The problem with that line of thinking is that the incorrect lines were publicized. Certainly if your report is being used for public policy, you pay at least a little attention to what is being said about your report. We are not talking about a report on annual Pez distribution either. We are talking about a report that is literally predicting the end of the world as we know it. Certainly, you would notice, even in a 3000 page report, if your predictions were off by 300 years over a 330 year time span.
Again, we are talking about a report that is predicting the end of the world. You don't just write a report like that, and then forget about it. You pay attention to what impact it has on public policy. You listen to what people are saying about it. You call people out when they misrepresent it.
Your advice is bad. If people don't know the issue and don't have an opinion, they definitely should not vote. People who vote just because 'everyone should vote' are nothing but spoilers for third parties. They are tools to keep the status quo. Who do you think these people vote for? I can tell you. They vote for the names they hear the most that they have been told are 'legitimate' candidates. What this means is that between the Democrats and Republicans, the uninterested voter becomes a wash. For third parties, every uninterested voter that gets talked into placing their ballot, they have to get that much larger of the percentage of the interested voters.
If you have a race where 10% of the voters are Democrat, 5% are Republican, 20% are independent, and the other 65% are uninterested voters, who do you think will win? Most likely the Democrats with a possible upset by the Republicans if their candidate is particularly good with sound bites. This is why the Democrats and Republicans are so hip on getting uninterested voters out to the polls.
Particularly when he claimed that humans can live without outputting any CO2. I'm still waiting for him to give me an example. Honestly, I'd take his word for it if he could even go an hour without actively expelling CO2.
Seriously, "The plus sign inside might be suboptimal" is a perfect example of jumping through hoops to rationalize incredibly bad design. A plus sign ALWAYS means ADD. Every grade school child can tell you this. It is an international standard that has been in effect long before Apple was even thought of. Making a window smaller is the epitome of counter intuitive.
It also is not "Zoom to Fit", as pressing it once MIGHT make the contents fit, but pressing the "Zoom to Fit" again, has the reverse effect, and thus could not be called "Zoom To Fit" by any rational English speaker. Besides, even on applications that come with OSX, I have pressed the green button and found that it leaves scroll bars. It could more rightly be called the, "Uninformatively change to an shape that you will learn after pressing it". The behaviour is definitly application specific, and totally inconsistant for an OS widget.
Claiming that the most people don't associate a button's behavior with it's functionality is fanboyism at it's best. Someone points out a massive problem with the UI, and you dismiss it as something no one bothers to pay attention too. If no one paid attention to the symbol, then why put a symbol at all? Also, what harm would have been caused by putting a symbol that actually wasn't diametrically opposed to the function of the button? Of course, if anybody actually uses symbols when they look at a computer, then OSX has been designed in a confusing and unintuitive way.
Even in this bizarre universe you live in where people don't actually look at the symbols on their screen, what does the color green tell you about a button. Green means go. Using it to mean change windows shape or size is again counter intuitive.
For what it's worth, windows has two modes for the button in it's Maximize/Window button. One is full screen, the other is windowed. It always does the same behavior, and the icon changes to show exactly what mode it is in. An icon of a single window if it will fill the screen, and an icon of two windows if it will not, indicating that you can see more than one window. Go check it out for yourself. Your comment makes me think that a great many of the OSX has a good interface crowed, have no idea what the other offerings do, so just assume that the OSX failings apply to everyone else.
Red means stop. This existed LONG before OSX. Expecting users to magically know which applications are 'simple' applications that will close, and which are complex applications and will continue to run without a UI is, again, counter intuitive. Expecting users to identify the difference between an application and a windows is just bad design. From a user perspective, the UI IS the application. Your excuse also fail when one considers that pressing the still running application brings up a window. Also, your "Application-Level" UI control, has an entry to close the window. This is directly contrary to the Application/Window paradigm that you are claiming exists. In this so called "Application-Level" UI element, they call the action "Close". It doesn't say "Stop" the window. It says "Close" This is because the metaphore they are going for is in fact "Closing" a window. Thus, a red button would be totally counter intuitive, and would in fact confuse anyone who was raised in a place where red means "Stop".
