A website that disables comments because they find them objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient is exactly what censorship is.
No, it's exactly what censorship is not. The internet is not some monolithic government publishing house.
Any privately owned/run website is perfectly entitled to refuse to publish things it doesn't want to. Do you really think you have a right to go to the Vatican website and flood it with "the Pope's the Anti-Christ" rants? Or to post feel-good inter-racial porn on Stormfront?
I think the slashdot way of down-modding crap but leaving it for people to find if they want is a good solution, but that's up to the site owners.
It IS feminist. They had feminists review the script and make changes. They VOLUNTARILY did this, of their own free will. Scary, isn't it? Even McCarthy didn't do things like this.
I think you need to see your doctor and get a new prescription, as the current pills obviously aren't strong enough.
I would write a story about a future taking place decades after science got hijacked and turned into a religion by liberals, who were determined to turn science into a religious/social instrument to promote their own anti-capitalist social agenda. The story would be set in a prison for the people who questioned this social agenda, and who were arrested and charged with social crimes. The protagonist is serving time for science denial and improper use of scientific data without government approval. He is serving his time alongside other social criminals charged with racism, misogyny, hate-thinking, harassment of protected classes, and carnivorism.
I don't quite see where you'd get any sympathy for your protagonist in this utopia?
A small number of automation engineers making tons of money? check.
Since I actually work with a lot of this stuff I'm curious where you think automation engineers are making all this bank off of automation. Seriously, give me examples. The automation engineers I know do ok but they are hardly in danger doing a Scrooge McDuck dive into a pile of gold.
You are being too literal. For the1950's "automation engineers" read 2016's "software developer".
No, it's a pretty good measure of unhappiness in a society. The countries with the highest over all happiness ratings tend to be places like the Scandinavian countries where the disparity is relatively low.
All that has meaning is the average health and wealth out there, and it is skyrocketting as China and India come online into modernity.
Even if true, that is meaningless to someone in the developed world. Why should I care if the average goes up elsewhere but my income slowly goes down in real terms?
Which is why I wrote, if you want rights... "you'll have to put up with lawyers I'm afraid."
and that is the point that I disagree with... if you really have rights, you shouldn't have to pay unregulated agents to get those rights.
Montesquieu, a lawyer himself, believed that under a just government no man should live in fear of another - which was progressive thinking for its time, and we've made great progress in this direction. I think, after more than two centuries of universal education, that we may be ready for every man to know their (true) rights and how to obtain them, on equal footing, without having to buy the most talented and expensive agents to enjoy their rights through arcane tricks and manipulations.
Similarly, everyone should be their own car mechanic, doctor, architect, IT expert, carpenter, accountant, plasterer, electrician, chef, tailor and plumber.
In reality, no one can be equally good at every single thing, whatever the rugged individualist fantasies of the wild west types here.
It's also smart that lawyers "unionized" in the form of the Bar Association so they have the power to fight automation and outsourcing unlike "the every man for himself" state of IS/IT.
I find it amusing that many arguments for and against unions are the exact same argument.
Anti-union: Unions are horrible because they create artificial barriers that hold back efficiency improvements when those improvements hurt existing employees.
Pro-Union: Unions are great because they create artificial barriers that hold back efficiency improvements when those improvements hurt existing employees.
It depends on whether you're an employee in that particular area facing the potential loss of your livelihood.
The issue on slashdot is that most programmers are currently in a boom period and can't conceive of things changing, and therefore think unions are pointless.
... the same way the webMD spelled the end of doctors.
Did anyone ever predict that? Say in the way they predicted that spreadsheets would spell the end to accountants?
Spreadsheets and computerised accounts systems didn't spell the end for accountants. They did, however, spell the end for many bookkeepers and ledger clerks, in the same way that word processors spelled the end for many copy typists.
Missionaries bringing Christianity to the 'heathens' in Darkest Africa thought they were GENUINELY doing good - saving these people's souls, bringing them education, clothes, technology. The next time you start getting all righteous about doing something for someone else's best interest, understand that morally you are PRECISELY in the same position as that Missionary.
However much I dislike Christianity, it wasn't really the missionaries that were the problem: it was the slave traders and later the big businesses exploiting them.
