The fact that many agencies are now using drones to spy on everyday Americans might have something to do with this research. It's only a matter of time before people become resentful towards the eyes in the skies.
It's not just the number of people who stop using Google's services that they have to worry about. Every time they drop support for something, they are signaling to people that putting your data into a new Google offering is risky business.
Reader? How about Wave and Knol. Google just sticks everything they can think of out there, to see if it immediately turns into money. If it doesn't, they shut it down.
You were modded "funny" but Apple admits that they create tons of fake projects all the time. They do this for a number of reasons, including the one you mentioned, as well as testing the ability of their new hires to keep their yaps shut.
What's this we shit? Why don't you practice what you preach and design a system from the ground up with enhanced security in mind?
I mean, it's not as if you are saying anything that hasn't been said for what, almost 20 years now. I know all the flitting back and forth to conferences and whatnot is exhausting, but to me, Bruce, you are becoming more of a Pt Barnum of security and crypto every day. Self promotion and loud noises / flashy things but in the end it's all just rehashes of what other people said before.
Google is certainly building up a profile of everybody who uses any of their sites, and anybody using a page that uses any Google API, and selling this information. No need to lie to me, especially when everybody already knows the truth about Google.
I'm not saying that all insults have to be creative, just that they should have an impact and cause shock or offense. Anyway a slur is a form of insult, and can be particularly effective.
You've deliberately missed another one of the points I thought I made clear. We're fast running out of deeply offensive words because of the dilution of the impact of them. Twat or cunt are words that retain a certain amount of power here. It'd be nice if noodlebrain or asshole were still potent terms, but alas they are hardly offensive any more.
It's kind of sad that just because I didn't become putty in your hands, and refused to acknowledge the validity of some of your points, that you have chosen to take this conversation into a less thoughtful place. Or, more succinctly, don't act like a cunt just because I blew sand up your vagina.
Your poor research, enshrined in your attempt to use the first hyperlink you came across to supposedly invalidate a point, just shows that your supposed abilities in this arena are lacking. I don't see the point in referring you to any information, when it is clear that you don't have any intention of displaying honor or integrity in a conversation. Your feigned indignity at a character assault is even more hilarious because you brought that cat out of the bag first! This is what I say when you're dishonest, and that you have chutzpah. It's meant to be insulting to your character, which I believe is already sorely lacking.
Your ignorance is something that you demonstrated to me - I didn't have to assume it at all. You displayed it, I merely pointed it out. As I said, if you can't understand the difference between the technical military terms arms, weapons, and ordnance you are pretty much beyond hope. Also your ignorance as to the meaning of "regular army" just demonstrates the conclusion that you have no particular urge to be honest or thoughtful. Calling the right to bear arms a synthesis created by historians just further demonstrates this point. Cast not pearls before swine.
I don't see anything particularly unwelcoming about Slashdot to women, simply because one cockbag calls a woman a cunt. An insult should be offensive. I would argue that, contrary to your view, I feel that trading insults makes Slashdot a more vibrant community. The hilarious insults embedded in the commentary here is one thing that keeps me coming back. After all, an insult should be finely crafted to deliver the biggest impact - anything less is mere laziness.
An insult should be offensive, this is my whole point. I'm disappointed when people take offense less easily, because it narrows the choice of insulting words, which after all are designed to be insulting!
By attempting to read a broad sexist agenda from the use of an offensive term is a bit paranoid. I'm happy to have anybody on slashdot who wants to be here. As the old saying goes, nobody knows you're a dog on the internet! Faggot or fag is an interesting case study, as historically it has meant a bundle of sticks, an old woman, and a gay man. Now it's like "nigga" or "nigger" wherein one group has started using what is an offensive term when used by an outsider from the group, as a vernacular to refer to themselves. This is ironic to me, but I can see the logic in it.
You're deliberately misunderstanding me when you accuse me of pretending to be ignorant of the power of language. I explained quite clearly, that the deliberate choice of these offensive words makes an insult more effective precisely because I am aware of the impact of such a word. I'm not being obtuse, I'm being plain-spoken which I believe is a virtue that has been left largely by the wayside.
