anyone expect that? Vim supports X clipboards via the old named buffer mechanism from vi). Explicit copy/paste should always use the CLIPBOARD and select middle click should always use the PRIMARY buffer.
Old motif programs used Alt not control. Control only happened when the usual suspects insisted everything had to be like Windows to win. We can see how well that worked, but that's ancient history. Some other very old programs from the days of yore also didn't do the clipboard thing properly, but I've not encountered one of those in maybe 15 years now.
There's a lot of overblown complaints about X, either form people very ignorant or with an axe to grind. Often the complaints are about old things for which there are more modern API calls, but because X calls them extensions (API wasn't a common term in 1987) people flip their shit.
X certainly isn't prefect, it's warty in places but very battle tested and does a lot. Often half the features aren't interesting to someone, so the supposed replacements don't implement them, but it turns out not everyone's use case is the same.
What's wrong with copy and paste on X11?
The protocol essentially goes like this:
1. Client asserts it has copied data
2. Pastee requests data owner id from the server
3. Pastee asks owner for a list of data types it offers
4. Pastee asks owner for data of a given type and tells owner where to send it
5. Owner sends.
A few details. In 1 and 2 they have to name which buffer. This is usually PRIMARY, CLIPBOARD or one with Xdnd in the name for drag and drop operations. Others exist in theory, but only those 3 are remotely common.
In 3 the data types agree a mix of mime types these days and usually a few old X yours like TEXT.
In 4 there's no indication of the owner has preferred type.
5 is a little messy of the data is large since the connecting is remote and so it has to be cut into chunks and sent one at a time.
So what's wrong with that?
. The last 3-4 times I replied to your posts you responded with childish insults.
I did? Perhaps, but I don't keep track of you so I couldn't confirm or deny that. And there's a chance that if you said something aggressively stupid then I treated your post with the contempt it deserved. Or maybe I was in a bad mood. Who knows!
I characterized comments you made and quoted them
No you wrote some stuff then quoted my comment. What you wrote was however utterly disconnected from what you quoted.
What claims, about you specifically, am I supposed to be providing evidence for?
The opinions you claim I hold.
You are simply taking what I said an pretending I said the opposite.
Incorrect: I'm taking what you said and following it to its logical conclusion. If the premise leads to an absurd conclusion then the problem lies with the premise, not the conclusion.
I am opposing rules that punish, deter, and exclude people from working, participating, and expressing their views. Anyone should be allowed to express an opinion, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to reshape the rules to reflect that opinion.
That sounds like you want to prohibit people from acting on their opinions in a legal manner: you wish to prohibit freedom of association, something I consider every bit as important as free speech.
You can't have it both ways: if you (the general you, not you in particular) have the freedom to express that I should be killed, I have the freedom to call you an asshat and refuse to have anything to do with you. Further, I have the right to use my free speech to convince other people to have nothing to do with you.
So far all you have done is advocate restriction of my speech because you don't like what I have to say. I think free speech only means you won't be thrown in gaol because anything more is a restriction of someone else's speech.
IOW free speech means you won't be imprisoned for being an arsehole, it doesn't mean you have a legal right to have friends provided for you. You will claim you have not said that: that it true after a fashion. You didn't explicitly say it, but there is no other consequence of your idea so you are nonetheless promoting that.
shouldn't exclude the hiring and continued employment of an outspoken neo-nazi anymore than they exclude the hiring and continued employment of an outspoken butch lesbian
For some reason, we as a society have decided that shagging someone with the same genitals and refusing to be apologetic about it is less bad than advocating genocide. You are proposing an equivalence between them. I'm not a moral relativist so I do not accept your proposition.
I actually can't be arsed to even look up three comment of mine you're replying to. Your comment is so astoundingly generic that it's clear you're not remotely interested in discussing in good faith, instead you will simply splat down your talking points regardless of how well they fit.
You have also as I predicted angrily refused to provide any evidence for your claims about me.
speaking your views should not prevent you from pursuing or continuing your career or hobbies or otherwise live your life unless it objectively obstructs your job function in some way.
Anyone should be allowed to express an opinion unless it's an opinion you don't like (I.e. An opinion about something someone said). Sorry dude, that will never fly with the first amendment.
What am I serious about? Are you sure you can figure that out? Is there a point to my rants?
Well on a whim I had a look at your posting history. As far as I can tell you're deadly serious about never ever writing a post which demonstrates any hint of insight or a point. It is actually sort of impressive. My best guess is you're testing the slashdot mod crowd you see if you can maintain a positive karma without ever making a contribution to a discussion or expressing an opinion of any sort. That's actually quite a difficult task and both more interesting and more honest than simply expressing whatever opinion you think might get modded up.
Though it was kind of tedious reading your interactions with tedious ACs. You can sometimes get upmods from those of you deliver a really good smack down, but you're just as likely to get a down mod from people who don't want the conversation polluted with AC related crap.
Good luck though, I shall follow your karma score with interest.
Where in this conversation did "difficult" to date women come into play?
I'm not going to do your reading for you. If you follow the thread it becomes entirely clear. However you have to read what both myself and AmiMojo wrote in it's entirety going back quite a bunch of posts, something I'm confident you won't do.
Getting dates and getting laid is relatively easy.
Not for everyone I guess otherwise there wouldn't be whole communities of people will can't and an entire industry devoted to helping/extracting money from them.
weaponized #meetoo
That's not a thing. If you feel you've fallen foul of it why don't you tell us about it and let us see for ourselves.