What I worry about is SJW-sponsored censorship like we're seeing on Twitter and Facebook these days. Support Trump? Tell off-color jokes from time to time? Hope you're prepared to deal with the SJWs getting you banned from Twitter and Facebook. If you're lucky, they'll stop there. More likely, they'll doxx you and harass your boss until you get fired.
Paranoia aside, you'd have to say something pretty extreme to get sacked for it. But it depends on your job. If you're a policeman, priest or politician you may be held to different standards of what is acceptable. [Insert your own joke here].
Libel, Slander and Defamation sure, those should be banned, but hate speech? Define it!
Hate Speech is one of those things where anything can be considered hate speech to someone. Offensive speech is exactly the speech that should be protected, as inoffensive speech doesn't need free speech protections.
Obviously, you have to have a clear legal definition of what hate speech is.. Just like you have to have a clear legal definitions of what libel or incitement to murder are.
There is a clear difference between someone being generally offensive and someone calling for volunteers to join them in burning down a house with Group X in.
It seems to me that the main source of friction between SJW and everyone else is that the SJWs seem to believe that speech they don't agree with is an attack on them.
And anti-SJWs seem to believe that anyone criticising someone's speech means they want to ban it completely.
Slashdot Mirror
1984 and Idiocricy come to mind immediately.
Good work on spelling "Idiocracy" wrong.
A website that disables comments because they find them objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient is exactly what censorship is.
No, it's exactly what censorship is not. The internet is not some monolithic government publishing house.
Any privately owned/run website is perfectly entitled to refuse to publish things it doesn't want to. Do you really think you have a right to go to the Vatican website and flood it with "the Pope's the Anti-Christ" rants? Or to post feel-good inter-racial porn on Stormfront?
I think the slashdot way of down-modding crap but leaving it for people to find if they want is a good solution, but that's up to the site owners.
It's obvious that Bay grafted Megan Fox's character into the story to be titillating to male audiences
In what bizarre alternative world is this an example of "feminists" taking over the movies?
It IS feminist. They had feminists review the script and make changes. They VOLUNTARILY did this, of their own free will. Scary, isn't it? Even McCarthy didn't do things like this.
I think you need to see your doctor and get a new prescription, as the current pills obviously aren't strong enough.
I would write a story about a future taking place decades after science got hijacked and turned into a religion by liberals, who were determined to turn science into a religious/social instrument to promote their own anti-capitalist social agenda. The story would be set in a prison for the people who questioned this social agenda, and who were arrested and charged with social crimes. The protagonist is serving time for science denial and improper use of scientific data without government approval. He is serving his time alongside other social criminals charged with racism, misogyny, hate-thinking, harassment of protected classes, and carnivorism.
I don't quite see where you'd get any sympathy for your protagonist in this utopia?
A small number of automation engineers making tons of money? check.
Since I actually work with a lot of this stuff I'm curious where you think automation engineers are making all this bank off of automation. Seriously, give me examples. The automation engineers I know do ok but they are hardly in danger doing a Scrooge McDuck dive into a pile of gold.
You are being too literal. For the1950's "automation engineers" read 2016's "software developer".
"Income disparity" is an irrelevat measure.
No, it's a pretty good measure of unhappiness in a society. The countries with the highest over all happiness ratings tend to be places like the Scandinavian countries where the disparity is relatively low.
All that has meaning is the average health and wealth out there, and it is skyrocketting as China and India come online into modernity.
Even if true, that is meaningless to someone in the developed world. Why should I care if the average goes up elsewhere but my income slowly goes down in real terms?
You mean http://goatse.cx.
Ordinarily I have no use for stupid fucking hashtags, but.... #kidstoday
The irony was irresistible. You couldn't even make it a live link...
I think it was supposed to be a joke.
Political systems nearly always mirror the military realities of the day.
Or vice versa.
But the line was spoken by a criminal, in the context of overthrowing the government.
To many people on slashdot, as long as it's anti-government it's good.
Which is why I wrote, if you want rights ... "you'll have to put up with lawyers I'm afraid."
and that is the point that I disagree with... if you really have rights, you shouldn't have to pay unregulated agents to get those rights.
Montesquieu, a lawyer himself, believed that under a just government no man should live in fear of another - which was progressive thinking for its time, and we've made great progress in this direction. I think, after more than two centuries of universal education, that we may be ready for every man to know their (true) rights and how to obtain them, on equal footing, without having to buy the most talented and expensive agents to enjoy their rights through arcane tricks and manipulations.
