Today's common is owned by a private corporation with a political agenda. The enlightenment ideal based protections for speech don't contemplate the protections needed for such a situation.
I've seen arguments that roughly say 'you're free to create your own video hosting platform' and in practice they're equivalent to saying you're free to make your own common in the deep woods where no roads or people are.
DMCA takedowns aren't at all hard to "appeal against"; you just file a counter-notice and the material goes back up.
This story is about hate speech and violence.
Google soft censors based on political or cultural message. Dishonestly limiting the reach of messages opposed to your political interests while hiding behind 'hate speech' and 'think of the children/advertisers' rhetoric is not moral high-ground position
Copyright strikes are abused, Google allows them by 3rd parties against the original artist provided they're against someone small or politics they don't favor. Critics run into this problem regularly. (for a non-politically charged example) Copyright law allows for commentary and criticism, but if you post a three part series exposing flaws in a game or piece of software the author can then threaten you with a 3-strike lifetime ban from google because google is known to back them up.
Wargaming EU publicly stated they would never do that and granting license to all players to post videos of any game play, then recently they privately threatened to file hundreds of DMCA claims against a reviewer, and denied ever having made the threats - but were caught via screen shot. Just a private battle for damage control appeared to be succeeding (several popular reviewers were leaving), Wargaming US PR head (possibly unaware of the threat screen shots and damage control underway) made a post labeling the targeted video racist/sexist/homophobic. It was none of those things, though it was salty and harshly critical of the game. That highlighted the elephant in the room. Any company employee at any time could file copyright claims against any reviewer or lets play vlogger resulting in a lifetime ban from youtube for that vlogger. Google doesn't sustain appeals in cases like this.
Voting systems (from, say Diebold) made with deliberate vulnerabilities. Especially at the tabulation stage. For domestic use.
But using the turns up statistical anomalies they may not be able to hide entirely. They need some sort of cover. It's even better if it can be wrapped up in political tribalism so believing the cover story is a social identity issue.
You need to solve the underlying issues first, and they go far beyond just one university.
To a statistically significant degree, men prefer interacting with things and women prefer interacting with people. Women are already the majority in college, apparently via making college unwelcome and possibly dangerous for men. Is that the sort of underlying issue you want to fix more broadly? You could go the route Scandinavian countries have tried and compel people to work in jobs they're unhappy with to conform with the ideology.
I've got a maverick idea. Support a cure/treatment/prevention campaign for Aspergers/Austism. Find a cure a fewer men will want to work in IT.
70% of people reported a problem with rudeness It's a technical meritocracy isn't it? Look into politics if you want a social skills based arena. (both can have sociopath problems)
As a matter of fact, he has a point. There's a reason why the KKK, as well as other white supremacist organizations and neo-Nazi groups overwhelmingly support conservative politicians. It's because they like what they see.
There's a reason liberals overwhelmingly support Che Guevara, Mao and Stalin's Holodomor ('I've seen the future and it works' ring a bell?). It's because they like what they see.
You're right, this name calling is fun! I'd say baseless, but I've seen liberals wearing Mao or Che shirts as offensive (or ignorant) as that is but never a skinhead wearing a conservative politician shirt.
No, that wouldn't be entrapment. In the first case it would be committing a crime (tricking someone into downloading child port when they have no intention to do this is a crime), in the second case we have the unfortunate situation that an innocent person will be incorrectly accused of a crime. Neither is entrapment.
Entrapment would be convincing someone who doesn't originally want to download child porn to willingly do it.
Except that mens rea has been stripped from so many laws like this one. It's strict liability, so possession is the crime. Period.
Spot that troll link is a troll, but your browsers pre-cache speedup downloads the page in the background? It's in your cache, in your possession. Guilty!
Clear the cache, never view the contents? It's in the unallocated portion of your drive. Guilty! (why, that's proof you had them in undeleted form, and they're still in your possession in any case)
Slender legal age woman in porn? Guilty! - the prosecutor thinks she looks underage, and that's criminal too.
I'm surprised that political assassination using these laws isn't common. Malware that fills the target's PC with illegal porn in the unallocated areas, then a tip-off. In fact, create a fake silk road server with all of your political targets as members and let -that- be found to launder the frame-up.