Your example of load times is intuitively solved by caching. Not by leaving the application running after the user tells it to stop. Your examples of applications that run without a UI are examples of non-intuitiveness. The only one that has any merit MIGHT be Firefox with the downloading, but even then I don't agree. Word definitly has no business running without any documents. iTunes has no business running without a playlist. etc. Running without a UI is the business of a service not an application. Mixing the two is confusing to a user and counter intuitive.
Seriously. Consoles last for something like 5 years before the video gets updated. Sometimes they have better graphics than a $100 video card when they come out, but generally within a year, the sub $100 PC's graphics are as good or better than the console counterpart. So, given the level of graphics available on your PS3 or Xbox360, you could easily be running on a 2 year old $100 graphics card, and continue to get equivalent graphics for the next couple of years at least. One of the strawman arguments being used in the whole PC vs. console debate is the common act of comparing the cost of current cutting edge PC graphics with 3 year old console graphics.
It basically comes down to people believing that it is better to not have an option to upgrade their graphics than it is to have the option and choose not to do the upgrade.
Having recently started working with a Mac, I am actually really surprised at how far behind Windows and Linux OSX is in UI. It is inconsistent, and poorly designed compared to it's modern counterparts. I mean, you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.
While I cannot claim to have been a part of the water slide planning, I can say this. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the pool heating bill, as well as all of the maintenance is paid for by fund raisers. I also know that the schools put a lot of resources into raising funds for these kinds of projects. Basically it becomes a, spend money on this non-tracked item so that we can get it back in the tracked area. Pretty much money laundering. I also WAS involved when the local school district decided that stadium lighting was a good idea for all of the schools so that they could play sports well into the night. In that instance, they did embezzle public funds for the projects. Public funds were issued to replace the grass in the fields. The school decided to use that money run conduit and electric to all of the locations that they had already decided to install the stadium lighting. This way, when it came time to raise funds, most of the work would already have been paid for. The plan for paying for the stadium lights in residential neighborhoods, also had nothing in it to cover the ongoing costs in the project.
That doesn't even start to address the ethics of accepting a gift of a water slide when you are claiming you cannot buy books.
That won't do us any good. They will just use the money to install more stadium lights and water slides. Yes. That's right. Here in California, they claim we don't have the money to buy books, but somehow have the money for stadium lights and waterslides in our High Schools. That's right. The water slide that you can see for yourself is in a High School pool.
So, how do you do your backups which contain media to a remote location? How do you run use an off site hard drive as if it were local. If we had our current speeds in 1982, where we would only need to keep up with the speeds of a 1541 disk drive, I would agree with you. But, today, I can think of at least a dozen reasons that an average Joe would want 100 Mb/s. today.
You are definitely lacking in imagination if you don't think people don't have a use for this today. It isn't a whole lot different than if you were arguing that we didn't need phones because you only send letters, and who cares if we could get a message to someone in seconds, when we could just drive across town and diliver it by hand in 20 minutes.
Your in-built translation apparatus is simply too simple. "unethical extortion of wealth via the threat of state violence" is HOW "Social Welfare" is frequently accomplished. It isn't the Social Welfare itself. While this does happen, it isn't the only way to give to Social Welfare. The article is suggesting that Linux developers have already willingly donated to Social Welfare, so should get the benefits that are usually reserved for those that have been victims of "unethical extortion of wealth via the threat of state violence".
OK, so from your description, it sounds like his numbers where correct, and thus he was correct for the first half of the calculation that he solved for. He just forgot to do the second half of the calculation concerning concentrator. Correct?
That's not to say that Linux is necessarily worse, just different - there you use package managers to handle such things.
I was just commenting about this yesterday. I'm not sure whether the Apple or Linux model for software delivery is better. I now that what Apple does is what I always wished that Windows would do. I missed DOS days when you could just copy a directory and the application would still work. Given how cheap memory and hard drives are now, I think the savings made by shared libraries is not a good trade for the complexities they bring.
