Which, of course, they are. People tell insults to work themselves up. They're psychological preparation to overcome the inhibitions against harming others. Since humans are pack animals, this preparation needs to take such highly visible form so either the victim or other members of the pack have a chance to interfere.
Look at every genocide in history. They all have a campaign of escalating slander preceding them.
Hate speech is like pornography/obscenity: No one can define it, and it's usually strangely close to "Stuff I don't like."
Pornography is speech aimed at causing sexual excitement, and hate speech is speech aimed at establishing it as acceptable to harm someone. Don't confuse people making excuses for themselves either way for the actual concepts being vague.
But of course that won't stop someone with a spreadsheet & a mission from finding a correlation & implying a sinister causation.
And they should certainly have an easy time at it too. Women not getting offers for high-paying jobs because that would take room from shoe ads is pretty much a defining example of structural sexism, and you writing it yet not noticing anything problematic with it that of unconscious sexism.
Ah, really? Well then you first then as your characterization of the existence of poor people in today's society "gives you a way to keep them in their place" is a typical lie of those claiming that others need to give more to make the problem go away.
I'm not asking you, or anyone, to give anything. I'm simply pointing out that the AC's attitude, that of someone making 20 times as much as someone else as well as holding all the power in the situation yet still believing themselves to be the victim is precisely the kind of self-deception that makes poverty possible in the first place. And I also claim this is not an accident, but an intentional aim of our current social structure - poverty exists to ensure factories have an unending supply of desperate labour, or more generally, that there's people who both hold all the power in and have every reason to support the system.
Basically, the AC followed his cultural programming which makes him unable to see the basic absurdity in what he posted, and you followed yours which prompts you to attack any perceived criticism of the basic assumptions of the system - in this case unequality and one-sided dependence - and apparently you picked an old Cold War relic memetic program to type the actual text. Or possibly got one from an old archive or something. Which is what I'm trying to figure out.
Humiliation? WTF? How's that work? It's not humiliating, it's frustrating.
Neither is appropriate for when people refuse to care about your orders because you don't have any authority over them. You aren't paying so you aren't in any position to demand features, or anything else.
Like I said, it's the "you're not my boss, fuck you" attitude that really turns people away.
It's not "you're not my boss, fuck you" but "you're not my boss, so stop giving me orders". Altough I suppose "fuck you" could very quickly follow if you refused to take the hint.
The attitude you just displayed right there. Are you a developer on any open source projects?
So disagreeing with you is "fuck you" to you? Seriously?
If software companies are upset that we're obstinately staying with older versions of their products, instead of paying for the latest and greatest, the answer might be simply "I know how to use this version, and I don't want to spend hours with each new revision trying to figure out where you've hidden the button this time."
More to the point, the concept of "product" was part of Industrial Age and simply doesn't make sense in Information Age. In the world of plenty a business model based on scarcity requires you to create artificial scarcity and inevitably makes you a villain. It also doesn't work. Current software companies stay afloat because Information Age is only dawning, and the old myths - the values and patterns of behavior consider the "default" - of Industrial Age have held dominance; but as economy leaves industrial production a niche, just like it did agriculture earlier, copyrights and their underlaying ideas if "software is property" will lose what little power they still have and selling software will become impossible.
So what will replace it? Perhaps some kind of "work for hire" model. In this model, software houses didn't have products, rather they'd implement new features and polish existing ones, maybe funded through something like Kickstarter. Then again, it's possible that, as Information Age progresses and the new model becomes the default, the entire concept of property will simply crumble. After all, if a robot built by other robots builds a doohickey from materials mined by yet more robots, why should it "belong" to anyone? If I want one, I can just tell the robots to build one; if you want one, you can tell them to build one too. Nobody needs to be paid.
If this happens - if production will become a background process like trees making oxygen, unlike the entire focus of human existence like it currently is - then future will basically be a communist utopia developing, as Marx predicted, when ideological - currently capitalistic - covering of the society has outlived its usefulness and said society sheds it, like it has many others previously. Which may or may not be enough to stop gratuitous changes to user interface.
