While I have my problems with the Guardian (their coverage of the Tower Hamlets and Rotherham scandals were awful), what you're referring to seems to be on the Comment Is Free section; basically their editorial section. By and large, comment pieces are either written by editorial staff, regular columnists, or guest editors and submitters, and should not be confused with the journalism that appears in other parts of the newspaper or website. I find the likes of Jessica Valenti to be pretty odious, not so much for her behavior on the Guardian (which is pretty over the top), but her even more lunatic ramblings in other places. Go look up her Twitter explosions when the whole UVA rape culture incident exploded. She really is a pretty unhinged person, and I notice she disappeared from the Guardian for a few months; an enforced sabbatical, I imagine.
Because attacking anyone who raises issues of equality as an "SJW" is such an extraordinary sign of tolerance.
There's nothing I love better than a partisan of one side of the political spectrum attacking members of the other side in a way that makes it clear they're just as guilty of the same illogic and sheer stupidity. Or, to put it more simply for someone like you; POT... KETTLE... BLACK
Because apparently unisex washrooms makes Baby Jesus cry, and Baby Jesus is an angry, jealous god who will punish those that dare go against His commandments. Thank Baby Jesus there are good Baby Jesus-fearing politicians in North Carolina who know how to preserve that state from the wrath of Baby Jesus.
Out of control in what respect? Do you have some evidence of a large number of issues with trans people using the washroom of the gender they identify with?
Think about this very fucking hard. You have a pre-op trans woman; she's dressed like a woman, she's going to be acting like a woman, and you want to force her to use a men's washroom. What do you suppose is going to happen?
But it isn't a simple biological fact. There is decades of research on gender dysmorphia. You may not like what that research has to say, but you are not free to just simply invent your own "facts" to win the argument.
What you're writing is qualitatively the same as all those bigots in the Jim Crown era who insisted black men had to be kept away from white women because of the animalistic lust that could occur. This is just another example of a bigot trying to justify their bigotry through oversimplification and just out and out invention. And really, who the fuck is harmed by this? If a trans woman goes into a woman's washroom, who is harmed, as compared to the potential harm that a trans woman could suffer by being made to go into a men's washroom?
For chrissakes, many jurisdictions have had unisex washrooms for years, with few if any problems.
And your experience differs in what respect from some guy continually flirting with a girl in his college class, despite a clear lack of interest on her part? Is unwanted flirting more tolerable because the flirter and flirtee are of different genders? If the behavior crosses the line, harassment laws would apply equally to a same-sex harasser as to a harasser of a different sex.
The "right not to associate" is not some sort of absolute principle. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 have already created that precedent. You can't defend refusing to serve black clientele at your business by proclaiming "That's my right to freedom of association". What is happening now is LGBT individuals are being afforded the same rights and protections as other minorities. And what's your problem with that?
I suspect the legislation is destined for a very short life. I suspect a number of NC politicians are beginning the slow process of realizing that NC is not the sum total of the universe, and that they don't sit in a vacuum where they get to do anything they want.
And really, if this corporate pressure is enough to see the bill trounced, it may very well save the state from the real embarrassment of having Federal courts throw the law out on a challenge.
That certainly seems to be what's happening. I don't see much evidence that Edge is gaining much ground (and little wonder, it's a buggy piece of shit), so if Firefox adopts the Chrome engine, then we are basically left with Safari for the iDevices, and Google's engine creeping in everywhere else, and we're right back where where we were in 2005.
Why the "alpha male" notion may be a bit simplistic, human groups do tend to fall into dominance hierarchies. We aren't chimps, but the way we organize our social groups isn't a hundred miles from how chimps function. Inevitably, all human organizations will follow similar patterns of leadership and deference, with one degree of competition or another from lower ranking individuals who think they deserve a spot at the big table, or even to be at the head of it.
Exactly. One that periodically shows up on our DFS file servers:
Index : 170203 EntryType : Information InstanceId : 1073756378 Message : The description for Event ID '1073756378' in Source 'DfsSvc' cannot be found. The local computer
may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display the message, or
you may not have permission to access them. The following information is part of the event:'dfs' Category : (0) CategoryNumber : 0 ReplacementStrings : {dfs} Source : DfsSvc TimeGenerated : 4/11/2016 2:15:31 PM TimeWritten : 4/11/2016 2:15:31 PM UserName :
My solution is simple. If an online forum becomes too restrictive, I don't post there anymore. For me, if Facebook and Twitter want to restrict posts based on abusive or threatening language, that's their prerogative.