I just bought a Mac to do some development for work, and what has struck me about it is that the software delivery method is much better than I expected. WAY better than Windows. The other thing that struck me was just how bad the UI was. I'm not talking about things like the menu bar being fixed to the screen as opposed to fixed to the windows. That would be a user choice, which I have an opinion on, but recognize is opinion. I'm talking about things like, you can have more than one icon on the bottom of the screen for the same application. Or things like the + button in the upper left hand corner not changing to show it's current state, and total inconsistency as to what size the window will become if you press it. All in all, the Mac's UI is surprisingly inconsistent with itself.
Is that 1353 W/m^2 number for all solar radiation across the entire electro-magnetic spectrum? Is it for the visible light spectrum? Is is for some subset of the visible light spectrum?
You are in a very small minority, and most women who label themselves as feminist would disagree with you. It doesn't matter that you are right and they are wrong. They have co-opted your label, and have twisted it to mean something very different than what you want it to mean. Much like a strange group of meat eaters have co-opted the term vegetarian, and have twisted it's meaning to something very different than what it once meant. Actual vegetarians had to come up with a new term, Vegan, to describe themselves, and even that term is currently losing it's meaning as the fake vegetarians try to co-opt vegan also. Actual feminists must do the same, or live with the fact that they are unintentionally telling people they are man hating female chauvinist pigs.
So, it isn't that the previous poster has been listening to the craziest people who shout the loudest. It is just that he may have never met a woman that thinks women should be treated as people, no less (or more) than a man. He has very likely met huge numbers of women, that call themselves feminists, and think that feminist means women should be treated as more than men.
Well, it could be worse. I recently logged on to a system that gave me a message that my password selection was invalid, but set my password to the invalid value anyway, and then required me to enter the invalid password into the system to change it. Of course, even though password setting would check the validity of the password AFTER it wrote the password. The login screen checked if the password entered was legal BEFORE checking to see if it matched what had been previously set.
That isn't flattery. Whether they know it or not, and I suspect they don't, they are pointing out why so many admins completely suck at their jobs. The hostiges, also known as users are the only reason to have uptime. Without them, having uptime is a pointless endever. So, the cartoon actually highlights how many sysadmins are willing to leave the users, and thus the company to die, and ultimatly fail at their job as long as they get to pat themselves on the back for accomplishing a task that they have ultimatly made pointless.
They don't have any basis. I didn't imply that they did. I just acknowledged that I misspoke when I said that the school was illegally collecting video child pornography as oppossed to the school illegally collecting still picture child pornography.
Neither a white guy getting beaten by a group of blacks, nor a black guy getting beaten by a group of whites is anywhere close to an isolated incident, so if you cannot get why that would encompass a large group of people of a long period of time, then your racism is too overpowering for you to see the world around you.
No, the other poster was not talking about who holds the 'majority of power'. It was clear that he was talking about population numbers. Your racism has you trying to twist the language to rationalize your point of view.
Who has the majority of power is ALWAYS a case by case basis. Telling some guy that is being beaten because of the color of his skin, that it doesn't have as much impact, because he holds the majority of power is absurd at best. When an individual is being discriminated against, they clearly do not hold the majority of power. If they did, they would be discriminated FOR, or at the very least, treated equal.
But sure, each of those two examples is equally bad. My point, and the point of the original guy making the point, is that the case of the black guy getting beat up by a bunch of white guys will, by virtue of the fact that the white guys have the power, happen far more often. Thus the overall harm inflicted by cases resembling the first (white on black) will far exceed those inflicted by cases resembling the second (black on white).
How does one even respond to this? You directly contradict yourself. You claim it is just as bad, but not as bad. This is a paradox. You also claim in this paragraph that white guys beat black guys more often. Do you have any reliable numbers to support this, or are you just assuming that it happens more because you are a racist? You also miss the obvious and indisputable fact that whatever race the group that is doing the beating are, they have the power, and the one getting beaten doesn't. Thus, the statement is inherently flawed and racist within itself.
When you think that being white is the definition of racist, then you wouldn't understand what is racist about what you are saying.
You are just as much a racist as the previous guy. He did not say, the group in power have a greater impact. He said the majority group. There is a big difference, or are you claiming that blacks were the group with more power in 1970 South Africa, or trying to claim that racism by whites against blacks in South Africa didn't have as much of an impact as racism by blacks against whites? How about English controlled India?