I typically reserve insults for people who have decided to use them first. In such a case, I believe that it behooves me to up the ante and really try to be insulting. Taking advantage of a certain person's sensitivity to certain terms allows a more powerful and effective insult, whether the word has racial or sexist or etc. overtones that pertain to their particular individuality. It doesn't designate a hatred for others who happen to fall into the same category or categories, it is simply a sharper verbal weapon. The skill of insulting has taken a rather disappointing turn, both because of the dilution of the power of certain words, and because certain words are thought to be verboten lest one be labeled insensitive or politically incorrect. That saddens me, and this is why I endeavor to use the most offensive terms possible when crafting a deliberate insult. We should all take part in a rejuvenation of our language, instead of letting it become duller over time. Specific, targeted insult is a great tradition, and can be quite fun as well!
As I said before I have tried as plainly as possible to explain why I enjoy using certain deeply offensive words - it is because they have power and make for a better insult. If you start with the premise that insults are designed to cause pain, why not choose the most painful ones? After all, if the intention isn't to cause pain, then why bother with insults in the first place?
I enjoy talking about subjects like this one, because there is so much wishy-washy political correctness in our daily lives. I hope I have been able to explain to you, with clarity, my opinion on insults. You may not agree but at least you should take away from this that the use of them in special circumstances doesn't automatically make one bigoted - it's only when one uses then to express disdain for the entire group that takes offense at a term that bigotry enters the picture. At least, that's how I see it.
I think you have an overly broad definition of misogyny. By calling an insult "unthinking" you are ignoring my point, that I choose the word deliberately to convey a powerful insult. Misogyny is a revilement of women, and having a specific beef with one woman, and using a powerful and deeply offensive insult does not make one a misogynist.
Again, this is a big problem in our society. Calling somebody sexist, or antisemitic, or racist, or whatnot has lost meaning because people are defining the terms in an overly-broad fashion. You may feel that the use of a certain insult makes a person into one of these things I listed above, but this doesn't make it so. Insults, when well-chosen, should be deeply offensive and specific insults for different races, genders, etc. are very useful verbal weapons.
I'm not offended personally that people have mistaken these terms for something else, in a personal way. It's more of a general disdain for people who not only dilute the language by altering the meaning of words, and a specific disdain for individuals who would attempt to make the user of a particular insult into some kind of monster by insinuating things that just aren't so. By suggesting that I (or somebody else) has been sexist by using a term specifically designed to be offensive to a particular class of person (race, gender, etc) by ACCIDENT is offensive to me because I have chosen these words deliberately. There are only a few swear or offensive words left in our language that have the power to deeply offend, and the use of these, when deliberate, can be quite effective. Insensitivity or sexism or whatnot has nothing to do with it - in fact it's quite the opposite! Realizing that people are sensitive to the use of these words is what makes them powerful, and using them sensitively is a skill and a privilege.
Yes, a powerful insult like cunt is a useful word to use as an insult. This doesn't mean that the user hates womankind, just that they are expressing disdain for a certain woman.
Do you get all huffy when somebody calls a guy a dick?
I wasn't remarking on the relative effectiveness of the domain name servers at AT&T vs. Google, I was pointing out that Google seeks more and more information about you, to use for whatever purposes they see fit.
AT&T might do this too but at least they aren't building a profile of you and selling it to anybody with two bits to spend.
Yes, cunt, twat, they are both essentially used in the same way - as a deliberate insult. By the way I am in the USA.
My point though, is that it isn't misogynistic to insult a woman using one of these powerful words, unless the motivation for it is an actual hatred or resentment of women in general. For example, if I said, "but you couldn't understand that because you're just a dumb cunt" it would be misogynistic, however, if I said "you're being a cunt because you misused a word" it isn't misogynistic.
I hope this is helpful, it should allow you to both insult people, and take insults, without getting indignant about possible misogyny.
The problem with fundamentally dishonest people like yourself, is that you think you can impress people with shoddy accusations and research. Your first web result? Congratulations! If you had the mental capacity to understand my points, you would never had attempted such a foolish tactic. Why would you look at "weaponsman.com" for the definition of a word from a document created several hundred years ago? Who mentioned the word "firearms" specifically? This is another example of your shameful practice of attempting to change the scope of the discussion to suit your dishonest purposes.
