The sort of person who is capable of using the phrase "liberal fascism" unironically probably believes that the definition of "equality" is "everyone must be exactly the same".
In fact, it's the consumer-capitalist right wingers who think the masses should be homogenous. Obviously, the geniuses at the top will be individuals, because they're supermen.
If I were stuck in your dystopia, I'd look into earning a living outside those conspiring employers (I hear it is possible to open one's own business), or I'd grit my teeth and accept the best offer I can get, or I'd work my heart out, and get beyond those dystopian averages.
Ah yes, the ever-popular-on-slashdot "if you're clever and determined enough you can make anything of your life" argument. Because obviously everyone who isn't a billionaire is just a slacker.
I'd call you a twat, but that would be offensive to women everywhere.
Even after taking into account various things like education and occupation
I wonder if the study takes into account pregnancy? Taking a few months off does affect your salary. As it stands, 91 cents on the dollar isn't much, if anything, of a discrepancy. I don't see the need for further effort here.
Since at the moment only women can have babies, and we don't want the human species to die out in a generation, we need to stop penalising them for having this unique role.
What right wing fuckwits like you don't realise about discriminating against women, or other people with minority power is that you are wasting a lot of good people's talents. If a mediocre white male can easily earn more than an exceptional black woman, you are just encouraging the average at the expense of the good. Amusingly, you're anti-elitist (not that elites don't need to be managed and controlled as well).
Or you may simply recognize that men and women are biologically different both in the brain and in the rest of the body, and consider attempts to force people to believe otherwise can only succeed through an increasingly totalitarian supression of what our sense and our rational thinking tell us.
The differences between men and women are almost entirely irrelevant, unless you somehow think that society should be run at the level of a zoo, with males fighting and fucking, and females breeding and childrearing.
There is certainly nothing to justify paying men more than women for identical or equivalent jobs. Saying "well, that's just the way it is" is as stupid as saying 300 years ago "well, slavery is just the way it is" or 200 years ago "well, children working up chimneys is just the way it is" or 100 years ago "well, women not being able to vote is just the way it is".
There are animal elements to human nature, but they are far less important than the civilised, properly human ones. Otherwise, we'd all still be living in caves and hunting woolly fucking mammoths.
IOW, affirmative action at the "decision-making" level, accomplished by thorough social engineering, by e.g. deliberate suppression of traditional ideas.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
You, like all right wingers, start from the position that "traditional ideas" are correct. But that is a circular argument, as obviously then any change can only be a bad thing by definition.
Whereas, for many of us, the over-turning of earlier traditional ideas (such as that slavery is acceptable, children should be forced to work 18 hours a day, women should simply look after their husbands and children, and homosexuality is a sin) has quite definitely been a good thing.
You forgot to mention that, according to the Daily Mail, the EU want to make it compulsory for all businesses to employ only working class disabled black communist lesbians, and that conservative upper middle class straight white men will actually be forced to kill themselves by disembowelling.
Yes, lets simply ignore that men and women are biologically different in many many ways and try to force them to be equal, regardless of any objection they may have.
That counter argument is the perennial conservative objection to greater equality:
"Of course we shouldn't let black people vote, they're different from us and wouldn't want to spend time away from eating watermelons anyway."
meanwhile French business owners still can't work more than a certain amount of hours at their own business.
Although I doubt this is true (who's going to count and who's going to stop them?) it sounds like a remarkably good idea to me. There are far too many people in the world who are obsessed with work and money.
Many European governments are deep into repressive practices already. From suppression of Nazi paraphernalia
Personally, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if German people aren't allowed to display Nazi paraphernalia. It's a matter of taste or decency trumping absolute freedom in this particular case.
It's not a Europe wide ban, if you really want to dress up like a Nazi and go around killing Jews, gypsies and people with brown skin there are plenty of places in Eastern Europe that will welcome you with open arms.
a study was conducted which showed a correlation between lack of high speed internet access and number of cases of rape
Blimey, so is a slashdotter abandoning our favourite meme that correlation!=causation, just because it suits him?
