It's beautifully ironic that free speech is fine as long as you say what people want to hear. I don't like trump but he has every right to spew what he wants. You can't have a claim to free speech whilst simultaneously stifling someone else's.
Trump though is a good example of when speech turns potentially into action. If he becomes President, then he may actually ban Muslims from entering the US (or whatever).
If you oppose this, then you wouldn't want to wait until he actually passes the law to start protesting about it.
Christianity. I am a follower of the teachings of the Christ. That he experienced a 'true death' or a 'near death' experience as we see them today isn't important for me. Loving humankind as we would like to be loved seems like a good idea to me.
The golden rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") has variations going back to the Ancient Egyptians, so belief in it doesn't really make you a Christian.
(Note to detractors about using Christianity as an example, find a single thing that is common among Christians without counter example - I can think of only one: people are/were involved).
all divisions of Christianity believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
No, there are Christians who don't even believe in God, never mind that Jesus was his Son in any literal sense.
FYI, that often exactly describes the SJW viewpoint. They blame white males for every perceived problem minorities and women face.
I would not describe you as a SJW, SJWs are the types of people who would repeal the first amendment to stop people who don't agree with them from being able to speak
This exemplifies why "SJW" is such a uselessly vague term. It smears someone as being in favour of brutal and blanket censorship and opposed to any debate even though there are probably very few anti-racists/sexists who would go that far.
It's analogous to how "Muslims" are all Daesh supporters in some people's eyes.
I managed to be accused of being an SJW and a right-winger in different replies to the same comment that I'd made
It's like they say about porn: if you like stronger stuff than me you're a pervert, and if you like weaker stuff you're a prude.
There are always people who are more left wing or right wing than yourself. Lenin was not as left wing as Pol Pot. Hitler was kind to animals and therefore a big softie to some really hard-nosed Nazis.
This was particularly my experience in trying to get my head around gamergate in terms with trying to engage with any of it...
"Well maybe in some cases there could be natural flaws and biases in journ.." "SEXIST GAMERGATE FOURCHAN SCUM!"
"Well you know guys, to be fair maybe women could sometimes be better repre.." "SJW TUMBLRISTA FAGGOT!"
It was just impossible.
The most impossible thing was to believe that so many people could get so worked up about the possibly dubious ethics of one or two games journalists.
Sadly, the subsequent outpouring of misogyny was only too believable.
SJW seems to have evolved to mean "person I disagree with", pretty much - it's a quick label to throw at someone to dismiss their argument. See also "right winger" and other such misused terms.
What it mainly does is provide a convenient shorthand way of identifying the speaker's own position.
If I see A call B a SJW, I know that (whatever B's views happen to be) A is a paranoid, ultra right wing twatwaffle who molests puppies and can only ejaculate while wearing his mother's panties. Probably.
words evolve, and SJW is a term defining those people in todays world
It only "defines" them in the eyes of the people who use the term.
And that definition really amounts to no more than: it's someone whose views I don't like and who is more left wing than me and therefore I don't like their views because anyone left wing is wrong.
It is as wide and useless a term as when revolutionary Maoists call anyone outside their particular claque "fascists" including Marxist-Leninists or Trotskyists.
Uh, that's what SJW means. There isn't any other kind. You don't get to just tell people what words mean, using the definition that benefits your side. (Unless you're English Socialism from "1984" and you long ago exterminated your opposition.) It's a descriptive term, not proscriptive. Sadly, denying free speech to others while taking full advantage of it yourself is a hallmark of the SJW movement. It's like how conservatives favor low taxes or liberals support unions.
"SJW" is just another right wing snarl word. It has no descriptive value whatsoever, other than "someone who I disagree with but don't want to explain why" or "someone I think is left wing and therefore wrong".
A "SJW" can be anyone from someone who doesn't laugh at a racist joke at work, to an animal rights activist fire bombing a fur shop. It's meaningless.
By using the term "SJW", you have outed yourself as someone who has had to deal with annoying, attention-seeking, dishonest, power-hungry, hypocritcal SJWs.
He's outed himself as a twat, more like. People who moan about "SJWs" usually do so after they've been called out for making blatantly misogynistic, racist or homophobic remarks.
You are free to be a misogynistic, racist homophobe just like you are free to believe in a flat earth or pixies hovering over your head.
If you think that putting out a scholarly annotated edition is "defacing" the original, you are revealing yourself as the worst sort of anti-intellectual thug.
It's more like an attempt to bury the book completely in the annotations so nobody wants to read it, including scholars. Which is probably the point of the exercise.
You have apparently never read an annotated scholarly work. The text is there unbroken and the annotations appear as footnotes or endnotes.
If having to ignore a few [1]s in a text puts you off, you should probably stick to reading comics.