Why should an old person learn to use (in rapid succession) CompuServe, AOL, Yahoo, LiveJournal, Myspace, Facebook, Flicker, Pinterest, Instagram (and so on and so on), instead of his relatives putting a little effort into hand written letters and face time?
Because those handwritten letters and face time are going to become a chore very soon, and chores have a tendency to be "forgotten", especially when they only exist in the first place because their benefactee is too lazy to invest into learning modern communication methods.
If you make it hard for other people to stay in contact, they probably won't bother.
It's just the "fuck you" attitude that gets to us. When users demand features, you are supposed to listen. But nope, this stock answer is trotted out every time as a way to avoid doing work.
But it's not work. The developers are free to listen to you, and they're also free to ignore you. You aren't their boss. Refusing to treat you like you were isn't "fuck you". You just took it that way because getting rejected is humiliating and you didn't want to admit you misunderstood the situation.
It's so much better when the commisar decides & comes in to take all your excess food, right komrade? Make everyone poor so that none can complain that any are poorer!
You know, if you feel the need to lie about your opponent to make yourself look good, then that usually means you are the bad guy.
Or was it your indoctrination speaking? Some old Cold Warrior reliving their youth? A kid who thinks Red Scare is fashionable? Inquiring minds want to know how you got from "I guess this explains why we still have beggars" to "Make everyone poor so that none can complain that any are poorer!"
If I work everyday to earn twenty dollars, and every day you ask for a dollar, eventually I'm going to get tired of supporting you when I have my own financial issues to worry about.
If your income is twenty times mine, and even that pittance is dependent on pleasing you, and you still have the nerve to play the victim, then it seems to me that my best option would be to start a revolution and put your head on a stick. I have nothing to lose but my chains, after all.
Even if the money was printed and then given to the IMF, the moment the money was printed, the value it has came from devaluing all of the other money in circulation.
This is only true in an economy that's already working at 100% capacity. That hasn't been the case for a long time now. In the current situation of idling economy some actor getting more money will likely simply activate idle production capacity, which will actually increase the size of the market and the value of existing money.
Of course, the whole idea that supply exceeding demand can cause a crisis speaks for the absurdity of the entire economic system. It might be best to focus efforts on coming up with its replacement.
But if he keeps asking for more I'll get pissed and stop giving.
I guess this explains why we still have beggars, even in countries that struggle to get rid of all their excess food: making people's survival depend on your goodwill gives you a way to keep them in their place.
The eurocrats are of course thugs, but limiting how much they'll shake down the rest of their subject citizens to subsidize Greece is not a great example of their thuggishness.
However, putting fiscal policy based on ideology and dreams of building a new gold standard over the wellbeing of people is. And will likely be the death of the entire EU at this rate.
Let's not get carried away here. You can always remove the head gear or turn-off the device. Although I can see some complaining anyway.
And because you can always remove the head gear or turn-off the device, of course actual rape victim simulators will spring up, just like zombie attack simulators have. We know they will, because they alrady do, even in text adventure form. Players will claim it's just a game rendered harmless by the player being in control, and could even have therapeutic use, while naysayers will claim it's effective propaganda for rape culture precisely because it renders rape "harmless", and both will be entirely right.
So yes, people will complain, and those complaints can't be just summarily dismissed. There are issues at stake here which are extremely relevant to the dawning Information Age: are progandists blameless for the results of their propaganda just because their propaganda has artistic or entertainment value? To what extent are people responsible for their internalized cultural values, or for being unaware of them? At what point does making other's suffering your entertainment make you a villain?
figuring out what went wrong is precisely your job
No, it isn't. My job is to produce the most value for the company within my assigned competencies.
In theory, companies care only about profits. In practice, corporations are made of living humans, are thus living things themselves, and as such care mostly about homeostasis. Profit only enters the picture as food, and like humans whose imaginations they live in, corporations too tend to ignore long-term consequences for immediate gratification, especially since the law gives their parasitic load - the shareholders - control over their actions.