Similarly, everyone should be their own car mechanic, doctor, architect, IT expert, carpenter, accountant, plasterer, electrician, chef, tailor and plumber.
In reality, no one can be equally good at every single thing, whatever the rugged individualist fantasies of the wild west types here.
Can we do it with guns? Don't know about the US, but it has worked in other countries.
Yes, I too would rather live in a country ruled by guns than law. Oh wait, no I wouldn't, because I'm not a fucking fascist psychopath.
It's also smart that lawyers "unionized" in the form of the Bar Association so they have the power to fight automation and outsourcing unlike "the every man for himself" state of IS/IT.
I find it amusing that many arguments for and against unions are the exact same argument.
Anti-union: Unions are horrible because they create artificial barriers that hold back efficiency improvements when those improvements hurt existing employees. Pro-Union: Unions are great because they create artificial barriers that hold back efficiency improvements when those improvements hurt existing employees.
It depends on whether you're an employee in that particular area facing the potential loss of your livelihood.
The issue on slashdot is that most programmers are currently in a boom period and can't conceive of things changing, and therefore think unions are pointless.
Did anyone ever predict that? Say in the way they predicted that spreadsheets would spell the end to accountants?
Spreadsheets and computerised accounts systems didn't spell the end for accountants. They did, however, spell the end for many bookkeepers and ledger clerks, in the same way that word processors spelled the end for many copy typists.
Sufficiently advanced AI will be able to perform *all* work that humans now perform, and do a better job of it than humans possibly could.
Do not fear...our robots will be the perfect slave race. Superior to us in every way but driven by the singular desire to serve our wishes.
So long as we don't destroy ourselves, the future will be all kinds of awesome.
If we had true AI it would be ethically impossible to treat them as slaves.
Actually, jury duty itself does.
Face it, the 12 goons sitting in the jury box are just the first 12 they could find that didn't have the smarts to weasel out of it.
Indeed, it is the epitome of "smarts" to be a selfish sociopath with no conception of public duty or interest in wider society.
Opening the refrigerator to look at the contents is not energy efficient, When you open the door all the cold air falls out.
You can't argue with science like that.
I too notice the same thing among my fat cousins
Says the toned Adonis on slashdot.
Or just don't try to build an interactive ebook in the first place.
That is truly great advice for someone wanting to build an interactive ebook.
There is an old History professor's joke about the Anarchist Brigades during the Spanish Civil War.
"They were great fighters, but suffered from a lack of organization."
That's only funny if you know nothing about anarchism.
Missionaries bringing Christianity to the 'heathens' in Darkest Africa thought they were GENUINELY doing good - saving these people's souls, bringing them education, clothes, technology. The next time you start getting all righteous about doing something for someone else's best interest, understand that morally you are PRECISELY in the same position as that Missionary.
However much I dislike Christianity, it wasn't really the missionaries that were the problem: it was the slave traders and later the big businesses exploiting them.
What I worry about is SJW-sponsored censorship like we're seeing on Twitter and Facebook these days. Support Trump? Tell off-color jokes from time to time? Hope you're prepared to deal with the SJWs getting you banned from Twitter and Facebook. If you're lucky, they'll stop there. More likely, they'll doxx you and harass your boss until you get fired.
Paranoia aside, you'd have to say something pretty extreme to get sacked for it. But it depends on your job. If you're a policeman, priest or politician you may be held to different standards of what is acceptable. [Insert your own joke here].
Libel, Slander and Defamation sure, those should be banned, but hate speech? Define it!
Hate Speech is one of those things where anything can be considered hate speech to someone. Offensive speech is exactly the speech that should be protected, as inoffensive speech doesn't need free speech protections.
Obviously, you have to have a clear legal definition of what hate speech is.. Just like you have to have a clear legal definitions of what libel or incitement to murder are.
There is a clear difference between someone being generally offensive and someone calling for volunteers to join them in burning down a house with Group X in.
you're supposed to be happy happy happy, all the time, or you're being 'rude'
You appear to be using a different internet than me.
It seems to me that the main source of friction between SJW and everyone else is that the SJWs seem to believe that speech they don't agree with is an attack on them.
And anti-SJWs seem to believe that anyone criticising someone's speech means they want to ban it completely.