As for the data, anecdote line. You are wrong. Data (plural) is made up of data points (Singular). If I said that my pal Joe, was affected more than my pal Tyrone, then I would have made an anecdote. I would have also added a data point. I didn't say that though. I gave an example of an entire class of people spread over a long period of time. I referenced many many data points. That isn't anecdote.
The other problem with your post is that it is using a sound bite that fails when put in context. Just as you cannot Godwin a discussion about 1943 Germany, claiming that referencing individuals when discussing racism is missing the point. Racism wouldn't matter if it didn't impact individuals. Anybody that cares about 'blacks', 'whites', or any other racial group is by definition a racist. The only reason to not want 'blacks' to be discriminated against is because 'blacks' are made up of PEOPLE. And treating individuals badly because of their racial group is a very bad thing. Treating people badly because they are 'black' isn't what is bad. Treating individuals badly because of their racial group is what is bad. When those individuals are black, that is bad. When those individuals are white, it is just as bad.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, you could also, amass a large group of people who believe that school is not about educating kids, but instead is about 'socializing' them. Right here on slashdot, you only need to find a thread on home schooling, and you will see the 'school is about socilizing' crowd coming out of the woodwork. It isn't any better in the general population. I don't know if the number of people who believe school is a social program is in the majority, or minority, but if it isn't in the majority, it is getting close.
Your wrong. There is a 'bright line' to adulthood. We have just decided to ignore it as a culture. I find it pretty creepy when people can't figure it out.
it's that there's less harm resulting when a minority engages in it than when somebody in the majority does.
Spoken like a true racist. How you can think that being a white guy and being beaten to death by a group of black guys does less harm than being a black guy and getting beaten to death by a group of white guys, is sickening. I guess that the thing with racists though. They always have an excuse for why their racism doesn't really count.
That would jive with the comments that other students have made that they would see the light come on briefly periodically. Not that taking still pictures of naked kids in their room is ok, but it does sound like they were still pictures of naked kids, and not videos of naked kids.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that line of thinking is that the incorrect lines were publicized. Certainly if your report is being used for public policy, you pay at least a little attention to what is being said about your report. We are not talking about a report on annual Pez distribution either. We are talking about a report that is literally predicting the end of the world as we know it. Certainly, you would notice, even in a 3000 page report, if your predictions were off by 300 years over a 330 year time span.
Again, we are talking about a report that is predicting the end of the world. You don't just write a report like that, and then forget about it. You pay attention to what impact it has on public policy. You listen to what people are saying about it. You call people out when they misrepresent it.
Your advice is bad. If people don't know the issue and don't have an opinion, they definitely should not vote. People who vote just because 'everyone should vote' are nothing but spoilers for third parties. They are tools to keep the status quo. Who do you think these people vote for? I can tell you. They vote for the names they hear the most that they have been told are 'legitimate' candidates. What this means is that between the Democrats and Republicans, the uninterested voter becomes a wash. For third parties, every uninterested voter that gets talked into placing their ballot, they have to get that much larger of the percentage of the interested voters.
If you have a race where 10% of the voters are Democrat, 5% are Republican, 20% are independent, and the other 65% are uninterested voters, who do you think will win? Most likely the Democrats with a possible upset by the Republicans if their candidate is particularly good with sound bites. This is why the Democrats and Republicans are so hip on getting uninterested voters out to the polls.
Particularly when he claimed that humans can live without outputting any CO2. I'm still waiting for him to give me an example. Honestly, I'd take his word for it if he could even go an hour without actively expelling CO2.
Just tried it. The window got smaller.
Ouch!!! The heat... It Buurrrrnnnnssss!
Seriously, "The plus sign inside might be suboptimal" is a perfect example of jumping through hoops to rationalize incredibly bad design. A plus sign ALWAYS means ADD. Every grade school child can tell you this. It is an international standard that has been in effect long before Apple was even thought of. Making a window smaller is the epitome of counter intuitive.