Fundamentally dishonest people like yourself even invented a word for their underhanded bullshit. Chutzpah. The word essentially means, feeling pride when one should instead feel shame.
If you actually take the time to read about the revolution, understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and research the relatively new innovation around that period in history known (and still known) as the "regular army" you will understand your errors. I suspect, however, that you have chutzpah, which ultimately means that even if you do understand all of this (and I suspect you do) your pride will not allow you to admit it, as it would incur a loss of face that would badly damage your fragile ego.
Suffice to say, that if you actually research the subject you will see the light. A superficial web search is not enough.
Calling a person a twat is an effective insult. It's not as if I would go around using the words woman and twat interchangeably. One is a purely descriptive, non-offensive word. The other is deliberately used in an insulting manner.
Look at what I said to you before - "You just come off like a twat when you engage in this kind of misuse of language." Now it wouldn't make much sense to me to merely replace twat with woman in that sentence. It would remove the deliberately insulting feel, invalidating the whole point of the sentence!
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding my intentions here. My intention WAS to be insulting, precisely by the use of the word twat. I don't refer to women as twats often, and when I do it is deliberate, and it should be especially insulting. There was nothing casual about it.
I'm sure there are men who go around using the word twat in place of woman on a casual basis, and I agree that is misogynistic. Simply calling you a twat for deliberately misusing the language, and then going further by deliberately misunderstanding my point is not misogyny, though - it is merely an insult.
Could be true, but my ISP is not in the business of serving banner ads, building a profile of all my personal interests, habits, and vices, and there is actually somebody who will pick up the telephone at my ISP unlike Google, which has no actual humans that one is likely to be able to speak with about these concerns.
Google should be viewed as an adversary, and they didn't build that new building right across from spook central for nothing.
Who is Michael Scott? Anyway I don't think we should let what you refer to as "basic social concepts" redefine language to suit our mood. Misogyny has a perfectly useful definition already, you can't just cry foul misogyny any time you happen to feel offended. There's too much of this going around already. People love to cry sexism, antisemitism, racism, ability-ism, classism, and so forth not because it happens to be true, but because it is an effective way to demonize somebody they don't like.
Stop it. You just come off like a twat when you engage in this kind of misuse of language. I suppose it was too much to ask that you acknowledge your error and correct it though.
I see the problem here. You have already decided what these terms must mean to you, in order to support the current regime of poor judgement and government interference, and in order to support this you have carefully pruned your research and beliefs to stroke your own ego.
If you have so badly mistaken the definitions of the terms arms and ordnance, which have had well known definitions for hundreds of years, forgive my lack of faith in your ability to understand any of the rest of what I wrote, though it was quite simple. I will of course let you persist in your ignorance, if it makes you happy, but don't try to convince me that our deliberate misunderstanding is honest or requires any sort of debate. It would be impossible to talk sense into you.
I'm afraid you have it backwards again. They are both forms of legalized gambling. Just because you are unlikely to lose everything by gambling in the market, this does not invalidate the premise that it is gambling. Time spent "in" either one is not a guarantee of loss or gain, either. If I do go to a casino it is to enjoy the inexpensive food and drinks, and lodging that is more reasonable than many other hotels. However I do not gamble in either the stock market or the casino.
It's not misogyny to call a woman a twat because of her beliefs. It would be misogyny to call a woman a twat because she is a woman. This is an important distinction and if you don't want to come off as a vaporish twat who cried wolf you should remember it.
Arms is guns, swords, pistols, clubs, that sort of thing. It was a well defined military term in the 1770s. Note that the 2nd Amendment does not state that you have the right to ordnance. So next time shrieking hysterical anti-gun nut tries to imply that "regulation" (also a term that is badly misunderstood thanks to very poor judgement) is necessary to keep you from getting ahold of nukes, you can slap them and then tell them about the meaning of these terms.
Unfortunately you have failed, like so many others, to understand that the right to keep and bear arms applies to arms and not ordnance. So, swords, guns, and such. Not cannons and explosively-charged rockets.
The word "arms" does not just mean any old weapon you can think of.
Bonus education: The phrase "well regulated" does not mean government red tape, it refers to standardized bore sizes so that supply chain issues with supplying ammo to the militia are eased. So essentially in this day and age, this means that you should probably own an AR-15 in 5.56 NATO.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that many agencies are now using drones to spy on everyday Americans might have something to do with this research. It's only a matter of time before people become resentful towards the eyes in the skies.
