"This freedom is widely acknowledged—except by the case’s critics—to be at the very core of the First Amendment. If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects freedom to engage in political speech. And when speech is protected by the First Amendment, so is spending money to speak."
While I believe the first two sentences of this argument are be true, I see no logical reason to infer the final sentence, which I think is false. This being the case, I find entire line of reasoning invalid.
I'm not sure who you are replying to. You seem to be addressing statements that you think somebody made... but I don't see any of them in my post.
Of course money can be exchanged for greater access to an audience. Money can be exchanged to a lot of things. But that doesn't make it any of those things. Money is rarely regulated in the same manner as the things it can be exchanged for.
When the majority of voices do not have some means of access to be heard, there is no such thing as free speech. (In fact, doesn't equating speech with money make "free speech" an oxymoron?) And that is the direction that speech=money heads us toward.
...because governments never, ever abuse their position when given leeway to curtail personal freedoms?
Something, I am sure, corporate interests would never stoop to. In any case, in a properly functioning democracy, there are means for preventing this. In our current plutocracy, not so much.
And, for the record...
democratic: pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't. Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions. Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
It's less complicated than that. If you are a Verizon or Comcast customer, you are paying for internet access, and you aren't getting it. Why hasn't there been a class action suit?
I actually got an email reply to my complaint about this site design in which the editors seemed sympathetic to my concerns, but apparently not in control of the look and layout.
My problem with this design is mostly the color and font of the comment system. The font is very light weight. In addition, it is only slightly darker than the background and just doesn't contrast enough to be easily readable. I mean, it looks pretty, but it is a real eyestrain to read. Actually, looking at it again, I guess they modified it a little. Previously I had to magnify the page to 125% to read it. Now I can read it reasonably at 110%, though not comfortably.
A darker font might not be as pretty. But this isn't an art museum. This is text, and I am trying to read it.
Oh, the functionally of the Preview Comment button is just plain stupid... Is that check mark above my comment supposed to be submit? If so, it doesn't work for me at all. I had to switch back to classic view to submit this.
I have never run into an actual person who holds this belief.
If you're a Mother, then you can count on the state providing for you: welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and garnishing the wages of the father. Nobody expects that you make $20-$30 per hour, say, to earn assistance. If you're a male who was tricked into impregnating a Mother, well, you better hope you make at least $30/hour, because anything less than that is being a "dead-beat."
This stems from the social norm that expects men to earn more than women. Attacking the problem at its roots seems the best way to achieve equality for both sides.
Those are interesting examples. In each of those cases, the problem was solved by actually doing something (for example, greatly reducing CFC emissions). So, if by "snap people out of it" you mean they should take active steps to reverse or prevent a problem, your examples lend good support to that claim.
It does if there are only two dollars in the whole world, and more than two people. (I have never heard this saying and cannot fathom any sense from it)
Sure, fuck this form of feminism... but where the hell is it dominating? I mean, outside of right wing talk show fantasy world? I have never run into an actual person who holds this belief.
The real world still does have a way to go to get to actual gender equality. That includes figuring out how to get there or what it even means. And it will need to go both ways. I would wager the majority of feminists would agree with that.
Well, considering that a significant factor in the increased income inequality under our current President is a result of laws passed during his first two years
Well, if you accept as axioms things which have no support in fact or evidence, then sure, you can prove whatever you want. But why even bother with the pretense of proof if you take that route?
Of course, why didn't I see it. I'd be much better off living in a place with a high rate of poverty than a place with a low rate of poverty.
This assumes, of course, that I'm not one of the people actually living in poverty. Which, if I'm living in a place with a higher rate of poverty, I'm more likely to be.
If you are looking for empirical evidence, maybe instead of looking at the wish lists of Presidents, you might want to look at what was actually implemented by the congress at the same time.
Or look at it the other way around. Overlay the blue state/red state voting patterns. Now tell me which party's economic policies lead to more favorable outcomes.
That... doesn't help. What the hell is compute capacity?? How much compute the cloud instance can do?
Ok, dropping the pretense of being dense, I can see what the intended meaning probably is. But how much harder is it to say computing capacity, or computational capacity, or any other way of saying it that doesn't make the speaker sound like a douche.
You are missing the point. Even if what you are saying is true (which it largely is), this does not prevent the range of variance within genders from being greater than the range of variance between genders. You are talking about the meaty part of the bell curve, the parent is talking about the tails. But the fact that some people will naturally fall on the tails of the curve means that you can't use their gender to predict anything else about them (in this case, which way their brain is mostly wired).
You are right, though. Wishing for science to reinforce your prejudices has a huge failure rate.
Slashdot Mirror
the First Amendment?
"This freedom is widely acknowledged—except by the case’s critics—to be at the very core of the First Amendment. If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects freedom to engage in political speech. And when speech is protected by the First Amendment, so is spending money to speak."
While I believe the first two sentences of this argument are be true, I see no logical reason to infer the final sentence, which I think is false. This being the case, I find entire line of reasoning invalid.
I have no desire to learn more about any Golden Girls fanfic where Bea Arthur has retired from the Russian space program, either.
Yes, with the original intent being that everyone has an equal right to speak. When money=speech, only those with money will have the right to speak.