It also is not "Zoom to Fit", as pressing it once MIGHT make the contents fit, but pressing the "Zoom to Fit" again, has the reverse effect, and thus could not be called "Zoom To Fit" by any rational English speaker. Besides, even on applications that come with OSX, I have pressed the green button and found that it leaves scroll bars. It could more rightly be called the, "Uninformatively change to an shape that you will learn after pressing it". The behaviour is definitly application specific, and totally inconsistant for an OS widget.
Claiming that the most people don't associate a button's behavior with it's functionality is fanboyism at it's best. Someone points out a massive problem with the UI, and you dismiss it as something no one bothers to pay attention too. If no one paid attention to the symbol, then why put a symbol at all? Also, what harm would have been caused by putting a symbol that actually wasn't diametrically opposed to the function of the button? Of course, if anybody actually uses symbols when they look at a computer, then OSX has been designed in a confusing and unintuitive way.
Even in this bizarre universe you live in where people don't actually look at the symbols on their screen, what does the color green tell you about a button. Green means go. Using it to mean change windows shape or size is again counter intuitive.
For what it's worth, windows has two modes for the button in it's Maximize/Window button. One is full screen, the other is windowed. It always does the same behavior, and the icon changes to show exactly what mode it is in. An icon of a single window if it will fill the screen, and an icon of two windows if it will not, indicating that you can see more than one window. Go check it out for yourself. Your comment makes me think that a great many of the OSX has a good interface crowed, have no idea what the other offerings do, so just assume that the OSX failings apply to everyone else.
Red means stop. This existed LONG before OSX. Expecting users to magically know which applications are 'simple' applications that will close, and which are complex applications and will continue to run without a UI is, again, counter intuitive. Expecting users to identify the difference between an application and a windows is just bad design. From a user perspective, the UI IS the application. Your excuse also fail when one considers that pressing the still running application brings up a window. Also, your "Application-Level" UI control, has an entry to close the window. This is directly contrary to the Application/Window paradigm that you are claiming exists. In this so called "Application-Level" UI element, they call the action "Close". It doesn't say "Stop" the window. It says "Close" This is because the metaphore they are going for is in fact "Closing" a window. Thus, a red button would be totally counter intuitive, and would in fact confuse anyone who was raised in a place where red means "Stop".
Your example of load times is intuitively solved by caching. Not by leaving the application running after the user tells it to stop. Your examples of applications that run without a UI are examples of non-intuitiveness. The only one that has any merit MIGHT be Firefox with the downloading, but even then I don't agree. Word definitly has no business running without any documents. iTunes has no business running without a playlist. etc. Running without a UI is the business of a service not an application. Mixing the two is confusing to a user and counter intuitive.
The claim that pointing
Seriously. Consoles last for something like 5 years before the video gets updated. Sometimes they have better graphics than a $100 video card when they come out, but generally within a year, the sub $100 PC's graphics are as good or better than the console counterpart. So, given the level of graphics available on your PS3 or Xbox360, you could easily be running on a 2 year old $100 graphics card, and continue to get equivalent graphics for the next couple of years at least. One of the strawman arguments being used in the whole PC vs. console debate is the common act of comparing the cost of current cutting edge PC graphics with 3 year old console graphics.
It basically comes down to people believing that it is better to not have an option to upgrade their graphics than it is to have the option and choose not to do the upgrade.
Having recently started working with a Mac, I am actually really surprised at how far behind Windows and Linux OSX is in UI. It is inconsistent, and poorly designed compared to it's modern counterparts. I mean, you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.
While I cannot claim to have been a part of the water slide planning, I can say this. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the pool heating bill, as well as all of the maintenance is paid for by fund raisers. I also know that the schools put a lot of resources into raising funds for these kinds of projects. Basically it becomes a, spend money on this non-tracked item so that we can get it back in the tracked area. Pretty much money laundering. I also WAS involved when the local school district decided that stadium lighting was a good idea for all of the schools so that they could play sports well into the night. In that instance, they did embezzle public funds for the projects. Public funds were issued to replace the grass in the fields. The school decided to use that money run conduit and electric to all of the locations that they had already decided to install the stadium lighting. This way, when it came time to raise funds, most of the work would already have been paid for. The plan for paying for the stadium lights in residential neighborhoods, also had nothing in it to cover the ongoing costs in the project.