It's not just the number of people who stop using Google's services that they have to worry about. Every time they drop support for something, they are signaling to people that putting your data into a new Google offering is risky business.
Reader? How about Wave and Knol. Google just sticks everything they can think of out there, to see if it immediately turns into money. If it doesn't, they shut it down.
You were modded "funny" but Apple admits that they create tons of fake projects all the time. They do this for a number of reasons, including the one you mentioned, as well as testing the ability of their new hires to keep their yaps shut.
What's this we shit? Why don't you practice what you preach and design a system from the ground up with enhanced security in mind?
I mean, it's not as if you are saying anything that hasn't been said for what, almost 20 years now. I know all the flitting back and forth to conferences and whatnot is exhausting, but to me, Bruce, you are becoming more of a Pt Barnum of security and crypto every day. Self promotion and loud noises / flashy things but in the end it's all just rehashes of what other people said before.
Google is certainly building up a profile of everybody who uses any of their sites, and anybody using a page that uses any Google API, and selling this information. No need to lie to me, especially when everybody already knows the truth about Google.
I'm not saying that all insults have to be creative, just that they should have an impact and cause shock or offense. Anyway a slur is a form of insult, and can be particularly effective.
You've deliberately missed another one of the points I thought I made clear. We're fast running out of deeply offensive words because of the dilution of the impact of them. Twat or cunt are words that retain a certain amount of power here. It'd be nice if noodlebrain or asshole were still potent terms, but alas they are hardly offensive any more.
It's kind of sad that just because I didn't become putty in your hands, and refused to acknowledge the validity of some of your points, that you have chosen to take this conversation into a less thoughtful place. Or, more succinctly, don't act like a cunt just because I blew sand up your vagina.
Your poor research, enshrined in your attempt to use the first hyperlink you came across to supposedly invalidate a point, just shows that your supposed abilities in this arena are lacking. I don't see the point in referring you to any information, when it is clear that you don't have any intention of displaying honor or integrity in a conversation. Your feigned indignity at a character assault is even more hilarious because you brought that cat out of the bag first! This is what I say when you're dishonest, and that you have chutzpah. It's meant to be insulting to your character, which I believe is already sorely lacking.
Your ignorance is something that you demonstrated to me - I didn't have to assume it at all. You displayed it, I merely pointed it out. As I said, if you can't understand the difference between the technical military terms arms, weapons, and ordnance you are pretty much beyond hope. Also your ignorance as to the meaning of "regular army" just demonstrates the conclusion that you have no particular urge to be honest or thoughtful. Calling the right to bear arms a synthesis created by historians just further demonstrates this point. Cast not pearls before swine.
I don't see anything particularly unwelcoming about Slashdot to women, simply because one cockbag calls a woman a cunt. An insult should be offensive. I would argue that, contrary to your view, I feel that trading insults makes Slashdot a more vibrant community. The hilarious insults embedded in the commentary here is one thing that keeps me coming back. After all, an insult should be finely crafted to deliver the biggest impact - anything less is mere laziness.
An insult should be offensive, this is my whole point. I'm disappointed when people take offense less easily, because it narrows the choice of insulting words, which after all are designed to be insulting!
By attempting to read a broad sexist agenda from the use of an offensive term is a bit paranoid. I'm happy to have anybody on slashdot who wants to be here. As the old saying goes, nobody knows you're a dog on the internet! Faggot or fag is an interesting case study, as historically it has meant a bundle of sticks, an old woman, and a gay man. Now it's like "nigga" or "nigger" wherein one group has started using what is an offensive term when used by an outsider from the group, as a vernacular to refer to themselves. This is ironic to me, but I can see the logic in it.
You're deliberately misunderstanding me when you accuse me of pretending to be ignorant of the power of language. I explained quite clearly, that the deliberate choice of these offensive words makes an insult more effective precisely because I am aware of the impact of such a word. I'm not being obtuse, I'm being plain-spoken which I believe is a virtue that has been left largely by the wayside.