So, as far as the company was concerned, you were carrying - and sticking to - dangerous ideas that could had resulted in changes to corporate culture - to homeostasis. You "tasted" wrong, so you were rejected. I wonder if the whole corporate world could be described in the terms of biology more accurate than in the terms of economics, and perhaps improved through its methods?
Anyway, your proud boast may one day discover that people do the funniest things.
Hmm...
1. Create a domain.
2. Have that domain host a single page saying "Nothing can take down this page."
3. Have that page and DNS server hosted in a datacenter in an enemy country.
4. Sit back and watch.
Because they distract people's time and effort from actually working on worker's rights, and always derail conversations about rights for all workers into how everyone else should unionize.
Actually working how? You can have all the conversations you want about what you'd like, but how are you going to get it without joining forces - which is the definition of a labour union?
Of course union reps would say that, it creates more jobs for union reps. But it's bullshit.
As I see it, it's the pro-corporate bullshitters who want to disband labour unions, precisely to put employees into even weaker position compared to employers. The whole anti-union meme is part of that attack on the working poor, a classic divide and conquer tactic. It preys on people's self-importance by making them think everyone will get what they deserve in such a situation (and of course they deserve more than Joe Average). But for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would think such a situation would make worker in general better off, nor have you offered any concrete reasons.
Snort, sure it does, as long as "the powerful" are those that Assange has an axe to grind on. Why doesn't Assange have any dirt on Russia? China? France? No other countries in the entire world merit a little of the light he claims to be bringing to society?
And this is what it all comes down to. You're trying to turn attention from documents published by Assange to Assange himself (or to Russia, China or France). It's not going to work. Even if you manage to smash the mirror, it's still your image it showed, and you need to either live with it or change.
Or, I suppose, you could continue coming up with reasons why the mirror is immoral to distract from your image and keep your delusions. But that's unlikely to end well for you. Ignoring reality for self-adoring fantasy rarely does.
My point is that you may be paying $200 a month, but that isn't what the leasing company is receiving.
And with a regular car, the leasing company is allowed leave the externalities - such as climate change and health effects of exhaust - of their business to be paid collectively. Nothing is currently priced accordingly to its real cost, because "real cost" is impossible to measure.
That leaves two bad options: do nothing and let the markets decide based on incorrect information, or try to manipulate prices to what the government thinks (?) are the "real" ones. It doesn't help that almost everyone has a personal stake in both economy and environment, and is thus tempted to scew the results, but at least the latter option provides a possibility that various interests's concerns can be adressed.
Because this is the real problem with free-market capitalism: it assumes economic decisions are purely local, when in reality their consequences stretch to infinity. It's a necessary assumption, since otherwise every decision becomes intractable, but also means there absolutely needs to be some sort of overall coordinator correcting the relative prices of various options - for example via tax credits - to reflect distant costs, since otherwise we get a sub-optimal - possibly to the point of utter destruction - solution.
I didn't realize that.... I thought we were entitled to always get forgiveness or at least a do-over if we needed it, no matter what we did?
Signed,
All of modern culture.
Modern culture? Isn't that the core message of Christianity, which is around 2000 years old? And at least some parts of Judaism can also be interpreted that way - Jubilee, sacrifice to pay off sins, etc.
The Unions were a necessary phase in worker's rights, but now they are holding us back and they need to go away and be replaced by rights for all workers. If the Union leaders spent half as much effort to raise the minimum wage on a meaningful schedule as they do on padding their own pockets I might feel differently.
If unions are obsolete, what does it matter what they spend their time on? They aren't preventing you from lobbying for those rights, are they?
A history of sexual predation should never be erased from the public memory. I don't give a rip if this particular guy is "living a new life" -- if your brain is broke in such a way as to be attracted to kids then you should no more be allowed to walk the streets than a lion who thinks kids are tasty.
The difference between lions and humans is that lions can't reconsider their life, while humans can. So it comes down to the risk: what are risking if we trust this person to be changed? What are we risking if we don't?
But perhaps the risk is too high in the case of child molesters, or we simply decide they deserve to suffer. In that case, that needs to be spelled out explicity in the form of a life sentence. Pretending the sentence is, say, 5 years while letting the "unofficial" system inflict a de facto life sentence is dishonest and against the rule of law. Society should have the balls to admit its own true character to itself and then change if it can't live with it.