Here's a couple of problems:
1. Why should it make any difference to how rapey you are whether you have high speed or normal internet access to porn? A wank's a wank if you think that's all that stopping rapists. People didn't suddenly start masturbating in the early 2000s when broadband became widely available (nor in the 1980s when slow internet access was available to a few).
2. Rapists are not just slightly sexually frustrated normal individuals. A rapist with a bunch of jizz mags is just a rapist who can find even more reasons to hate women
3. It's just possible that areas with high speed internet access have better off, more secure families and fewer desperate, sad individuals on the fringes of society.
The world would actually be a far worse place. Do you understand the amount of rape and child molestation that took place in the days before easily accessible porn? Before the early 20th century, rape was a constant. The majority of women experienced it at least once in their lives, many as adolescents. That is the consequences of a chaste society, a hell hole where people are hurt and no one talks about it.
If the only thing stopping someone raping is access to porn, they're going to rape anyway. The idea that rape is purely a physical sexual release went out of fashion about a hundred years ago.
And making it harder to get? Seriously? Security through obscurity. That will work well. Especially to kids.
Yes, it will in fact work quite well. If an average ten year old can't find something by searching on Google, they're probably not going to find it.
We all know that slashdotters were writing their own secure operating systems at the age of 5, and so nothing can stop them getting what they want out of any other computer system, but that smply doesn't apply to most kids.
Because unreasonable restrictions of freedom of speech are a bad thing. What about if certain political material were made difficult to access? Is that ok too?
The key is "unreasonable". Most people don't think it's unreasonable that you aren't allowed porn in TV programs and magazines you can buy in a supermarket. It's partly because there's no need for children to be subjected to porn, but also because a lot of adults don't to be subjected to porn unless they go and find it.
That doesn't mean they're sexually repressed, it's essentially a matter of manners.
Well done, you've just proved his point that porn needs to be restricted in some way. If the logical conclusion of absolute free speech is having strange adults fucking in front of children at a kindergarten, then your premise is flawed.
Whatever the practical difficulties may be, I see nothing wrong in restricting minors from viewing porn. No, it's not the end of the world if they see some porn, it's the blanket 24/7 potentiality of being immersed in bizarre porn that is worrying when applied to children.
I know this will horrify the precocious 14 year olds here, but the fact is that we have an age of consent and an age of majority for a reason.
Johny Haliday and 1664 beer are much better than anything the UK has been able to produce.
Now you are just being a silly person. Johny Haliday is not exactly the Beatles and 1664 is just another moderately good lager. Go away before I taunt you.
Well, that hardly answers what business the state, or anybody else has in regulating communication protocols, aside from protecting against interference.
The "state" is just the expression of the will of the people. They want communications regulated to avoid things like big multinationals swamping the airwaves according to how they see fit, rather than for the good of the majority.
Technological artifacts like "communication protocols" are not sentient creatures with individual rights, they are tools to be used as the people see fit.
People who make lots of money are not the planet's most successful life forms, otherwise George W Bush and Donald Trump would be among the highlights of human civilization.
Exactly. It's like all the morons who see a shiny trailer for the latest Hollywood blockbuster and rush out to see it the day it's released before reading any reviews. Gosh, what a surprise, the trailer makes it look ten times better than it really is.
I'm pretty sure we have a right to complain even if we didn't buy it.
You can complain about anything you like. It's whether anyone notices that's important. If you genuinely didn't buy X because of Y, then yes you should tell the company involved, and hope that enough other people do likewise so that in future Y will change.
Unfortunately, as long as the company still sells a huge amount of X, they won't really care.
It is self evident that the problems with servers or whatever don't affect the vast majority of people, or else you would have had the games returned in droves.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, it's the consumer-capitalist right wingers who think the masses should be homogenous. Obviously, the geniuses at the top will be individuals, because they're supermen.
People "have" things because they made or earned it.