Yeah, that looks deadly enough to be fun. The grid landing pad isn't optional either. You must land it there and only there. It'll squirt out from under you otherwise. (that pad is a neat, simple idea for solving the problem)
Like throwing a beer bottle up into the blades to bring it down?
I note the complete lack of wind. If they can make it work that well in windy conditions, and you can take off with at least modest lake waves they're getting somewhere. The video only shows a scaled up hex copter flying. The problem is lots deeper than that - I want to see some evidence that they've made real headway.
There hasn't been a Friday night fight for a while - it looks like it's back.
There used to be an article every week to inspire angry virgins to go around screaming SJW!!!!
Because it always a laugh when I'm blackmailed by a female co-worker threatening false reports because she's empowered by SJW workplace policies. The best time when one threatened charges against me unless I framed another co-worker she wanted to get. Such a laugh I must say. har har har You're such a genius comedian...
At a former employer I dated the HR person, which was an effective defense.
What are you getting on about? mutantSushi's comment seems to be to the polar -opposite- of the kind of blanket pronouncements and knee-jerk reactions SJWs are generally accused of.
Exactly. You've misunderstood. That figure of speech means the AC is agreeing with mutantSushi.
'Don't confuse with facts' is a figure of speech meaning roughly 'the complainer is too dumb to understand the explanation of their mistake' - but used when the complainer may know damn well they're wrong and are doing it anyway to make political/religious/social waves and/or to take advantage of an unbalanced playing field that will grant them the win though their wrong.
AC could have written 'Don't point out the glaring contradiction that invalidates the whole point to an SJW, that's mansplaining! (or internalized misogyny if mutantSushi is female - or one of the other 20 er 50 er 92 genders)
I think you meant: Overlapping groups of politicians accept lobbiest influence to pass laws causing problems but profiting a group able to get that influence. That causes problems for an increasing number of others as the first group's grip is squeezed, and eventually enough band together to buy enough influence to get a 'fixer' law passed. Many politicians just pretend to be dumb, so they plead 'last minute resistance' and amendments as the reason the law was altered to one that only partly fixes the problem. Politicians milk this as long as they can, eventually creating a tangle of competing laws that contradict leading to lawsuits and judicial rulings that start the whole thing over again. Every round profits the politicians. It's almost as though they're all lawyers who understand how to create and profit from conflict. Almost...
Legislators sold us out, creating a whole fabric of law allowing this. The DRM system added to the printer to restrict toner cartridges to Lexmark supplied only ones is patented. Anything that the printer will print with is infringing the patent on the DRM system, and on the DRM chip on the toner.
You cover an event. Participants at the event attack you because your pictures are a risk for them since you are a police photographer in effect. (vs a news source journalists protect)
I'm sure they'll be cross-referencing web habits via Cell phone radio/Mac addresses as well. Why not commit to total creeper stalking if you're going to stalk?
Simply make qualified immunity available only with the presence of body cam footage. "forget" or have a records dept. "accident" or wipe the server with a cloth and it's gone.
Anyone not complying with any order the Officer chooses to give, lawful or not, can be charged with obstructing. Recording the incident can be charged under wiretapping laws. In any altercation with the officer, the other party is charged with resisting arrest and often assaulting an officer. The officer can demand any recordings of events under the threat of arrest and then destroy them (and the device they're on) if they're unfavorable.
That little list of only the really common ones is enough, don't you think? We didn't even have to touch on qualified immunity.
Win32? What's that have to do with DOS? This happened in the 80s. Through at least the early 90s, when MS released a new product competing products were likely to start having 'issues'... like clockwork...
As I recall it was discovery in the Comes case vs MS that proved it. They'd had meetings to brainstorm ways to make competing software have continuous 'difficulties'. Through the 80s MS hadn't updated their operating system. Dos 3.3 needed all sort of helper software to be able to function with a network, mouse or any other driver. You'd use up the 640k of low memory and your application or game couldn't run. You needed a memory manager at least to be able to use the 640k-1024k area for the device drivers and to provide a memory interface to higher memory addresses. MS Dos 4 failed completely (early Vista?).
