Gotcha, so you can't show me a single person who was disparaged for being white, straight and male as Baloroth claimed, let alone for being a virgin as he also claimed.
Just three? My god, you've made this easy.
* Claimed a judge could not operate without bias because he was Mexican
* Said a protestor should be beaten up simply for sharing his message that black lives matter
* Praised supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man as being "very passionate"
Oh look, more strawman. THE ONLY PERSON MAKING THIS ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IS YOU. Me, I'm far more worried about legitimate citizens who are being treated in a racist and misogynist manner by people like you.
Oh, look: Another strawman. Democrats are perfectly happy to discuss immigration, and to support immigration rules which fit our country's creed. What we have issue with is not people being called illegal immigrants, but rather with people being treated as subhuman because they have brown skin or a hole between their legs.
Nice strawman: Nobody ever claimed #alllivesmatter or "illegal immigrants" was hate speech. The hate speech was in claiming people to be inferior and not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us because of their skin color or gender.
The definition is very simple, even if you want to be obtuse and pretend you don't know: Saying someone is somehow inferior because of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation is hate speech. And Trump has crossed that line many, many, MANY times and continues to do so even now.
Show me a single person who was disparaged for being white, straight and male (never once have I seen anyone call them virgins, so let's just ignore that pretense) and NOT for being a white, straight male who was behaving in an overtly racist or misogynist manner. Difficulty: You can't, because had they not been being racist / misogynist, nobody would have said boo about them.
And sorry, but when they made overt racist or misogynist comments about others, they lost all right to complain about anything anyone says about them.
If you are moronic enough that you can't tell the difference between berating someone based on their behavior, and berating them based on their skin color or gender... Well, nobody will be able to educate you on the Internet. Run on back to your safe space with the other KKK kiddies now.
He's already broken hate speech rules repeatedly for basically his entire campaign. What alternate world are we living in here, where we're now pretending he did otherwise?
Except that's not what happened here, or even remotely like it. What happened here is that she placed her works into the public domain to be used in any manner the public liked... then got upset when she realized that this included commercial use by corporations. She didn't have a leg to stand on, and rightly lost. If she wanted to make her photos free to individuals only and not for commercial use, she should have released them under the correct license.
No. They didn't even get rid of incentivized reviews, as they claimed to have done. Literally all they did was require incentivized reviews to be run through Amazon, ensuring they can take their cut of the proceeds.
...for example the Arial Atom V8 500 is street legal, has been around for almost a decade already, and will also do 0-60 in 2.3 seconds. Citation: http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/N...
This might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read: The majority of social media users do no filtering at all, beyond the filtering that was done when they chose their circle of friends. Even the most transparently obvious fake stories are parroted ad infinitum in what is essentially an echo chamber for idiocy.
The chances of Assange *not* having leaked documents on someone who has basically cheated almost every single person he's done business with are nil. There are simply too many people Trump has screwed over for there *not* to be an army of angry one-time collaborators -- and current collaborators who can see the writing on the wall far too late -- who would be willing to leak and help take him down.
Ergo, Assange has intentionally squashed the Trump leaks and promoted the Clinton leaks in a partisan effort to ensure Clinton didn't get in. And for that, he deserves a swift and firm statement on the choice of the orifice into which he can now insert himself with this request.
Oh so very much this. We love to point at China and scream "It's all their fault", but those Chinese factories are predominantly making products for the Western world, and tailoring their processes to minimize the cost over all else as we specifically told them to do. If our companies were requiring them to have proper environmental controls and we were willing to pay the extra cost, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to make their factories cleaner.
I don't just think it, it's a fact. We know historically what the markets did, and we know for a fact that if he had simply put all of his money in the markets, he'd have just as much as he claims to have now. Rather than disputing facts, perhaps you should be reconsidering your belief that he's a great businessman, because he isn't.
So it's OK when Trump does it, but because Trump believes that Jeff Bezos might have done it too, that's just wrong? Sorry, double standard. Trump has no grounds to be calling out anybody else on taxes, any more than he has grounds to declare himself a great businessman when he could have simply invested the huge sum of money Daddy gave him, then sat back and done absolutely nothing for decades without earning a cent less.
He's a moral coward, a hopelessly bad businessman, and soon will be the worst president in the history of the United States.