No, people have things because society is organised so that they can make or earn it.
Otherwise, we'd all be living off carrion and dying of flu at the age of thirty.
If I were stuck in your dystopia, I'd look into earning a living outside those conspiring employers (I hear it is possible to open one's own business), or I'd grit my teeth and accept the best offer I can get, or I'd work my heart out, and get beyond those dystopian averages.
Ah yes, the ever-popular-on-slashdot "if you're clever and determined enough you can make anything of your life" argument. Because obviously everyone who isn't a billionaire is just a slacker.
I'd call you a twat, but that would be offensive to women everywhere.
Even after taking into account various things like education and occupation
I wonder if the study takes into account pregnancy? Taking a few months off does affect your salary. As it stands, 91 cents on the dollar isn't much, if anything, of a discrepancy. I don't see the need for further effort here.
Since at the moment only women can have babies, and we don't want the human species to die out in a generation, we need to stop penalising them for having this unique role.
What right wing fuckwits like you don't realise about discriminating against women, or other people with minority power is that you are wasting a lot of good people's talents. If a mediocre white male can easily earn more than an exceptional black woman, you are just encouraging the average at the expense of the good. Amusingly, you're anti-elitist (not that elites don't need to be managed and controlled as well).
Or you may simply recognize that men and women are biologically different both in the brain and in the rest of the body, and consider attempts to force people to believe otherwise can only succeed through an increasingly totalitarian supression of what our sense and our rational thinking tell us.
The differences between men and women are almost entirely irrelevant, unless you somehow think that society should be run at the level of a zoo, with males fighting and fucking, and females breeding and childrearing.
There is certainly nothing to justify paying men more than women for identical or equivalent jobs. Saying "well, that's just the way it is" is as stupid as saying 300 years ago "well, slavery is just the way it is" or 200 years ago "well, children working up chimneys is just the way it is" or 100 years ago "well, women not being able to vote is just the way it is".
There are animal elements to human nature, but they are far less important than the civilised, properly human ones. Otherwise, we'd all still be living in caves and hunting woolly fucking mammoths.
IOW, affirmative action at the "decision-making" level, accomplished by thorough social engineering, by e.g. deliberate suppression of traditional ideas.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
You, like all right wingers, start from the position that "traditional ideas" are correct. But that is a circular argument, as obviously then any change can only be a bad thing by definition.
Whereas, for many of us, the over-turning of earlier traditional ideas (such as that slavery is acceptable, children should be forced to work 18 hours a day, women should simply look after their husbands and children, and homosexuality is a sin) has quite definitely been a good thing.
I am all for giving people equal rights regardless of any difference they may have among themselves, but that has already been achieved
No, it hasn't.
You forgot to mention that, according to the Daily Mail, the EU want to make it compulsory for all businesses to employ only working class disabled black communist lesbians, and that conservative upper middle class straight white men will actually be forced to kill themselves by disembowelling.
Yes, lets simply ignore that men and women are biologically different in many many ways and try to force them to be equal, regardless of any objection they may have.
That counter argument is the perennial conservative objection to greater equality:
"Of course we shouldn't let black people vote, they're different from us and wouldn't want to spend time away from eating watermelons anyway."
Just fuck off.
Why don't you go fuck yourself? Be sure to post a link to the video here.
meanwhile French business owners still can't work more than a certain amount of hours at their own business.
Although I doubt this is true (who's going to count and who's going to stop them?) it sounds like a remarkably good idea to me. There are far too many people in the world who are obsessed with work and money.
Many European governments are deep into repressive practices already. From suppression of Nazi paraphernalia
Personally, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if German people aren't allowed to display Nazi paraphernalia. It's a matter of taste or decency trumping absolute freedom in this particular case.
It's not a Europe wide ban, if you really want to dress up like a Nazi and go around killing Jews, gypsies and people with brown skin there are plenty of places in Eastern Europe that will welcome you with open arms.
a study was conducted which showed a correlation between lack of high speed internet access and number of cases of rape
Blimey, so is a slashdotter abandoning our favourite meme that correlation!=causation, just because it suits him?