If you want to look into the wayback machine, there was a time when corporations weren't people too. Ah, well, one step forward and two steps back.
I'm not sure who you are replying to. You seem to be addressing statements that you think somebody made... but I don't see any of them in my post.
Of course money can be exchanged for greater access to an audience. Money can be exchanged to a lot of things. But that doesn't make it any of those things. Money is rarely regulated in the same manner as the things it can be exchanged for.
When the majority of voices do not have some means of access to be heard, there is no such thing as free speech. (In fact, doesn't equating speech with money make "free speech" an oxymoron?) And that is the direction that speech=money heads us toward.
...because governments never, ever abuse their position when given leeway to curtail personal freedoms?
Something, I am sure, corporate interests would never stoop to. In any case, in a properly functioning democracy, there are means for preventing this. In our current plutocracy, not so much.
And, for the record...
democratic: pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't. Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions. Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
And yet, due to the vagaries of the English language, you cannot ask something without it being a question. Therefore, anything asked is a question.
Neither are any of your suggestions Golden Age. There are no Marvel Comics from the Golden Age.
It's less complicated than that. If you are a Verizon or Comcast customer, you are paying for internet access, and you aren't getting it. Why hasn't there been a class action suit?
I actually got an email reply to my complaint about this site design in which the editors seemed sympathetic to my concerns, but apparently not in control of the look and layout.
My problem with this design is mostly the color and font of the comment system. The font is very light weight. In addition, it is only slightly darker than the background and just doesn't contrast enough to be easily readable. I mean, it looks pretty, but it is a real eyestrain to read. Actually, looking at it again, I guess they modified it a little. Previously I had to magnify the page to 125% to read it. Now I can read it reasonably at 110%, though not comfortably.
A darker font might not be as pretty. But this isn't an art museum. This is text, and I am trying to read it.
Oh, the functionally of the Preview Comment button is just plain stupid... Is that check mark above my comment supposed to be submit? If so, it doesn't work for me at all. I had to switch back to classic view to submit this.
Wasn't the work contracted out to a commercial company?
"'The computer has become personal not just in the sense of how it's used but in the sense of how it's owned."
What did the author intend to mean by this? That if IOs devices outnumber Windows, computer hardware is even less "owned" by the consumer?
So... those who need the least help should get the most help, and those who need the most help should get the least amount of help?
Should we apply the same rationale to other areas? Maybe health care?
I have never run into an actual person who holds this belief.
If you're a Mother, then you can count on the state providing for you: welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and garnishing the wages of the father. Nobody expects that you make $20-$30 per hour, say, to earn assistance. If you're a male who was tricked into impregnating a Mother, well, you better hope you make at least $30/hour, because anything less than that is being a "dead-beat."
This stems from the social norm that expects men to earn more than women. Attacking the problem at its roots seems the best way to achieve equality for both sides.
Those are interesting examples. In each of those cases, the problem was solved by actually doing something (for example, greatly reducing CFC emissions). So, if by "snap people out of it" you mean they should take active steps to reverse or prevent a problem, your examples lend good support to that claim.
Your facts don't suggest anything because they are in fact false. http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
It does if there are only two dollars in the whole world, and more than two people.
(I have never heard this saying and cannot fathom any sense from it)
Sure, fuck this form of feminism... but where the hell is it dominating? I mean, outside of right wing talk show fantasy world? I have never run into an actual person who holds this belief.
The real world still does have a way to go to get to actual gender equality. That includes figuring out how to get there or what it even means. And it will need to go both ways. I would wager the majority of feminists would agree with that.
Well, considering that a significant factor in the increased income inequality under our current President is a result of laws passed during his first two years
Well, if you accept as axioms things which have no support in fact or evidence, then sure, you can prove whatever you want. But why even bother with the pretense of proof if you take that route?
Or, for a starting point, try here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-of-income-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
Of course, why didn't I see it. I'd be much better off living in a place with a high rate of poverty than a place with a low rate of poverty.
This assumes, of course, that I'm not one of the people actually living in poverty. Which, if I'm living in a place with a higher rate of poverty, I'm more likely to be.
This is the most mind opening piece of logic I've ever heard. It's like learning that all men are Socrates all over again!
If you are looking for empirical evidence, maybe instead of looking at the wish lists of Presidents, you might want to look at what was actually implemented by the congress at the same time.
Or look at it the other way around. Overlay the blue state/red state voting patterns. Now tell me which party's economic policies lead to more favorable outcomes.
That... doesn't help. What the hell is compute capacity?? How much compute the cloud instance can do?
Ok, dropping the pretense of being dense, I can see what the intended meaning probably is. But how much harder is it to say computing capacity, or computational capacity, or any other way of saying it that doesn't make the speaker sound like a douche.
If it can't be done without violating people's rights, then don't do it. It's really that simple.
You are missing the point. Even if what you are saying is true (which it largely is), this does not prevent the range of variance within genders from being greater than the range of variance between genders. You are talking about the meaty part of the bell curve, the parent is talking about the tails. But the fact that some people will naturally fall on the tails of the curve means that you can't use their gender to predict anything else about them (in this case, which way their brain is mostly wired).
You are right, though. Wishing for science to reinforce your prejudices has a huge failure rate.