Your amusingly perverse analysis overlooks the fact that it's the rich white men and cops who are the ones in power in the US. They're not some disempowered minority like the Jews or Roma in Nazi Germany.
I don't think anybody today - even the staunchest conservative or libertarian - looks back at that time, thinking "That's the way it should be".
You must be new here.
That is precisely what libertarians and conservatives believe. They look on the Nineteenth Century as a golden age, where government left big businesses and rich individuals almost completely alone. The grinding poverty of the vast majority doesn't bother them, as obviously they'd all be Rockefellers and not child chimney sweeps or prostitutes.
he was pushing for racially-based government policies
You can pump out as much right wing revisionism as you like, such as trying to equate public health care with Nazism, but it is absurd to claim that the left were the racists.
he did a paper napkin calculation of what Islam costs on productivity . . . folks standing around in security lines because of Islam, instead of doing something productive . . . a million billion dollars ..
The world's total GDP is only about seventy five thousand billion dollars.
they had people getting the happy reaction even if they almost won. Missing one number on the lottery ticket or one fruit on a slot machine actually makes them feel as good as if they had won
That is certainly counter-intuitive. Personally, I would feel a lot happier winning $10 million than not. I guess I'm also not a proper gambler then.
KDC is a guy who was using tech smart to disrupt a tired monopolistic industry, trying to drag it kicking and screaming into the 2st centurey, and is being punished for it, same way Uber is disrupting taxi services, and so on.
The similarity is that in both cases they skirt round the law to make money.
Not all of us consider making money the primary categorical imperative.
So it's like the "resisting arrest" charge when the person wasn't arrested for anything else. Conspiracy to commit a crime, when no other crime is charged shouldn't be a crime. One should have to be connected to a convicted crime for conspiracy to stick.
Utter bullshit. If (say) a group of terrorists plot to blow up a building, load up a van with Semtex and get caught on the way they are as guilty as if they'd gone ahead and exploded the bomb, and will be punished as such.
Same with armed robbers or kidnappers or any other crime.
Slashdot Mirror
It's beautifully ironic that free speech is fine as long as you say what people want to hear. I don't like trump but he has every right to spew what he wants. You can't have a claim to free speech whilst simultaneously stifling someone else's.
Trump though is a good example of when speech turns potentially into action. If he becomes President, then he may actually ban Muslims from entering the US (or whatever).
If you oppose this, then you wouldn't want to wait until he actually passes the law to start protesting about it.
Christianity. I am a follower of the teachings of the Christ. That he experienced a 'true death' or a 'near death' experience as we see them today isn't important for me. Loving humankind as we would like to be loved seems like a good idea to me.
The golden rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") has variations going back to the Ancient Egyptians, so belief in it doesn't really make you a Christian.
(Note to detractors about using Christianity as an example, find a single thing that is common among Christians without counter example - I can think of only one: people are/were involved).
all divisions of Christianity believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
No, there are Christians who don't even believe in God, never mind that Jesus was his Son in any literal sense.
FYI, that often exactly describes the SJW viewpoint. They blame white males for every perceived problem minorities and women face.
I would not describe you as a SJW, SJWs are the types of people who would repeal the first amendment to stop people who don't agree with them from being able to speak
This exemplifies why "SJW" is such a uselessly vague term. It smears someone as being in favour of brutal and blanket censorship and opposed to any debate even though there are probably very few anti-racists/sexists who would go that far.
It's analogous to how "Muslims" are all Daesh supporters in some people's eyes.
I managed to be accused of being an SJW and a right-winger in different replies to the same comment that I'd made
It's like they say about porn: if you like stronger stuff than me you're a pervert, and if you like weaker stuff you're a prude.
There are always people who are more left wing or right wing than yourself. Lenin was not as left wing as Pol Pot. Hitler was kind to animals and therefore a big softie to some really hard-nosed Nazis.
This was particularly my experience in trying to get my head around gamergate in terms with trying to engage with any of it...
"Well maybe in some cases there could be natural flaws and biases in journ.." "SEXIST GAMERGATE FOURCHAN SCUM!"
"Well you know guys, to be fair maybe women could sometimes be better repre.." "SJW TUMBLRISTA FAGGOT!"
It was just impossible.
The most impossible thing was to believe that so many people could get so worked up about the possibly dubious ethics of one or two games journalists.
Sadly, the subsequent outpouring of misogyny was only too believable.
SJW seems to have evolved to mean "person I disagree with", pretty much - it's a quick label to throw at someone to dismiss their argument. See also "right winger" and other such misused terms.
What it mainly does is provide a convenient shorthand way of identifying the speaker's own position.
If I see A call B a SJW, I know that (whatever B's views happen to be) A is a paranoid, ultra right wing twatwaffle who molests puppies and can only ejaculate while wearing his mother's panties. Probably.
words evolve, and SJW is a term defining those people in todays world
It only "defines" them in the eyes of the people who use the term.