He's the kind of developer that turns globals on and writes everything in PHP 3, who puts in a hardcoded root password of "1234" for testing, and then forgets to take it out before the software goes production. He's the kind of developer that captures all exceptions and errors in one big exception method that pukes out "An unexpected error occurred". He's the kind of developer that still writes Flash-based scripts, insisting "They're still cutting edge, man!"
He's the kind of developer that ends up as head of his department, and will be CTO within two years.
If the bombs had been ready a bit earlier, Berlin may very well have been the first target. In fact, I wonder sometimes if the Americans had been able to stop the War in Europe before the Soviets were smashing through what would become East Germany if the post-war history of Europe would have been very different. Imagine Germany having never been divided in two, because Germany unconditionally surrendered due to Fat Man and Little Boy being dropped on major German cities; say Munich and Berlin. One wonders if the Japanese, having seen the destruction that the Americans could unleash would have given up before they were targeted.
Such an attack would have costs tens of thousands of lives, but might have prevented, or at least shrunken the Iron Curtain.
Exactly. I think there is some "thin-skinedness" in some of these claims of abuse, but at the same time there have been people that have been threatened with death. Even I was once, a long time ago, threatened with physical injury by someone who was losing an online debate and who was clearly coming undone by it. I never actually worried that it would happen as the fellow, so far as I gathered, was a Briton living in Poland, but I admit I was disconcerted by someone on a public Usenet group telling me he was going to come to my house and punch me in the head.
But the point is that it is an objection. It doesn't matter that it's ludicrous and essentially denies physics All that matters is that it sounds like a scientific objection. Of course is a load of shit, and maybe even the poster knows that (but I doubt it), but it's part of the "CO2 is totally harmless" counterargument which has been around for decades now. Like Creationists, psuedo-skeptics just keep repeating the same lies over and over and over again, no matter how many times they have been falsified.
Or just to implement your own from several encryption algorithms that are well known.
There should be a "too stupid to govern" clause in the Constitution, whereby if anyone tries to pass a law to ban thermodynamics or make Pi 3, they are immediately stripped of all offices and powers, and banned for life from ever even entering a government or taxpayer-funded building again.
Even chaotic systems don't make energy disappear. They will create an inherent degree of randomness and unpredictability, but even in really chaotic systems, as physicists deal with in Quantum Mechanics, you can still apply statistical methods and come up with models that resemble reality well enough. Essentially, pseudo-skeptics invoke "chaotic systems" as a gaps argument, but they never really describe what they think a chaotic system is supposed to do in the case of trapping heat. Vortexes dumping heat into space? Quantum teleportation of excited molecules? It's just a magical invocation.
How is it a strawman? Particularly the latter point, that climatologists are compromised because they work by and large with government grants is brought up all the time as a counter to AGW research. For chrissakes, that claim is trotted by pseudo-skeptics in fields like geology, evolution, and cancer research.
I think some pseudoskeptics think that if they type any kind of a response, somehow, that invalidates the science. Yesterday, I had a guy somehow asserting that because plate tectonic theory was developed, that this meant AGW was on uncertain footing; as in "hey, they developed this new theory, so any day now, AGW is going to be falsified!" My retort, as it ever is these days, is to ask "Where the hell is all that energy that the growing concentrations of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is trapping going?" At the end of the day, when you boil it down, AGW is about creating an energy sink. If AGW is false, it either means our understanding of the physics of carbon dioxide is wrong, or it means there's some as yet undiscovered means that the lower atmosphere eliminates heat into space. They've been clinging to the lack of cloud data, but new research is now taking that away from them, so I'm not sure what's left.
