Private entities, be they lawyers in practice, finance companies, etc. have NO obligation, whatsoever, to cooperate with you if they don't want to. This is what's loosely referred to as "economic freedom". Even if you can pay me, I don't HAVE to take your case. You know, that whole "refuse the right to render service" shit you see everywhere? Protections of such, under the law, are EXACTLY for bullshit like this. The only mitigating factor here are cases of discrimination, which this CLEARLY is not, as the person is being refused service for their actions, not their inherent qualities.
Nothing about this impedes this person's right to a fair trial, as no matter what, they're still going to get a legal defense. So take you blatantly false upvoted bullshit somewhere else.
He's still going to get a public defender, no matter what, but it doesn't mean ANYONE in the private sector has to take his case, or help facilitate the process. Lawyers are allowed to refuse cases, even if you can afford to pay. Similarly, GoFundMe and the like are PRIVATE fucking companies that can choose to not accept payment if they damn well please.
Fuck off with your slippery slope nonsense, as this is NOT a case of such, unless private entities don't actually have the right to "refuse service" if they so choose.
Bullshit. I obviously see the tactic here, just keep repeating a falsehood until the weakminded believe it, but it still doesn't make it any more true. BLM is not responsible for "hate speech", violence, etc. as this is just a blatant lie to try and force some kind of vague false equivalency, and keep people on the fence.
Their mission, and goals, are not ones of violence or hatred, unlike the FUCKING NAZIS.
God damn dude. It felt like there used to be a time where Nazis were basically treated like pedophiles, with people doing everything they could to avoid association with such, and rightfully so. It's legitimately fucking terrifying how many of you are pretty cozy with the most blatant enemies of human existence nowadays.
Black Lives Matter is not a hate group with a mission of violence. I have nothing good to say about any religion, but there' also nothing inherently violent about the Nation of Islam. There's no reason whatsoever to compare any of the things you mention to neo-nazis, unless we accept the tacit assumptions of your poisonous mentality.
In fact, any political movement is almost certainly fine SO LONG AS THEY AREN'T OPENLY ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. Like, seriously, do you REALLY not even see the fucking difference? Seriously? Scary fucking times.
Oh horseshit. The absolute epitome of the "far-left" spectrum would be anarcho-syndicalism, which by no means holds particular grudges against either white people or men, specifically, unless they happen to be active oppressors, and, indeed, it is possibly the most egalitarian political philosophy ever espoused. While I find a lot to criticize in this political belief system, it's mainly grounded in pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic expectations of humanity. There is certainly nothing that would begin to even remotely resemble "hate speech". And before it's even brought up, contrary to popular belief, state-sponsored Communism is NOT a leftist institution, having little to do with either the visions of Marx, or the utopias envisioned by post-industrial radicals. China is not a leftist nation, it's a market-backed dictatorship. Socialism - not communism - is much closer to a "leftist" institution, but a true far-left nation has never been seen, which is obviously not the case with far-right fascist dictatorships.
Meanwhile, the thing that seems to trigger a lot of you fragile types are what are usually referred to as "identity politics", which may or may not be leftist issues depending on the matter at hand. The overwhelming majority of such issues are simply harmless, such as gay marriage, but are seized upon like someone's asking you to cut one of your nuts off, or whatever. Fringe lunatics calling for the eradication of men via euginics, are obviously fucking fringe lunatics, which you certainly can't identify as the "far-left". History has had a lot of lunatics calling for this or that batshit manifesto to be honored, and rather than do the intelligent thing - ignore blatant idiots - some people try to use the ravings of a few to paint a certain image of a wide range of beliefs. While both are considered "far-right" belief structures, I'm not dumb enough to use the insane ramblings of someone like Richard Spencer to denigrate the beliefs of Libertarians, in general, or make ignorant generalizations about the "far-right". Use specifics, or you just sound like a fucking moron, as far too much debate happens in nebulae, where you're not ACTUALLY saying anything, but you sure are making a point.
The biggest problem, by far, is the human need to oversimplify things and put everything in some nice, digestible basket of a bullshit false equivalency, such as the one you're espousing. The end goal of the neo-nazi is a holocaust. The end goal of the anarcho-syndicalist is egalitarian utopia - without killing people. You'd have us simply see these groups as two sides of the same coin, which - again - is horseshit. It's been well understood by many leftists, since the inception of the atomic bomb, that you'll NEVER win a battle rooted in violence, against either the state, or any oppressive power. Thus, the end-goal of the far-left has always been organizing, in institutions such as unions. We can debate the merits of such approaches, but you sure as fuck can't find much "hate" here.