That doesn't even start to address the ethics of accepting a gift of a water slide when you are claiming you cannot buy books.
That won't do us any good. They will just use the money to install more stadium lights and water slides. Yes. That's right. Here in California, they claim we don't have the money to buy books, but somehow have the money for stadium lights and waterslides in our High Schools. That's right. The water slide that you can see for yourself is in a High School pool.
So, how do you do your backups which contain media to a remote location? How do you run use an off site hard drive as if it were local. If we had our current speeds in 1982, where we would only need to keep up with the speeds of a 1541 disk drive, I would agree with you. But, today, I can think of at least a dozen reasons that an average Joe would want 100 Mb/s. today.
You are definitely lacking in imagination if you don't think people don't have a use for this today. It isn't a whole lot different than if you were arguing that we didn't need phones because you only send letters, and who cares if we could get a message to someone in seconds, when we could just drive across town and diliver it by hand in 20 minutes.
Your in-built translation apparatus is simply too simple. "unethical extortion of wealth via the threat of state violence" is HOW "Social Welfare" is frequently accomplished. It isn't the Social Welfare itself. While this does happen, it isn't the only way to give to Social Welfare. The article is suggesting that Linux developers have already willingly donated to Social Welfare, so should get the benefits that are usually reserved for those that have been victims of "unethical extortion of wealth via the threat of state violence".
OK, so from your description, it sounds like his numbers where correct, and thus he was correct for the first half of the calculation that he solved for. He just forgot to do the second half of the calculation concerning concentrator. Correct?
That's not to say that Linux is necessarily worse, just different - there you use package managers to handle such things.
I was just commenting about this yesterday. I'm not sure whether the Apple or Linux model for software delivery is better. I now that what Apple does is what I always wished that Windows would do. I missed DOS days when you could just copy a directory and the application would still work. Given how cheap memory and hard drives are now, I think the savings made by shared libraries is not a good trade for the complexities they bring.
I just bought a Mac to do some development for work, and what has struck me about it is that the software delivery method is much better than I expected. WAY better than Windows. The other thing that struck me was just how bad the UI was. I'm not talking about things like the menu bar being fixed to the screen as opposed to fixed to the windows. That would be a user choice, which I have an opinion on, but recognize is opinion. I'm talking about things like, you can have more than one icon on the bottom of the screen for the same application. Or things like the + button in the upper left hand corner not changing to show it's current state, and total inconsistency as to what size the window will become if you press it. All in all, the Mac's UI is surprisingly inconsistent with itself.
Is that 1353 W/m^2 number for all solar radiation across the entire electro-magnetic spectrum? Is it for the visible light spectrum? Is is for some subset of the visible light spectrum?
You are in a very small minority, and most women who label themselves as feminist would disagree with you. It doesn't matter that you are right and they are wrong. They have co-opted your label, and have twisted it to mean something very different than what you want it to mean. Much like a strange group of meat eaters have co-opted the term vegetarian, and have twisted it's meaning to something very different than what it once meant. Actual vegetarians had to come up with a new term, Vegan, to describe themselves, and even that term is currently losing it's meaning as the fake vegetarians try to co-opt vegan also. Actual feminists must do the same, or live with the fact that they are unintentionally telling people they are man hating female chauvinist pigs.
So, it isn't that the previous poster has been listening to the craziest people who shout the loudest. It is just that he may have never met a woman that thinks women should be treated as people, no less (or more) than a man. He has very likely met huge numbers of women, that call themselves feminists, and think that feminist means women should be treated as more than men.
Well, it could be worse. I recently logged on to a system that gave me a message that my password selection was invalid, but set my password to the invalid value anyway, and then required me to enter the invalid password into the system to change it. Of course, even though password setting would check the validity of the password AFTER it wrote the password. The login screen checked if the password entered was legal BEFORE checking to see if it matched what had been previously set.
But then how are they going to get the proper socialization that comes from the creepy vice principal watching them undress?