Digital equipment stepped in and made an advanced Dos that MS never reached feature parity with even with MS Dos 6 ( Dr. Dos ). Demand for storage had skyrocketed but hard drive pricing was stagnant. Processors had improved, so Stack made an innovative transparent hard drive compression system that loaded like a SCSI drive. Awesome stuff.
So, MS created software that reported fake error messages if you used Dr. Dos and release MS Dos 6 with drive compression allegedly stolen from Stack. MS stalled the lawsuit from Stack until they ran out of money and folded. They tried that with Dr. Dos, but a lawfirm deep pockets managed to buy Dr. Dos and pursue the case. MS had been putting information about anti-competitive unlawful behavior in writing, which came out in that case. MS was behaving that way. It looks like MS sought single product profitable companies without a big cash reserve that couldn't complete a lawsuit if MS cut off their sales. Then take the product in some way, alter the OS to keep crashing with the victim product and use leverage with the sales channels to cut off opportunities to make sales. (later example - MS threatens to withhold Windows licenses from Compaq during Christmas if Compaq doesn't remove Quicken and replace it with MS Money on all PCs)
Comcast in Houston makes using their box mandatory if you have a fixed IP. They told me I could use my own box, advertise that on the website and only mentioned the restriction once I wanted to install the replacement (picked from their recommended list!).
Given what tech companies have been shown to turn over to three letter agencies, I'd be concerned that they'd turn the data over so that every single use of the imperfect facial recognition software include a scan of my face putting me at risk of being targeted.
In my experience, if the manufacturer releases a firmware update that bricks some hardware revisions often they will not warranty repair it. Years ago one of the early Lexmark scanner+laser to make a copier devices shipped with a network stack bug that was a show stopper for us. ($3k+, T63x series printer as a base) Lexmark support wanted me to firmware update before returning it. I read the 'I agree' text with the update, which said bricking the device wasn't covered. I asked support if bricking the device was a risk, and kept a copy of the chat log - which was great because the update bricked the printer. When I called support back, they refused warranty replacement until I showed chat log copies. -sigh-
A friend had a similar experience with an Eyefi (wireless SD card). That's before you get to vendors that do feature or performance takeaway with the update.
and fascism is the corner of the resultant grid where statism meets capitalism, the worst of both worlds. Neither state socialism nor libertarian capitalism are its opposite; libertarian socialism is.
Only 16 years from the end of the 20th century and you think the corner where statism meets capitalism is the worst? Really? Not where statism meets socialism?
Do the deaths of little people not matter as long as the great leap forward is achieved? Do you think the statist socialist places weren't doing socialism hard enough, or will you make a 'no true Scottsman' argument and claim they weren't doing it right? It's just that every single time... every. time... every. single. time... it ends in rivers of blood. The useful idealists are liquidated the moment they object.
So with more than 100 million dead between Mao's great leap forward and Stalin's war on the Kulaks and subsequent starvation of the Ukraine (Russia deliberately shipped food *out* during a famine) exactly how big does the death toll have to be? 5x the worst of fascism? 10x? Are you pining for your own Hundred Flowers campaign so you'll be free to achieve your vision afterwards? Have you 'seen the future, and it works!'? Did your primary education include Solzhenitsyn or the Hundred Flowers? The substantive answer is that it's damning of the political ideology that's in vogue, isn't it?
Statism is a real world slippery slope. Psychological manipulation techniques for whole societies work, and are well known. Those two amplify each others power. Statism has to be stopped before it reaches critical mass, but the point where that happens is only visible afterwards. You have to steer well clear of the avalanche area because you can't stop it. The society wide version of lynch mobs that result if you don't make actual mobs seem friendly. That's the lesson of the 20th century. Avoid this or there will be rivers of blood - unless you try really, really hard to do it right this time - then there will be oceans of blood instead.
Obama is No true Scottsman? That's your defense of him keeping or expanding everything Bush did that was evil (and a continuation of Clinton) Really? Is that how you dance around Guantanamo not being closed too? He's had an executive order for everything else, but couldn't lift a pen in eight years? (I remember that being a big thing Bush was demonized for that Obama was going to fix just as soon as he took office - as breathlessly reported in the media)
I don't see a reason to excuse Republicans for using jingoistic propaganda to excuse expanding a surveillance state or Democrats for lying and denying what they're doing while they expand it.