Yes. Repeatedly and publicly (ex: his acceptance of bail conditions before fleeing justice), yet somehow for the true believers like you, every instance can be argued away.
Read the original quote. Notice how it talks about Wikileaks not being about truth. The issue is not whether Assange has ever told a lie in his life (because everyone has, and frankly it doesn't matter except for a smear campaign), it's whether the leaks he published on Wikileaks are lies.
Sure, not sharing your messianic opinion of Assange and wanting him to be judged like a normal person is capitulating...
Right. So do you think a normal person would be judged like this for not wearing a condom? Because that is what the Swedish lawsuit is nominally about.
But ultimately, what does it matter? Even if you proved mathematically that Assange is the Devil himself, that still wouldn't change the fact that Wikileaks merely unmasks the sins of the powerful. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?
First off, thats a request even if you continue your typical bullshit lying Assange.
Speaking of bullshit and lying...
The only reason he's not in jail in Sweden already is because Ecuador feels like trying to be a dick to the US.
So you agree that it's the US, not Swedish law, that wants him imprisoned and made an example of? Because your assertion doesn't really make sense otherwise.
Whether or not Assange is personally admirable or even likable, it's the US and its allies who're the villains in this story. Wake up and see the skulls on your caps, or they'll be the only thing you'll be remembered by, since they'll take over everything you do, and then get you killed.
He's shown wikileaks is about his ego, not truth.
Right. So did he lie?
He's shown he thinks he's above the law and that he thinks EVERYONE else is corrupt and out to get him.
And you're proving him right.
He's a douche, so much a douche that even France thinks he's a douche. How sad do you have to be when even France doesn't capitulate?
But France is capitulating, again, to the skull-caps.
Slashdot Mirror
Which, of course, they are. People tell insults to work themselves up. They're psychological preparation to overcome the inhibitions against harming others. Since humans are pack animals, this preparation needs to take such highly visible form so either the victim or other members of the pack have a chance to interfere.
Look at every genocide in history. They all have a campaign of escalating slander preceding them.
Pornography is speech aimed at causing sexual excitement, and hate speech is speech aimed at establishing it as acceptable to harm someone. Don't confuse people making excuses for themselves either way for the actual concepts being vague.
And they should certainly have an easy time at it too. Women not getting offers for high-paying jobs because that would take room from shoe ads is pretty much a defining example of structural sexism, and you writing it yet not noticing anything problematic with it that of unconscious sexism.
I'm not asking you, or anyone, to give anything. I'm simply pointing out that the AC's attitude, that of someone making 20 times as much as someone else as well as holding all the power in the situation yet still believing themselves to be the victim is precisely the kind of self-deception that makes poverty possible in the first place. And I also claim this is not an accident, but an intentional aim of our current social structure - poverty exists to ensure factories have an unending supply of desperate labour, or more generally, that there's people who both hold all the power in and have every reason to support the system.
Basically, the AC followed his cultural programming which makes him unable to see the basic absurdity in what he posted, and you followed yours which prompts you to attack any perceived criticism of the basic assumptions of the system - in this case unequality and one-sided dependence - and apparently you picked an old Cold War relic memetic program to type the actual text. Or possibly got one from an old archive or something. Which is what I'm trying to figure out.
So, did you grow up during the Cold War, or...?
Neither is appropriate for when people refuse to care about your orders because you don't have any authority over them. You aren't paying so you aren't in any position to demand features, or anything else.
It's not "you're not my boss, fuck you" but "you're not my boss, so stop giving me orders". Altough I suppose "fuck you" could very quickly follow if you refused to take the hint.
So disagreeing with you is "fuck you" to you? Seriously?
More to the point, the concept of "product" was part of Industrial Age and simply doesn't make sense in Information Age. In the world of plenty a business model based on scarcity requires you to create artificial scarcity and inevitably makes you a villain. It also doesn't work. Current software companies stay afloat because Information Age is only dawning, and the old myths - the values and patterns of behavior consider the "default" - of Industrial Age have held dominance; but as economy leaves industrial production a niche, just like it did agriculture earlier, copyrights and their underlaying ideas if "software is property" will lose what little power they still have and selling software will become impossible.