So, Trump's tax adviser will be sheriff, then. Because Trump is not even remotely a tax expert, despite his claims. His own tax adviser said he literally just signed his returns after they were prepared for him without any involvement at all. (Citation: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/...)
Exactly. Not to mention that many people are in jail on drug charges for minor recreational drugs for which the prevailing public opinion is that they should be legal, and therefore are jailed only because we have a government which refuses to heed the will of the people. They should not be disenfranchised for that reason, nor should we potentially disenfranchise the wrongly-convicted, of which there are also more than a few in a country of this size. Everyone should have a vote, felon or not.
You couldn't be much further off base if you tried. a) Why do you think the electoral college only comes up after Democrats lose? Gee, do you think it could be because it artificially favors votes in small, low-population states which tend to go for Republicans, rather than large, high-population states that tend to go for Democrats? b) The electoral college basically guarantees that since votes in areas of large population are worth proportionally far less, politicians will spend most of their time campaigning in a handful of tiny states. In other words, they'll still ignore 90% of the country, but they'll ignore the 90% where most of the population lives. The result is a far less representative government.
Which will be the states where most people live, ergo the politicians will be visiting (and making promises to) far more of the electorate than they do now. That's a good thing. If you choose to live in Podunk, sorry, but you don't automatically deserve a more meaningful vote than mine.
If this were only the popular vote nationally, we'd forever have policy and presidents dictated based on 3 or so states, most on either coast with more extreme views and vast different needs from those other states between them.
My goodness, you mean that we'd have a situation where the far lesser number of people in flyover states couldn't dictate the rules of play for the far greater number of people living in cities? I fail to see a problem with this.
...that Slashdot is no longer a site for knowledgeable nerds. No self-respecting nerd would ever in a million years even suggest installing software with security and privacy implications as dire as this carries, not even for a million opportunities to spout relevant buzzwords and hype-generating brandnames from days gone by. Thus we can posit that Slashdot is now a site for the mouth-breathing "nerd" who wants to seem informed without actually knowing anything of what they speak, let alone its implications.
I do believe this is the last time I'll be around these parts. Nice knowing you all!
Slashdot Mirror
Gotcha, so you can't show me a single person who was disparaged for being white, straight and male as Baloroth claimed, let alone for being a virgin as he also claimed.
Just three? My god, you've made this easy. * Claimed a judge could not operate without bias because he was Mexican * Said a protestor should be beaten up simply for sharing his message that black lives matter * Praised supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man as being "very passionate"
Oh look, more strawman. THE ONLY PERSON MAKING THIS ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IS YOU. Me, I'm far more worried about legitimate citizens who are being treated in a racist and misogynist manner by people like you.
Oh, look: Another strawman. Democrats are perfectly happy to discuss immigration, and to support immigration rules which fit our country's creed. What we have issue with is not people being called illegal immigrants, but rather with people being treated as subhuman because they have brown skin or a hole between their legs.
Nice strawman: Nobody ever claimed #alllivesmatter or "illegal immigrants" was hate speech. The hate speech was in claiming people to be inferior and not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us because of their skin color or gender.
The definition is very simple, even if you want to be obtuse and pretend you don't know: Saying someone is somehow inferior because of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation is hate speech. And Trump has crossed that line many, many, MANY times and continues to do so even now.
Show me a single person who was disparaged for being white, straight and male (never once have I seen anyone call them virgins, so let's just ignore that pretense) and NOT for being a white, straight male who was behaving in an overtly racist or misogynist manner. Difficulty: You can't, because had they not been being racist / misogynist, nobody would have said boo about them. And sorry, but when they made overt racist or misogynist comments about others, they lost all right to complain about anything anyone says about them.
If you are moronic enough that you can't tell the difference between berating someone based on their behavior, and berating them based on their skin color or gender... Well, nobody will be able to educate you on the Internet. Run on back to your safe space with the other KKK kiddies now.
You can support overt racism and misogyny if you like. That just makes you a relic.
He's already broken hate speech rules repeatedly for basically his entire campaign. What alternate world are we living in here, where we're now pretending he did otherwise?