And that definition really amounts to no more than: it's someone whose views I don't like and who is more left wing than me and therefore I don't like their views because anyone left wing is wrong.
It is as wide and useless a term as when revolutionary Maoists call anyone outside their particular claque "fascists" including Marxist-Leninists or Trotskyists.
Uh, that's what SJW means. There isn't any other kind. You don't get to just tell people what words mean, using the definition that benefits your side. (Unless you're English Socialism from "1984" and you long ago exterminated your opposition.) It's a descriptive term, not proscriptive. Sadly, denying free speech to others while taking full advantage of it yourself is a hallmark of the SJW movement. It's like how conservatives favor low taxes or liberals support unions.
"SJW" is just another right wing snarl word. It has no descriptive value whatsoever, other than "someone who I disagree with but don't want to explain why" or "someone I think is left wing and therefore wrong".
A "SJW" can be anyone from someone who doesn't laugh at a racist joke at work, to an animal rights activist fire bombing a fur shop. It's meaningless.
By using the term "SJW", you have outed yourself as someone who has had to deal with annoying, attention-seeking, dishonest, power-hungry, hypocritcal SJWs.
He's outed himself as a twat, more like. People who moan about "SJWs" usually do so after they've been called out for making blatantly misogynistic, racist or homophobic remarks.
You are free to be a misogynistic, racist homophobe just like you are free to believe in a flat earth or pixies hovering over your head.
It's just that people will know you're a twat.
however much of a struggle that may be
I see what you did there.
I always hated how Stowe would stop the narrative to directly talk down to the reader.
You are clearly not very familiar with Nineteenth Century fiction.
You and Hitler would have got along swimmingly.
Heh, Godwin's law doesn't apply in this thread.
"Their are laws which prevent profiting from autobiographies and such (aka profiting from your crime). "
Yes, for _convicted_ felons after the fact, not dead people who wrote something in their youth.
So you think Hitler was innocent because he killed himself before his trial and execution?
Pure legalistic claptrap. I hope you're proud of yourself.
It's more like an attempt to bury the book completely in the annotations so nobody wants to read it, including scholars. Which is probably the point of the exercise.
You have apparently never read an annotated scholarly work. The text is there unbroken and the annotations appear as footnotes or endnotes.
If having to ignore a few [1]s in a text puts you off, you should probably stick to reading comics.
Your amusingly perverse analysis overlooks the fact that it's the rich white men and cops who are the ones in power in the US. They're not some disempowered minority like the Jews or Roma in Nazi Germany.
I don't think anybody today - even the staunchest conservative or libertarian - looks back at that time, thinking "That's the way it should be".
You must be new here.
That is precisely what libertarians and conservatives believe. They look on the Nineteenth Century as a golden age, where government left big businesses and rich individuals almost completely alone. The grinding poverty of the vast majority doesn't bother them, as obviously they'd all be Rockefellers and not child chimney sweeps or prostitutes.
I can't find anything in that article to suggest the occupiers have Nazi sympathies. How did you come by this mysterious revelation?
Using violence to oppose democratic government is the hallmark of Nazism.
he was pushing for racially-based government policies
You can pump out as much right wing revisionism as you like, such as trying to equate public health care with Nazism, but it is absurd to claim that the left were the racists.
he did a paper napkin calculation of what Islam costs on productivity . . . folks standing around in security lines because of Islam, instead of doing something productive . . . a million billion dollars . .
The world's total GDP is only about seventy five thousand billion dollars.
I'm guessing your work colleague is an economist.
Is it any good? If not, who cares that it's "free"?
Wanted a new 20 meg drive. I said go to the Smithsonian. They might have one.
"And I still don't understand why sheeple say I have no people skills."
they had people getting the happy reaction even if they almost won. Missing one number on the lottery ticket or one fruit on a slot machine actually makes them feel as good as if they had won
That is certainly counter-intuitive. Personally, I would feel a lot happier winning $10 million than not. I guess I'm also not a proper gambler then.
KDC is a guy who was using tech smart to disrupt a tired monopolistic industry, trying to drag it kicking and screaming into the 2st centurey, and is being punished for it, same way Uber is disrupting taxi services, and so on.
The similarity is that in both cases they skirt round the law to make money.
Not all of us consider making money the primary categorical imperative.
So it's like the "resisting arrest" charge when the person wasn't arrested for anything else. Conspiracy to commit a crime, when no other crime is charged shouldn't be a crime. One should have to be connected to a convicted crime for conspiracy to stick.
Utter bullshit. If (say) a group of terrorists plot to blow up a building, load up a van with Semtex and get caught on the way they are as guilty as if they'd gone ahead and exploded the bomb, and will be punished as such.
Same with armed robbers or kidnappers or any other crime.