If it's ok when your team does it - if you're only sorry that they got caught and then excuse it with rhetorical arguments like No True Scotsman you're either the problem or a useful idiot for those who are.
Sycodon was right with this snark: Will a Trump Presidency cause Slashdot editors to lose their minds and post story after story on how a Trump Presidency will affect (insert pet cause here) This is Slashdot and the lead wasn't 'How the MPAA will lose their minds when Trump kills TPP'. What has Dice done? I may clutch my perl$.
The "Gamers are Dead" 11 articles are what first introduced me to Gamergate. The one posted on Ars was a poorly written shitpost hit piece trying to shame the reader into hating the object of its derision. That prompted me to search out the reason why they'd tarnish their brand in the attempt. I thought I'd be done in a moment but discovered a rabbit hole with no bottom.
Whatever Ars hoped to achieve by participating in that vile coordinated smear campaign, they did succeed in losing me forever.
The majority of the citations I have direct knowledge of were unfair in some way. I hope the prevalence of dash cams will make class action suits possible vs challenging individual tickets.
Teenagers in my city are targeted for fines as they're without the resources to fight unfair enforcement.
Ex: Install no parking signs on the streets surrounding the high school during the day and ticket all the students. Inform the students that they had a duty to move their cars upon installation of the signs as there is no grace period. Of course officers were standing by to write truancy tickets for any student who did.
Subtext: Begin requiring paid permits for the parking lot, which also require agreeing allow any property searches - waiving 4th amendment rights. Given that students whose cars were at home were singled out for searches because drug dogs alerted on their car (allegedly in the parking lot), it's clear why the considered probable cause an impediment.
In adult life, I use a dash cam because of the false traffic citations. The last one it saved me from was a 51 in a 40 zone ticket. I was driving 40, period - and have video. When I watched them afterwards, two patrol cars were literally ticketing the next car driving by after they finished writing the last citation.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen arguments that roughly say 'you're free to create your own video hosting platform' and in practice they're equivalent to saying you're free to make your own common in the deep woods where no roads or people are.
DMCA takedowns aren't at all hard to "appeal against"; you just file a counter-notice and the material goes back up.
This story is about hate speech and violence.
Google soft censors based on political or cultural message. Dishonestly limiting the reach of messages opposed to your political interests while hiding behind 'hate speech' and 'think of the children/advertisers' rhetoric is not moral high-ground position
Copyright strikes are abused, Google allows them by 3rd parties against the original artist provided they're against someone small or politics they don't favor. Critics run into this problem regularly. (for a non-politically charged example) Copyright law allows for commentary and criticism, but if you post a three part series exposing flaws in a game or piece of software the author can then threaten you with a 3-strike lifetime ban from google because google is known to back them up.
Wargaming EU publicly stated they would never do that and granting license to all players to post videos of any game play, then recently they privately threatened to file hundreds of DMCA claims against a reviewer, and denied ever having made the threats - but were caught via screen shot. Just a private battle for damage control appeared to be succeeding (several popular reviewers were leaving), Wargaming US PR head (possibly unaware of the threat screen shots and damage control underway) made a post labeling the targeted video racist/sexist/homophobic. It was none of those things, though it was salty and harshly critical of the game. That highlighted the elephant in the room. Any company employee at any time could file copyright claims against any reviewer or lets play vlogger resulting in a lifetime ban from youtube for that vlogger. Google doesn't sustain appeals in cases like this.
Voting systems (from, say Diebold) made with deliberate vulnerabilities. Especially at the tabulation stage. For domestic use.
But using the turns up statistical anomalies they may not be able to hide entirely. They need some sort of cover. It's even better if it can be wrapped up in political tribalism so believing the cover story is a social identity issue.
And... behold! The cover story!
You need to solve the underlying issues first, and they go far beyond just one university.
To a statistically significant degree, men prefer interacting with things and women prefer interacting with people. Women are already the majority in college, apparently via making college unwelcome and possibly dangerous for men. Is that the sort of underlying issue you want to fix more broadly? You could go the route Scandinavian countries have tried and compel people to work in jobs they're unhappy with to conform with the ideology.