I typically reserve insults for people who have decided to use them first. In such a case, I believe that it behooves me to up the ante and really try to be insulting. Taking advantage of a certain person's sensitivity to certain terms allows a more powerful and effective insult, whether the word has racial or sexist or etc. overtones that pertain to their particular individuality. It doesn't designate a hatred for others who happen to fall into the same category or categories, it is simply a sharper verbal weapon. The skill of insulting has taken a rather disappointing turn, both because of the dilution of the power of certain words, and because certain words are thought to be verboten lest one be labeled insensitive or politically incorrect. That saddens me, and this is why I endeavor to use the most offensive terms possible when crafting a deliberate insult. We should all take part in a rejuvenation of our language, instead of letting it become duller over time. Specific, targeted insult is a great tradition, and can be quite fun as well!
As I said before I have tried as plainly as possible to explain why I enjoy using certain deeply offensive words - it is because they have power and make for a better insult. If you start with the premise that insults are designed to cause pain, why not choose the most painful ones? After all, if the intention isn't to cause pain, then why bother with insults in the first place?
I enjoy talking about subjects like this one, because there is so much wishy-washy political correctness in our daily lives. I hope I have been able to explain to you, with clarity, my opinion on insults. You may not agree but at least you should take away from this that the use of them in special circumstances doesn't automatically make one bigoted - it's only when one uses then to express disdain for the entire group that takes offense at a term that bigotry enters the picture. At least, that's how I see it.
I think you have an overly broad definition of misogyny. By calling an insult "unthinking" you are ignoring my point, that I choose the word deliberately to convey a powerful insult. Misogyny is a revilement of women, and having a specific beef with one woman, and using a powerful and deeply offensive insult does not make one a misogynist.
Again, this is a big problem in our society. Calling somebody sexist, or antisemitic, or racist, or whatnot has lost meaning because people are defining the terms in an overly-broad fashion. You may feel that the use of a certain insult makes a person into one of these things I listed above, but this doesn't make it so. Insults, when well-chosen, should be deeply offensive and specific insults for different races, genders, etc. are very useful verbal weapons.
I'm not offended personally that people have mistaken these terms for something else, in a personal way. It's more of a general disdain for people who not only dilute the language by altering the meaning of words, and a specific disdain for individuals who would attempt to make the user of a particular insult into some kind of monster by insinuating things that just aren't so. By suggesting that I (or somebody else) has been sexist by using a term specifically designed to be offensive to a particular class of person (race, gender, etc) by ACCIDENT is offensive to me because I have chosen these words deliberately. There are only a few swear or offensive words left in our language that have the power to deeply offend, and the use of these, when deliberate, can be quite effective. Insensitivity or sexism or whatnot has nothing to do with it - in fact it's quite the opposite! Realizing that people are sensitive to the use of these words is what makes them powerful, and using them sensitively is a skill and a privilege.
Yes, a powerful insult like cunt is a useful word to use as an insult. This doesn't mean that the user hates womankind, just that they are expressing disdain for a certain woman.
Do you get all huffy when somebody calls a guy a dick?
I wasn't remarking on the relative effectiveness of the domain name servers at AT&T vs. Google, I was pointing out that Google seeks more and more information about you, to use for whatever purposes they see fit.
AT&T might do this too but at least they aren't building a profile of you and selling it to anybody with two bits to spend.
Yes, cunt, twat, they are both essentially used in the same way - as a deliberate insult. By the way I am in the USA.
My point though, is that it isn't misogynistic to insult a woman using one of these powerful words, unless the motivation for it is an actual hatred or resentment of women in general. For example, if I said, "but you couldn't understand that because you're just a dumb cunt" it would be misogynistic, however, if I said "you're being a cunt because you misused a word" it isn't misogynistic.
I hope this is helpful, it should allow you to both insult people, and take insults, without getting indignant about possible misogyny.
The problem with fundamentally dishonest people like yourself, is that you think you can impress people with shoddy accusations and research. Your first web result? Congratulations! If you had the mental capacity to understand my points, you would never had attempted such a foolish tactic. Why would you look at "weaponsman.com" for the definition of a word from a document created several hundred years ago? Who mentioned the word "firearms" specifically? This is another example of your shameful practice of attempting to change the scope of the discussion to suit your dishonest purposes.