Slashdot Mirror
While I have my problems with the Guardian (their coverage of the Tower Hamlets and Rotherham scandals were awful), what you're referring to seems to be on the Comment Is Free section; basically their editorial section. By and large, comment pieces are either written by editorial staff, regular columnists, or guest editors and submitters, and should not be confused with the journalism that appears in other parts of the newspaper or website. I find the likes of Jessica Valenti to be pretty odious, not so much for her behavior on the Guardian (which is pretty over the top), but her even more lunatic ramblings in other places. Go look up her Twitter explosions when the whole UVA rape culture incident exploded. She really is a pretty unhinged person, and I notice she disappeared from the Guardian for a few months; an enforced sabbatical, I imagine.
Because attacking anyone who raises issues of equality as an "SJW" is such an extraordinary sign of tolerance.
There's nothing I love better than a partisan of one side of the political spectrum attacking members of the other side in a way that makes it clear they're just as guilty of the same illogic and sheer stupidity. Or, to put it more simply for someone like you; POT... KETTLE... BLACK
Because apparently unisex washrooms makes Baby Jesus cry, and Baby Jesus is an angry, jealous god who will punish those that dare go against His commandments. Thank Baby Jesus there are good Baby Jesus-fearing politicians in North Carolina who know how to preserve that state from the wrath of Baby Jesus.
Out of control in what respect? Do you have some evidence of a large number of issues with trans people using the washroom of the gender they identify with?
Think about this very fucking hard. You have a pre-op trans woman; she's dressed like a woman, she's going to be acting like a woman, and you want to force her to use a men's washroom. What do you suppose is going to happen?
But it isn't a simple biological fact. There is decades of research on gender dysmorphia. You may not like what that research has to say, but you are not free to just simply invent your own "facts" to win the argument.
What you're writing is qualitatively the same as all those bigots in the Jim Crown era who insisted black men had to be kept away from white women because of the animalistic lust that could occur. This is just another example of a bigot trying to justify their bigotry through oversimplification and just out and out invention. And really, who the fuck is harmed by this? If a trans woman goes into a woman's washroom, who is harmed, as compared to the potential harm that a trans woman could suffer by being made to go into a men's washroom?
For chrissakes, many jurisdictions have had unisex washrooms for years, with few if any problems.
And your experience differs in what respect from some guy continually flirting with a girl in his college class, despite a clear lack of interest on her part? Is unwanted flirting more tolerable because the flirter and flirtee are of different genders? If the behavior crosses the line, harassment laws would apply equally to a same-sex harasser as to a harasser of a different sex.
The "right not to associate" is not some sort of absolute principle. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 have already created that precedent. You can't defend refusing to serve black clientele at your business by proclaiming "That's my right to freedom of association". What is happening now is LGBT individuals are being afforded the same rights and protections as other minorities. And what's your problem with that?
I suspect the legislation is destined for a very short life. I suspect a number of NC politicians are beginning the slow process of realizing that NC is not the sum total of the universe, and that they don't sit in a vacuum where they get to do anything they want.
And really, if this corporate pressure is enough to see the bill trounced, it may very well save the state from the real embarrassment of having Federal courts throw the law out on a challenge.
That certainly seems to be what's happening. I don't see much evidence that Edge is gaining much ground (and little wonder, it's a buggy piece of shit), so if Firefox adopts the Chrome engine, then we are basically left with Safari for the iDevices, and Google's engine creeping in everywhere else, and we're right back where where we were in 2005.
Why the "alpha male" notion may be a bit simplistic, human groups do tend to fall into dominance hierarchies. We aren't chimps, but the way we organize our social groups isn't a hundred miles from how chimps function. Inevitably, all human organizations will follow similar patterns of leadership and deference, with one degree of competition or another from lower ranking individuals who think they deserve a spot at the big table, or even to be at the head of it.
Exactly. One that periodically shows up on our DFS file servers:
Index : 170203
EntryType : Information
InstanceId : 1073756378
Message : The description for Event ID '1073756378' in Source 'DfsSvc' cannot be found. The local computer
may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display the message, or
you may not have permission to access them. The following information is part of the event:'dfs'
Category : (0)
CategoryNumber : 0
ReplacementStrings : {dfs}
Source : DfsSvc
TimeGenerated : 4/11/2016 2:15:31 PM
TimeWritten : 4/11/2016 2:15:31 PM
UserName :
My solution is simple. If an online forum becomes too restrictive, I don't post there anymore. For me, if Facebook and Twitter want to restrict posts based on abusive or threatening language, that's their prerogative.