I've got a maverick idea. Support a cure/treatment/prevention campaign for Aspergers/Austism. Find a cure a fewer men will want to work in IT.
70% of people reported a problem with rudeness
It's a technical meritocracy isn't it? Look into politics if you want a social skills based arena. (both can have sociopath problems)
The lying liars are forced to admit to a certain degree of illegal activity when completely cornered.
Why, exactly, is anyone believing that they've come completely clean? I mean, they've been so trustworthy up until now, right?
As a matter of fact, he has a point. There's a reason why the KKK, as well as other white supremacist organizations and neo-Nazi groups overwhelmingly support conservative politicians. It's because they like what they see.
There's a reason liberals overwhelmingly support Che Guevara, Mao and Stalin's Holodomor ('I've seen the future and it works' ring a bell?). It's because they like what they see.
You're right, this name calling is fun! I'd say baseless, but I've seen liberals wearing Mao or Che shirts as offensive (or ignorant) as that is but never a skinhead wearing a conservative politician shirt.
No, that wouldn't be entrapment. In the first case it would be committing a crime (tricking someone into downloading child port when they have no intention to do this is a crime), in the second case we have the unfortunate situation that an innocent person will be incorrectly accused of a crime. Neither is entrapment. Entrapment would be convincing someone who doesn't originally want to download child porn to willingly do it.
Except that mens rea has been stripped from so many laws like this one. It's strict liability, so possession is the crime. Period.
Spot that troll link is a troll, but your browsers pre-cache speedup downloads the page in the background? It's in your cache, in your possession. Guilty!
Clear the cache, never view the contents? It's in the unallocated portion of your drive. Guilty! (why, that's proof you had them in undeleted form, and they're still in your possession in any case)
Slender legal age woman in porn? Guilty! - the prosecutor thinks she looks underage, and that's criminal too.
I'm surprised that political assassination using these laws isn't common. Malware that fills the target's PC with illegal porn in the unallocated areas, then a tip-off. In fact, create a fake silk road server with all of your political targets as members and let -that- be found to launder the frame-up.
Yeah, that looks deadly enough to be fun. The grid landing pad isn't optional either. You must land it there and only there. It'll squirt out from under you otherwise. (that pad is a neat, simple idea for solving the problem)
Like throwing a beer bottle up into the blades to bring it down?
I note the complete lack of wind. If they can make it work that well in windy conditions, and you can take off with at least modest lake waves they're getting somewhere. The video only shows a scaled up hex copter flying. The problem is lots deeper than that - I want to see some evidence that they've made real headway.
There hasn't been a Friday night fight for a while - it looks like it's back. There used to be an article every week to inspire angry virgins to go around screaming SJW!!!!
Because it always a laugh when I'm blackmailed by a female co-worker threatening false reports because she's empowered by SJW workplace policies. The best time when one threatened charges against me unless I framed another co-worker she wanted to get. Such a laugh I must say. har har har You're such a genius comedian...
At a former employer I dated the HR person, which was an effective defense.
What are you getting on about? mutantSushi's comment seems to be to the polar -opposite- of the kind of blanket pronouncements and knee-jerk reactions SJWs are generally accused of.
Exactly. You've misunderstood. That figure of speech means the AC is agreeing with mutantSushi.
'Don't confuse with facts' is a figure of speech meaning roughly 'the complainer is too dumb to understand the explanation of their mistake' - but used when the complainer may know damn well they're wrong and are doing it anyway to make political/religious/social waves and/or to take advantage of an unbalanced playing field that will grant them the win though their wrong.
AC could have written 'Don't point out the glaring contradiction that invalidates the whole point to an SJW, that's mansplaining! (or internalized misogyny if mutantSushi is female - or one of the other 20 er 50 er 92 genders)
Wherever did you find well meaning politicians?
I think you meant: Overlapping groups of politicians accept lobbiest influence to pass laws causing problems but profiting a group able to get that influence. That causes problems for an increasing number of others as the first group's grip is squeezed, and eventually enough band together to buy enough influence to get a 'fixer' law passed. Many politicians just pretend to be dumb, so they plead 'last minute resistance' and amendments as the reason the law was altered to one that only partly fixes the problem. Politicians milk this as long as they can, eventually creating a tangle of competing laws that contradict leading to lawsuits and judicial rulings that start the whole thing over again. Every round profits the politicians. It's almost as though they're all lawyers who understand how to create and profit from conflict. Almost...