Fundamentally dishonest people like yourself even invented a word for their underhanded bullshit. Chutzpah. The word essentially means, feeling pride when one should instead feel shame.
If you actually take the time to read about the revolution, understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and research the relatively new innovation around that period in history known (and still known) as the "regular army" you will understand your errors. I suspect, however, that you have chutzpah, which ultimately means that even if you do understand all of this (and I suspect you do) your pride will not allow you to admit it, as it would incur a loss of face that would badly damage your fragile ego.
Suffice to say, that if you actually research the subject you will see the light. A superficial web search is not enough.
Calling a person a twat is an effective insult. It's not as if I would go around using the words woman and twat interchangeably. One is a purely descriptive, non-offensive word. The other is deliberately used in an insulting manner.
Look at what I said to you before - "You just come off like a twat when you engage in this kind of misuse of language." Now it wouldn't make much sense to me to merely replace twat with woman in that sentence. It would remove the deliberately insulting feel, invalidating the whole point of the sentence!
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding my intentions here. My intention WAS to be insulting, precisely by the use of the word twat. I don't refer to women as twats often, and when I do it is deliberate, and it should be especially insulting. There was nothing casual about it.
I'm sure there are men who go around using the word twat in place of woman on a casual basis, and I agree that is misogynistic. Simply calling you a twat for deliberately misusing the language, and then going further by deliberately misunderstanding my point is not misogyny, though - it is merely an insult.
Could be true, but my ISP is not in the business of serving banner ads, building a profile of all my personal interests, habits, and vices, and there is actually somebody who will pick up the telephone at my ISP unlike Google, which has no actual humans that one is likely to be able to speak with about these concerns.
Google should be viewed as an adversary, and they didn't build that new building right across from spook central for nothing.
Who is Michael Scott? Anyway I don't think we should let what you refer to as "basic social concepts" redefine language to suit our mood. Misogyny has a perfectly useful definition already, you can't just cry foul misogyny any time you happen to feel offended. There's too much of this going around already. People love to cry sexism, antisemitism, racism, ability-ism, classism, and so forth not because it happens to be true, but because it is an effective way to demonize somebody they don't like.
Stop it. You just come off like a twat when you engage in this kind of misuse of language. I suppose it was too much to ask that you acknowledge your error and correct it though.
I see the problem here. You have already decided what these terms must mean to you, in order to support the current regime of poor judgement and government interference, and in order to support this you have carefully pruned your research and beliefs to stroke your own ego.
If you have so badly mistaken the definitions of the terms arms and ordnance, which have had well known definitions for hundreds of years, forgive my lack of faith in your ability to understand any of the rest of what I wrote, though it was quite simple. I will of course let you persist in your ignorance, if it makes you happy, but don't try to convince me that our deliberate misunderstanding is honest or requires any sort of debate. It would be impossible to talk sense into you.
I'm afraid you have it backwards again. They are both forms of legalized gambling. Just because you are unlikely to lose everything by gambling in the market, this does not invalidate the premise that it is gambling. Time spent "in" either one is not a guarantee of loss or gain, either. If I do go to a casino it is to enjoy the inexpensive food and drinks, and lodging that is more reasonable than many other hotels. However I do not gamble in either the stock market or the casino.
It's not misogyny to call a woman a twat because of her beliefs. It would be misogyny to call a woman a twat because she is a woman. This is an important distinction and if you don't want to come off as a vaporish twat who cried wolf you should remember it.
Arms is guns, swords, pistols, clubs, that sort of thing. It was a well defined military term in the 1770s. Note that the 2nd Amendment does not state that you have the right to ordnance. So next time shrieking hysterical anti-gun nut tries to imply that "regulation" (also a term that is badly misunderstood thanks to very poor judgement) is necessary to keep you from getting ahold of nukes, you can slap them and then tell them about the meaning of these terms.
Unfortunately you have failed, like so many others, to understand that the right to keep and bear arms applies to arms and not ordnance. So, swords, guns, and such. Not cannons and explosively-charged rockets.
The word "arms" does not just mean any old weapon you can think of.
Bonus education: The phrase "well regulated" does not mean government red tape, it refers to standardized bore sizes so that supply chain issues with supplying ammo to the militia are eased. So essentially in this day and age, this means that you should probably own an AR-15 in 5.56 NATO.