He's the kind of developer that turns globals on and writes everything in PHP 3, who puts in a hardcoded root password of "1234" for testing, and then forgets to take it out before the software goes production. He's the kind of developer that captures all exceptions and errors in one big exception method that pukes out "An unexpected error occurred". He's the kind of developer that still writes Flash-based scripts, insisting "They're still cutting edge, man!"
He's the kind of developer that ends up as head of his department, and will be CTO within two years.
If the bombs had been ready a bit earlier, Berlin may very well have been the first target. In fact, I wonder sometimes if the Americans had been able to stop the War in Europe before the Soviets were smashing through what would become East Germany if the post-war history of Europe would have been very different. Imagine Germany having never been divided in two, because Germany unconditionally surrendered due to Fat Man and Little Boy being dropped on major German cities; say Munich and Berlin. One wonders if the Japanese, having seen the destruction that the Americans could unleash would have given up before they were targeted.
Such an attack would have costs tens of thousands of lives, but might have prevented, or at least shrunken the Iron Curtain.
Exactly. I think there is some "thin-skinedness" in some of these claims of abuse, but at the same time there have been people that have been threatened with death. Even I was once, a long time ago, threatened with physical injury by someone who was losing an online debate and who was clearly coming undone by it. I never actually worried that it would happen as the fellow, so far as I gathered, was a Briton living in Poland, but I admit I was disconcerted by someone on a public Usenet group telling me he was going to come to my house and punch me in the head.
Campaigning against nukes even as they enjoy the US nuclear shield, and if need be could become a nuclear power in very short ordee?.
And let's remember why Hiroshima happened at all.
You sure that wasn't my last staff party?
But the point is that it is an objection. It doesn't matter that it's ludicrous and essentially denies physics All that matters is that it sounds like a scientific objection. Of course is a load of shit, and maybe even the poster knows that (but I doubt it), but it's part of the "CO2 is totally harmless" counterargument which has been around for decades now. Like Creationists, psuedo-skeptics just keep repeating the same lies over and over and over again, no matter how many times they have been falsified.
Or just to implement your own from several encryption algorithms that are well known.
There should be a "too stupid to govern" clause in the Constitution, whereby if anyone tries to pass a law to ban thermodynamics or make Pi 3, they are immediately stripped of all offices and powers, and banned for life from ever even entering a government or taxpayer-funded building again.
King Canute had an interesting way of demonstating the idiocy of assuming you can pass laws that pretend to change nature.
The Creationists have tried similar tactics.
Even chaotic systems don't make energy disappear. They will create an inherent degree of randomness and unpredictability, but even in really chaotic systems, as physicists deal with in Quantum Mechanics, you can still apply statistical methods and come up with models that resemble reality well enough. Essentially, pseudo-skeptics invoke "chaotic systems" as a gaps argument, but they never really describe what they think a chaotic system is supposed to do in the case of trapping heat. Vortexes dumping heat into space? Quantum teleportation of excited molecules? It's just a magical invocation.
How is it a strawman? Particularly the latter point, that climatologists are compromised because they work by and large with government grants is brought up all the time as a counter to AGW research. For chrissakes, that claim is trotted by pseudo-skeptics in fields like geology, evolution, and cancer research.
I guess they can always go back to mumbling about "chaotic systems".
I think some pseudoskeptics think that if they type any kind of a response, somehow, that invalidates the science. Yesterday, I had a guy somehow asserting that because plate tectonic theory was developed, that this meant AGW was on uncertain footing; as in "hey, they developed this new theory, so any day now, AGW is going to be falsified!" My retort, as it ever is these days, is to ask "Where the hell is all that energy that the growing concentrations of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is trapping going?" At the end of the day, when you boil it down, AGW is about creating an energy sink. If AGW is false, it either means our understanding of the physics of carbon dioxide is wrong, or it means there's some as yet undiscovered means that the lower atmosphere eliminates heat into space. They've been clinging to the lack of cloud data, but new research is now taking that away from them, so I'm not sure what's left.