So... where are these well meaning politicians?
Legislators sold us out, creating a whole fabric of law allowing this. The DRM system added to the printer to restrict toner cartridges to Lexmark supplied only ones is patented. Anything that the printer will print with is infringing the patent on the DRM system, and on the DRM chip on the toner.
You cover an event. Participants at the event attack you because your pictures are a risk for them since you are a police photographer in effect. (vs a news source journalists protect)
I'm sure they'll be cross-referencing web habits via Cell phone radio/Mac addresses as well. Why not commit to total creeper stalking if you're going to stalk?
Simply make qualified immunity available only with the presence of body cam footage. "forget" or have a records dept. "accident" or wipe the server with a cloth and it's gone.
Anyone not complying with any order the Officer chooses to give, lawful or not, can be charged with obstructing. Recording the incident can be charged under wiretapping laws. In any altercation with the officer, the other party is charged with resisting arrest and often assaulting an officer. The officer can demand any recordings of events under the threat of arrest and then destroy them (and the device they're on) if they're unfavorable.
That little list of only the really common ones is enough, don't you think? We didn't even have to touch on qualified immunity.
Win32? What's that have to do with DOS? This happened in the 80s. Through at least the early 90s, when MS released a new product competing products were likely to start having 'issues'... like clockwork...
As I recall it was discovery in the Comes case vs MS that proved it. They'd had meetings to brainstorm ways to make competing software have continuous 'difficulties'. Through the 80s MS hadn't updated their operating system. Dos 3.3 needed all sort of helper software to be able to function with a network, mouse or any other driver. You'd use up the 640k of low memory and your application or game couldn't run. You needed a memory manager at least to be able to use the 640k-1024k area for the device drivers and to provide a memory interface to higher memory addresses. MS Dos 4 failed completely (early Vista?).
Digital equipment stepped in and made an advanced Dos that MS never reached feature parity with even with MS Dos 6 ( Dr. Dos ). Demand for storage had skyrocketed but hard drive pricing was stagnant. Processors had improved, so Stack made an innovative transparent hard drive compression system that loaded like a SCSI drive. Awesome stuff. So, MS created software that reported fake error messages if you used Dr. Dos and release MS Dos 6 with drive compression allegedly stolen from Stack. MS stalled the lawsuit from Stack until they ran out of money and folded. They tried that with Dr. Dos, but a lawfirm deep pockets managed to buy Dr. Dos and pursue the case. MS had been putting information about anti-competitive unlawful behavior in writing, which came out in that case. MS was behaving that way. It looks like MS sought single product profitable companies without a big cash reserve that couldn't complete a lawsuit if MS cut off their sales. Then take the product in some way, alter the OS to keep crashing with the victim product and use leverage with the sales channels to cut off opportunities to make sales. (later example - MS threatens to withhold Windows licenses from Compaq during Christmas if Compaq doesn't remove Quicken and replace it with MS Money on all PCs)
Comcast in Houston makes using their box mandatory if you have a fixed IP. They told me I could use my own box, advertise that on the website and only mentioned the restriction once I wanted to install the replacement (picked from their recommended list!).
Given what tech companies have been shown to turn over to three letter agencies, I'd be concerned that they'd turn the data over so that every single use of the imperfect facial recognition software include a scan of my face putting me at risk of being targeted.
In my experience, if the manufacturer releases a firmware update that bricks some hardware revisions often they will not warranty repair it. Years ago one of the early Lexmark scanner+laser to make a copier devices shipped with a network stack bug that was a show stopper for us. ($3k+, T63x series printer as a base) Lexmark support wanted me to firmware update before returning it. I read the 'I agree' text with the update, which said bricking the device wasn't covered. I asked support if bricking the device was a risk, and kept a copy of the chat log - which was great because the update bricked the printer. When I called support back, they refused warranty replacement until I showed chat log copies. -sigh-
A friend had a similar experience with an Eyefi (wireless SD card). That's before you get to vendors that do feature or performance takeaway with the update.
and fascism is the corner of the resultant grid where statism meets capitalism, the worst of both worlds. Neither state socialism nor libertarian capitalism are its opposite; libertarian socialism is.