So what will replace it? Perhaps some kind of "work for hire" model. In this model, software houses didn't have products, rather they'd implement new features and polish existing ones, maybe funded through something like Kickstarter. Then again, it's possible that, as Information Age progresses and the new model becomes the default, the entire concept of property will simply crumble. After all, if a robot built by other robots builds a doohickey from materials mined by yet more robots, why should it "belong" to anyone? If I want one, I can just tell the robots to build one; if you want one, you can tell them to build one too. Nobody needs to be paid.
If this happens - if production will become a background process like trees making oxygen, unlike the entire focus of human existence like it currently is - then future will basically be a communist utopia developing, as Marx predicted, when ideological - currently capitalistic - covering of the society has outlived its usefulness and said society sheds it, like it has many others previously. Which may or may not be enough to stop gratuitous changes to user interface.
Because those handwritten letters and face time are going to become a chore very soon, and chores have a tendency to be "forgotten", especially when they only exist in the first place because their benefactee is too lazy to invest into learning modern communication methods.
If you make it hard for other people to stay in contact, they probably won't bother.
But it's not work. The developers are free to listen to you, and they're also free to ignore you. You aren't their boss. Refusing to treat you like you were isn't "fuck you". You just took it that way because getting rejected is humiliating and you didn't want to admit you misunderstood the situation.
You know, if you feel the need to lie about your opponent to make yourself look good, then that usually means you are the bad guy.
Or was it your indoctrination speaking? Some old Cold Warrior reliving their youth? A kid who thinks Red Scare is fashionable? Inquiring minds want to know how you got from "I guess this explains why we still have beggars" to "Make everyone poor so that none can complain that any are poorer!"
If your income is twenty times mine, and even that pittance is dependent on pleasing you, and you still have the nerve to play the victim, then it seems to me that my best option would be to start a revolution and put your head on a stick. I have nothing to lose but my chains, after all.
This is only true in an economy that's already working at 100% capacity. That hasn't been the case for a long time now. In the current situation of idling economy some actor getting more money will likely simply activate idle production capacity, which will actually increase the size of the market and the value of existing money.
Of course, the whole idea that supply exceeding demand can cause a crisis speaks for the absurdity of the entire economic system. It might be best to focus efforts on coming up with its replacement.
I guess this explains why we still have beggars, even in countries that struggle to get rid of all their excess food: making people's survival depend on your goodwill gives you a way to keep them in their place.
And that about sums up EU as well.
However, putting fiscal policy based on ideology and dreams of building a new gold standard over the wellbeing of people is. And will likely be the death of the entire EU at this rate.
And because you can always remove the head gear or turn-off the device, of course actual rape victim simulators will spring up, just like zombie attack simulators have. We know they will, because they alrady do, even in text adventure form. Players will claim it's just a game rendered harmless by the player being in control, and could even have therapeutic use, while naysayers will claim it's effective propaganda for rape culture precisely because it renders rape "harmless", and both will be entirely right.
So yes, people will complain, and those complaints can't be just summarily dismissed. There are issues at stake here which are extremely relevant to the dawning Information Age: are progandists blameless for the results of their propaganda just because their propaganda has artistic or entertainment value? To what extent are people responsible for their internalized cultural values, or for being unaware of them? At what point does making other's suffering your entertainment make you a villain?
In theory, companies care only about profits. In practice, corporations are made of living humans, are thus living things themselves, and as such care mostly about homeostasis. Profit only enters the picture as food, and like humans whose imaginations they live in, corporations too tend to ignore long-term consequences for immediate gratification, especially since the law gives their parasitic load - the shareholders - control over their actions.
So, as far as the company was concerned, you were carrying - and sticking to - dangerous ideas that could had resulted in changes to corporate culture - to homeostasis. You "tasted" wrong, so you were rejected. I wonder if the whole corporate world could be described in the terms of biology more accurate than in the terms of economics, and perhaps improved through its methods?