That isn't flattery. Whether they know it or not, and I suspect they don't, they are pointing out why so many admins completely suck at their jobs. The hostiges, also known as users are the only reason to have uptime. Without them, having uptime is a pointless endever. So, the cartoon actually highlights how many sysadmins are willing to leave the users, and thus the company to die, and ultimatly fail at their job as long as they get to pat themselves on the back for accomplishing a task that they have ultimatly made pointless.
They don't have any basis. I didn't imply that they did. I just acknowledged that I misspoke when I said that the school was illegally collecting video child pornography as oppossed to the school illegally collecting still picture child pornography.
No, the other poster was not talking about who holds the 'majority of power'. It was clear that he was talking about population numbers. Your racism has you trying to twist the language to rationalize your point of view.
Who has the majority of power is ALWAYS a case by case basis. Telling some guy that is being beaten because of the color of his skin, that it doesn't have as much impact, because he holds the majority of power is absurd at best. When an individual is being discriminated against, they clearly do not hold the majority of power. If they did, they would be discriminated FOR, or at the very least, treated equal.
But sure, each of those two examples is equally bad. My point, and the point of the original guy making the point, is that the case of the black guy getting beat up by a bunch of white guys will, by virtue of the fact that the white guys have the power, happen far more often. Thus the overall harm inflicted by cases resembling the first (white on black) will far exceed those inflicted by cases resembling the second (black on white).
How does one even respond to this? You directly contradict yourself. You claim it is just as bad, but not as bad. This is a paradox. You also claim in this paragraph that white guys beat black guys more often. Do you have any reliable numbers to support this, or are you just assuming that it happens more because you are a racist? You also miss the obvious and indisputable fact that whatever race the group that is doing the beating are, they have the power, and the one getting beaten doesn't. Thus, the statement is inherently flawed and racist within itself.
When you think that being white is the definition of racist, then you wouldn't understand what is racist about what you are saying.
You are just as much a racist as the previous guy. He did not say, the group in power have a greater impact. He said the majority group. There is a big difference, or are you claiming that blacks were the group with more power in 1970 South Africa, or trying to claim that racism by whites against blacks in South Africa didn't have as much of an impact as racism by blacks against whites? How about English controlled India?
As for the data, anecdote line. You are wrong. Data (plural) is made up of data points (Singular). If I said that my pal Joe, was affected more than my pal Tyrone, then I would have made an anecdote. I would have also added a data point. I didn't say that though. I gave an example of an entire class of people spread over a long period of time. I referenced many many data points. That isn't anecdote.
The other problem with your post is that it is using a sound bite that fails when put in context. Just as you cannot Godwin a discussion about 1943 Germany, claiming that referencing individuals when discussing racism is missing the point. Racism wouldn't matter if it didn't impact individuals. Anybody that cares about 'blacks', 'whites', or any other racial group is by definition a racist. The only reason to not want 'blacks' to be discriminated against is because 'blacks' are made up of PEOPLE. And treating individuals badly because of their racial group is a very bad thing. Treating people badly because they are 'black' isn't what is bad. Treating individuals badly because of their racial group is what is bad. When those individuals are black, that is bad. When those individuals are white, it is just as bad.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, you could also, amass a large group of people who believe that school is not about educating kids, but instead is about 'socializing' them. Right here on slashdot, you only need to find a thread on home schooling, and you will see the 'school is about socilizing' crowd coming out of the woodwork. It isn't any better in the general population. I don't know if the number of people who believe school is a social program is in the majority, or minority, but if it isn't in the majority, it is getting close.
Your wrong. There is a 'bright line' to adulthood. We have just decided to ignore it as a culture. I find it pretty creepy when people can't figure it out.
it's that there's less harm resulting when a minority engages in it than when somebody in the majority does.
Spoken like a true racist. How you can think that being a white guy and being beaten to death by a group of black guys does less harm than being a black guy and getting beaten to death by a group of white guys, is sickening. I guess that the thing with racists though. They always have an excuse for why their racism doesn't really count.
That would jive with the comments that other students have made that they would see the light come on briefly periodically. Not that taking still pictures of naked kids in their room is ok, but it does sound like they were still pictures of naked kids, and not videos of naked kids.