Only 16 years from the end of the 20th century and you think the corner where statism meets capitalism is the worst? Really? Not where statism meets socialism?
Do the deaths of little people not matter as long as the great leap forward is achieved? Do you think the statist socialist places weren't doing socialism hard enough, or will you make a 'no true Scottsman' argument and claim they weren't doing it right? It's just that every single time... every. time... every. single. time... it ends in rivers of blood. The useful idealists are liquidated the moment they object.
So with more than 100 million dead between Mao's great leap forward and Stalin's war on the Kulaks and subsequent starvation of the Ukraine (Russia deliberately shipped food *out* during a famine) exactly how big does the death toll have to be? 5x the worst of fascism? 10x? Are you pining for your own Hundred Flowers campaign so you'll be free to achieve your vision afterwards? Have you 'seen the future, and it works!'? Did your primary education include Solzhenitsyn or the Hundred Flowers? The substantive answer is that it's damning of the political ideology that's in vogue, isn't it?
Statism is a real world slippery slope. Psychological manipulation techniques for whole societies work, and are well known. Those two amplify each others power. Statism has to be stopped before it reaches critical mass, but the point where that happens is only visible afterwards. You have to steer well clear of the avalanche area because you can't stop it. The society wide version of lynch mobs that result if you don't make actual mobs seem friendly. That's the lesson of the 20th century. Avoid this or there will be rivers of blood - unless you try really, really hard to do it right this time - then there will be oceans of blood instead.
Obama is No true Scottsman? That's your defense of him keeping or expanding everything Bush did that was evil (and a continuation of Clinton) Really? Is that how you dance around Guantanamo not being closed too? He's had an executive order for everything else, but couldn't lift a pen in eight years? (I remember that being a big thing Bush was demonized for that Obama was going to fix just as soon as he took office - as breathlessly reported in the media)
I don't see a reason to excuse Republicans for using jingoistic propaganda to excuse expanding a surveillance state or Democrats for lying and denying what they're doing while they expand it.
If it's ok when your team does it - if you're only sorry that they got caught and then excuse it with rhetorical arguments like No True Scotsman you're either the problem or a useful idiot for those who are.
Sycodon was right with this snark: Will a Trump Presidency cause Slashdot editors to lose their minds and post story after story on how a Trump Presidency will affect (insert pet cause here) This is Slashdot and the lead wasn't 'How the MPAA will lose their minds when Trump kills TPP'. What has Dice done? I may clutch my perl$.
The "Gamers are Dead" 11 articles are what first introduced me to Gamergate. The one posted on Ars was a poorly written shitpost hit piece trying to shame the reader into hating the object of its derision. That prompted me to search out the reason why they'd tarnish their brand in the attempt. I thought I'd be done in a moment but discovered a rabbit hole with no bottom.
Whatever Ars hoped to achieve by participating in that vile coordinated smear campaign, they did succeed in losing me forever.
Cross-talk from an intermittent source has caused hard to track down problems for us too.
The majority of the citations I have direct knowledge of were unfair in some way. I hope the prevalence of dash cams will make class action suits possible vs challenging individual tickets.
Teenagers in my city are targeted for fines as they're without the resources to fight unfair enforcement.
Ex: Install no parking signs on the streets surrounding the high school during the day and ticket all the students. Inform the students that they had a duty to move their cars upon installation of the signs as there is no grace period. Of course officers were standing by to write truancy tickets for any student who did.
Subtext: Begin requiring paid permits for the parking lot, which also require agreeing allow any property searches - waiving 4th amendment rights. Given that students whose cars were at home were singled out for searches because drug dogs alerted on their car (allegedly in the parking lot), it's clear why the considered probable cause an impediment.
In adult life, I use a dash cam because of the false traffic citations. The last one it saved me from was a 51 in a 40 zone ticket. I was driving 40, period - and have video. When I watched them afterwards, two patrol cars were literally ticketing the next car driving by after they finished writing the last citation.