Here is the problem. This is the statement of an extremist and how he stereotypes and characterizes everyone who disagrees with him. Of course the only thing disagreeing with him means is an argument for preserving due process in a nation which has as it's most sacred legal concept "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you replied to the wrong post beast what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. Nah just kidding.
Here's a tip from the professionals: if you want me to disagree with you, you have to actually express an opinion rather than a grab bag of ad homenin non sequiteurs.
I did like your enough jump from absolutely nothing to how I want to end due process. Funnily enough I was taking about just such wild jumps earlier with AmiMojo. The usual thing that happens next is I ask for evidence where you link to a post where I express such an opinion. What follows from that is that you get angry and deflect.
So go on let's play this game. You post evidence for your claims about me.
Like I said, if you're not able to navigate those kind of situations then then best advice is certainly to not try to. My happily married friends who met spouses at work would certainly disagree with you.
You're correct that the potential for badness is high if you do something stupid (actually thinking now I have seen that, it looked stupid at the time--dating a close co worker's's subordinate--and it imploded messily). Dating someone outside your department has much, much less potential for disaster.
But your me too complaints are just overblown. I don't know anyone and have never then heard of anyone who had their career ruined simply for dating at work.
Try being a grown-ass man rather than a 16 year old horn dog (assuming you're a dude). Most of us are capable of keeping instincts in check day to day because we are in control of ourselves. That's one of the things you learn as you grow up.
And ultra-left? WTF? It takes a perverse kind of stupidity to call one of the largest monuments of present day capitalism "ultra left". Unless of course you have absolutely no idea what the left even is, never mind the hard left.
The simple fact is that realistically all it would take is a whiff of impropriety and you're fucked
That's flat out not true.
But the sad truth though is given the many, many avenues of meeting people -- trying to fish off the company pier is probably the worst out of all of them.
Also just plain wrong. If you hit on your immediate co workers, then yes that's a recipe for disaster. Or if you treat the company like a speed dating event and systematically ask out everyone who's got a pulse and not physically glued to the floor then that's also going to be a problem.
For everything else, it's not nearly such a big deal. Once a company grows over a couple of hundred people for example, then there's going to be whole departments of people you almost never see and certainly don't interact with for day to day work. Even if you don't both manage to be slurs and have a bad breakup it's not going to make much practical difference, and it gets smaller the larger the organisation grows.
If the other person is sufficiently removed and you at least have some sort of chemistry before you ask them out you'll be fine. If you don't feel you can judge either of those yourself then yes, it's not for you.
Can someone defend this position?
Yes: much as it stinks, retroactively changing the law is incredibly dangerous. The law as it was written when the crime occurred had stupidly small fines. The law as it is written now would allow a fine of about $2 billion or so I believe.
The old law was written in 1998 when this kind of thing just wasn't an issue, and as usual laws are generally written to fix today's problems, but tomorrow's. That's usually a good thing because the future is hard to predict.
Eventually, tomorrow happened and the laws weren't updated for far too long until the EU stepped. As usual the EU is slow but definitive and tends to act only when the member states can't manage to sort themselves out on their own. Again that's a somewhat reasonable position too: local problems after best solved locally and so it's better for the EU to be somewhat conservative rather than impositional.
Finally, the law is usually a giant game of whac-a-mole. Most laws come about as a result of a pressing need rather than people sitting round inventing new ways for things to be illegal. That's also not a bad idea because no one wants random busybodies interferingand also the problems are only clear when they're present rather than imagined. It's hard enough to avoid unintended consequences with actual problems, never mind invented ones.
So, I can't defend it from a general moral point of view, but it's the result of a sequence of entirely reasonable steps. Not optimal steps, but reasonable: they've proven to be a robust way of building civilisations over the years and while they're not problem free, alternatives have proven worse.
Absolutely. It's pointless and annoying when companies are caught and the fine is far less than the profit gained. Fortunately we have the GDPR now so fines are going to get much much heavier. The rule of law is important though so we'll see weedy fines for crimes dating back to the time on the older laws for a while yet.
That sucks badly and it sucks badly that the old rules were so pathetic, but it's much, much worse retroactively changing the law.
They're right: once you know for sure something is happening then you can stop worrying about it. It's the doubt and uncertainty that's the real killer. Their suggestion certainly removes all doubt on the matter.
Ok yes, there are several different things going on. The original concept of once I'm not unsympathetic to. Some people have trouble dating for various reasons andthat sticks and they want a sympathetic ear and community and that's fine.
In principle.
Unfortunately, it's become an incredibly nasty community dedicated to hating women as much as possible and no small part of it actually involves cheering on mass murder. That I have no sympathy with.
The body image thing, so that's a thing. It also has several aspects. Body issues can be very hard to shift even if you objectively know it's not really true. And probably many people will never really quite reach their ideal, and pressure to do so has caused a lot of problems for women historically and a rapidly growing amount for men too now. That basically sucks for all involved.
However it's a problem when it turns into "women are evil femoids and Elliot Rodger was a supreme gentleman, but I can't get a date because of my jawline rather than because I transparently hate women and want to murder then". It's also used to trap hapless depressed men into the community. The further in they're drawn, the harder it is to escape, because the overriding message is it's someone else's fault and you can't change anything no matter what.