Except that's not what happened here, or even remotely like it. What happened here is that she placed her works into the public domain to be used in any manner the public liked... then got upset when she realized that this included commercial use by corporations. She didn't have a leg to stand on, and rightly lost. If she wanted to make her photos free to individuals only and not for commercial use, she should have released them under the correct license.
No. They didn't even get rid of incentivized reviews, as they claimed to have done. Literally all they did was require incentivized reviews to be run through Amazon, ensuring they can take their cut of the proceeds.
...for example the Arial Atom V8 500 is street legal, has been around for almost a decade already, and will also do 0-60 in 2.3 seconds. Citation: http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/N...
This might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read: The majority of social media users do no filtering at all, beyond the filtering that was done when they chose their circle of friends. Even the most transparently obvious fake stories are parroted ad infinitum in what is essentially an echo chamber for idiocy.
The chances of Assange *not* having leaked documents on someone who has basically cheated almost every single person he's done business with are nil. There are simply too many people Trump has screwed over for there *not* to be an army of angry one-time collaborators -- and current collaborators who can see the writing on the wall far too late -- who would be willing to leak and help take him down.
Ergo, Assange has intentionally squashed the Trump leaks and promoted the Clinton leaks in a partisan effort to ensure Clinton didn't get in. And for that, he deserves a swift and firm statement on the choice of the orifice into which he can now insert himself with this request.
Oh so very much this. We love to point at China and scream "It's all their fault", but those Chinese factories are predominantly making products for the Western world, and tailoring their processes to minimize the cost over all else as we specifically told them to do. If our companies were requiring them to have proper environmental controls and we were willing to pay the extra cost, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to make their factories cleaner.
I don't just think it, it's a fact. We know historically what the markets did, and we know for a fact that if he had simply put all of his money in the markets, he'd have just as much as he claims to have now. Rather than disputing facts, perhaps you should be reconsidering your belief that he's a great businessman, because he isn't.
Where are my mod points when I need them?
So it's OK when Trump does it, but because Trump believes that Jeff Bezos might have done it too, that's just wrong? Sorry, double standard. Trump has no grounds to be calling out anybody else on taxes, any more than he has grounds to declare himself a great businessman when he could have simply invested the huge sum of money Daddy gave him, then sat back and done absolutely nothing for decades without earning a cent less.
He's a moral coward, a hopelessly bad businessman, and soon will be the worst president in the history of the United States.
So, Trump's tax adviser will be sheriff, then. Because Trump is not even remotely a tax expert, despite his claims. His own tax adviser said he literally just signed his returns after they were prepared for him without any involvement at all. (Citation: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/...)
Exactly. Not to mention that many people are in jail on drug charges for minor recreational drugs for which the prevailing public opinion is that they should be legal, and therefore are jailed only because we have a government which refuses to heed the will of the people. They should not be disenfranchised for that reason, nor should we potentially disenfranchise the wrongly-convicted, of which there are also more than a few in a country of this size. Everyone should have a vote, felon or not.
You couldn't be much further off base if you tried. a) Why do you think the electoral college only comes up after Democrats lose? Gee, do you think it could be because it artificially favors votes in small, low-population states which tend to go for Republicans, rather than large, high-population states that tend to go for Democrats? b) The electoral college basically guarantees that since votes in areas of large population are worth proportionally far less, politicians will spend most of their time campaigning in a handful of tiny states. In other words, they'll still ignore 90% of the country, but they'll ignore the 90% where most of the population lives. The result is a far less representative government.
Which will be the states where most people live, ergo the politicians will be visiting (and making promises to) far more of the electorate than they do now. That's a good thing. If you choose to live in Podunk, sorry, but you don't automatically deserve a more meaningful vote than mine.
My goodness, you mean that we'd have a situation where the far lesser number of people in flyover states couldn't dictate the rules of play for the far greater number of people living in cities? I fail to see a problem with this.
...that Slashdot is no longer a site for knowledgeable nerds. No self-respecting nerd would ever in a million years even suggest installing software with security and privacy implications as dire as this carries, not even for a million opportunities to spout relevant buzzwords and hype-generating brandnames from days gone by. Thus we can posit that Slashdot is now a site for the mouth-breathing "nerd" who wants to seem informed without actually knowing anything of what they speak, let alone its implications.
I do believe this is the last time I'll be around these parts. Nice knowing you all!