Here's a couple of problems:
1. Why should it make any difference to how rapey you are whether you have high speed or normal internet access to porn? A wank's a wank if you think that's all that stopping rapists. People didn't suddenly start masturbating in the early 2000s when broadband became widely available (nor in the 1980s when slow internet access was available to a few).
2. Rapists are not just slightly sexually frustrated normal individuals. A rapist with a bunch of jizz mags is just a rapist who can find even more reasons to hate women
3. It's just possible that areas with high speed internet access have better off, more secure families and fewer desperate, sad individuals on the fringes of society.
I never seen porn unless i go looking for it.
The world would actually be a far worse place. Do you understand the amount of rape and child molestation that took place in the days before easily accessible porn? Before the early 20th century, rape was a constant. The majority of women experienced it at least once in their lives, many as adolescents. That is the consequences of a chaste society, a hell hole where people are hurt and no one talks about it.
If the only thing stopping someone raping is access to porn, they're going to rape anyway. The idea that rape is purely a physical sexual release went out of fashion about a hundred years ago.
And making it harder to get? Seriously? Security through obscurity. That will work well. Especially to kids.
Yes, it will in fact work quite well. If an average ten year old can't find something by searching on Google, they're probably not going to find it.
We all know that slashdotters were writing their own secure operating systems at the age of 5, and so nothing can stop them getting what they want out of any other computer system, but that smply doesn't apply to most kids.
Because unreasonable restrictions of freedom of speech are a bad thing. What about if certain political material were made difficult to access? Is that ok too?
The key is "unreasonable". Most people don't think it's unreasonable that you aren't allowed porn in TV programs and magazines you can buy in a supermarket. It's partly because there's no need for children to be subjected to porn, but also because a lot of adults don't to be subjected to porn unless they go and find it.
That doesn't mean they're sexually repressed, it's essentially a matter of manners.
Whatever the practical difficulties may be, I see nothing wrong in restricting minors from viewing porn. No, it's not the end of the world if they see some porn, it's the blanket 24/7 potentiality of being immersed in bizarre porn that is worrying when applied to children.
I know this will horrify the precocious 14 year olds here, but the fact is that we have an age of consent and an age of majority for a reason.
Johny Haliday and 1664 beer are much better than anything the UK has been able to produce.
Now you are just being a silly person. Johny Haliday is not exactly the Beatles and 1664 is just another moderately good lager. Go away before I taunt you.
Well, that hardly answers what business the state, or anybody else has in regulating communication protocols, aside from protecting against interference.
The "state" is just the expression of the will of the people. They want communications regulated to avoid things like big multinationals swamping the airwaves according to how they see fit, rather than for the good of the majority.
Technological artifacts like "communication protocols" are not sentient creatures with individual rights, they are tools to be used as the people see fit.
People who make lots of money are not the planet's most successful life forms, otherwise George W Bush and Donald Trump would be among the highlights of human civilization.
It only takes a bit of patience:
Exactly. It's like all the morons who see a shiny trailer for the latest Hollywood blockbuster and rush out to see it the day it's released before reading any reviews. Gosh, what a surprise, the trailer makes it look ten times better than it really is.
It didn't when Sony removed a major feature from existing PS3s in consumer hands. They were taken to court and the case was dismissed.
It was only a major feature for a handful of geeks. It made no difference whatsoever to most consumers - and the PS3 is a consumer device.
I'm pretty sure we have a right to complain even if we didn't buy it.
You can complain about anything you like. It's whether anyone notices that's important. If you genuinely didn't buy X because of Y, then yes you should tell the company involved, and hope that enough other people do likewise so that in future Y will change.
Unfortunately, as long as the company still sells a huge amount of X, they won't really care.
It is self evident that the problems with servers or whatever don't affect the vast majority of people, or else you would have had the games returned in droves.