Hmm...
1. Create a domain.
2. Have that domain host a single page saying "Nothing can take down this page."
3. Have that page and DNS server hosted in a datacenter in an enemy country.
4. Sit back and watch.
Weaponized hubris - what could possibly go wrong?
Actually working how? You can have all the conversations you want about what you'd like, but how are you going to get it without joining forces - which is the definition of a labour union?
As I see it, it's the pro-corporate bullshitters who want to disband labour unions, precisely to put employees into even weaker position compared to employers. The whole anti-union meme is part of that attack on the working poor, a classic divide and conquer tactic. It preys on people's self-importance by making them think everyone will get what they deserve in such a situation (and of course they deserve more than Joe Average). But for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would think such a situation would make worker in general better off, nor have you offered any concrete reasons.
And this is what it all comes down to. You're trying to turn attention from documents published by Assange to Assange himself (or to Russia, China or France). It's not going to work. Even if you manage to smash the mirror, it's still your image it showed, and you need to either live with it or change.
Or, I suppose, you could continue coming up with reasons why the mirror is immoral to distract from your image and keep your delusions. But that's unlikely to end well for you. Ignoring reality for self-adoring fantasy rarely does.
And with a regular car, the leasing company is allowed leave the externalities - such as climate change and health effects of exhaust - of their business to be paid collectively. Nothing is currently priced accordingly to its real cost, because "real cost" is impossible to measure.
That leaves two bad options: do nothing and let the markets decide based on incorrect information, or try to manipulate prices to what the government thinks (?) are the "real" ones. It doesn't help that almost everyone has a personal stake in both economy and environment, and is thus tempted to scew the results, but at least the latter option provides a possibility that various interests's concerns can be adressed.
Because this is the real problem with free-market capitalism: it assumes economic decisions are purely local, when in reality their consequences stretch to infinity. It's a necessary assumption, since otherwise every decision becomes intractable, but also means there absolutely needs to be some sort of overall coordinator correcting the relative prices of various options - for example via tax credits - to reflect distant costs, since otherwise we get a sub-optimal - possibly to the point of utter destruction - solution.
Modern culture? Isn't that the core message of Christianity, which is around 2000 years old? And at least some parts of Judaism can also be interpreted that way - Jubilee, sacrifice to pay off sins, etc.
If unions are obsolete, what does it matter what they spend their time on? They aren't preventing you from lobbying for those rights, are they?
The difference between lions and humans is that lions can't reconsider their life, while humans can. So it comes down to the risk: what are risking if we trust this person to be changed? What are we risking if we don't?
But perhaps the risk is too high in the case of child molesters, or we simply decide they deserve to suffer. In that case, that needs to be spelled out explicity in the form of a life sentence. Pretending the sentence is, say, 5 years while letting the "unofficial" system inflict a de facto life sentence is dishonest and against the rule of law. Society should have the balls to admit its own true character to itself and then change if it can't live with it.
This says you do.
Read the original quote. Notice how it talks about Wikileaks not being about truth. The issue is not whether Assange has ever told a lie in his life (because everyone has, and frankly it doesn't matter except for a smear campaign), it's whether the leaks he published on Wikileaks are lies.
Right. So do you think a normal person would be judged like this for not wearing a condom? Because that is what the Swedish lawsuit is nominally about.
But ultimately, what does it matter? Even if you proved mathematically that Assange is the Devil himself, that still wouldn't change the fact that Wikileaks merely unmasks the sins of the powerful. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?
Speaking of bullshit and lying...
So you agree that it's the US, not Swedish law, that wants him imprisoned and made an example of? Because your assertion doesn't really make sense otherwise.
Whether or not Assange is personally admirable or even likable, it's the US and its allies who're the villains in this story. Wake up and see the skulls on your caps, or they'll be the only thing you'll be remembered by, since they'll take over everything you do, and then get you killed.
Right. So did he lie?
And you're proving him right.
But France is capitulating, again, to the skull-caps.
Mafia has no friends, just enemies and slaves.