Beyond that, I'd say another huge issue is this concept of forced neutrality, which seems to drive a lot of floppy weiner "that settles that" posts such as yours. In other words, we're supposed to simply pretend that we live in a world without mass discrimination, oppression, and so on. and all conversation and debate should happen in a clean slate vacuum, with no historical context, and no personal context, informing our interpretations of criticisms being presented. It doesn't take a genius to realize that policies such as these dramatically favor those that are already in power. Telling women, minorities, and so on to "chill out" with their indignation is a tactic that mainly benefits people that aren't women or minorities.
If you read something by a person of color, a woman, a member of the LBGTQ community, and so on, and they sound fucking pissed, maybe they have a good fucking reason to be, and it's not all some overblown conspiracy against YOU specifically. You see, you have a couple of options here. One is to interpret t
You know...just because you spout some bullshit like "BLM is a hate group", in a passive, casual setting, doesn't make it any more true. I mean...do you think anyone actually falls for it, or what? Or is this just another shared delusion y'all believe so you don't actually have to address any of the criticisms BLM brings up? I'm thinking the latter.
I'm not saying you're wrong...but the whole "let them thrive so they make fools of themselves" approach obviously hasn't worked out very well in our past election. More must be done if we don't want evil to win, and fighting back against their vicious propaganda campaign, supported by some of the highest in command, is crucial.
Talks about how it's unfair to criticize the sitting president with no "insight" or "explanation"...
-insert funny meme image-
Accuses the entire left, somehow, of being responsible for the lone actions of a violent psychopath...
---------
Furthermore, there was was a right wing lunatic that killed a couple of people on a bus, in Portland, a little while ago, for politically motivated reasons. Do we get to pin that on all of the right wing? Is that the way logic works?
Like Netflix, you need to do it in a way that's, more or less, invisible to a consumer's monthly expenditures. If you roll something like this out at $20-30/m, people are going to tell you to kiss their ass. This is the #1 reason these buffet-style services never work. They are ALWAYS too expensive. $30/m will get you just about any game you want, if it's a bit older, and you get to KEEP it.
There's an utterly mind-blowing, revolutionary notion called "customization".
There are ancient rumors that before the coming of the return of the Great Dark Apple, people that used shit used to have options on how to do so. Ye, let it be known that you can also give users the option to turn on or off certain UI elements instead of just removing them...so it is written in the ancient texts.
This is so much bullshit. The "seven words" schtick is all about censoring specific words, not an idea. "Fuckface" and "idiot" might have the same relative descriptive power, but one of those is acceptable for broadcast television, and one is not. That was the point of the bit - it doesn't make much of a difference to call some words "forbidden", and allow others to be acceptable, when they pretty much mean the same thing.
This scenario isn't about the words he used, but the underlying idea it represents. Even if we give this dumbass the benefit of the doubt, at best he's a rich white man paying poor people a pittance to do offensive things, in what is, unabashedly, a 21st century minstrel show - all done to enrich himself. Tack on all the weak horseshit you want, about "social commentary", or what the fuck ever. That defense could be used as a justification for just about anything that isn't illegal. Meanwhile, actions will continue to have consequences.
This is, obviously, someone trying to exploit the young male demographic by being "outrageous", due to the predictable tastes of such a market, who will consume anything they're convinced is supposed to be forbidden, like "funny" antisemitism, rape jokes, etc.. This is done in a puerile attempt to practice independent thought, and fight the vague battle against the "status quo", you predictably reference, all the while being quite well contained in the confines of marketing demographics, who's owners exploit this behavior, just like any other market.
Meanwhile, the dumbass got fired from his job. He'll simply find a more appropriate platform, where his market will follow.
Ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Global Warming? We are NOT "OK". For the metric to be "meaningless" you would have to make the case that we can't make probabilistic claims, based on available evidence, as to how likely we are to be annihilated. Furthermore, you'd have to make the case that certain factors are not possible contributors to an increase in such probability - such as sticking your giant blonde head in the sand, and ignoring carbon emissions, while crying big, beautiful, hysterical tears about Muslims and Mexicans.
Obviously, the clock is a metaphor, so your attempt to explain something so intentionally blatant is just another example of the anti-intellectual bias rampant in Trump's America. It's that deep seated belief people hold that they're somehow "smarter than scientists" and all information that runs contrary to their "gut" is to be discarded, no matter how credible the source, that is the root of many of our problems.
Microsoft unrolled a plan that put major roadblocks up to trading or selling used games. Consumers told them to go fuck themselves....fast forward...
Sales are 2 to 1, in favor of the company that didn't try to pull this blatantly anti-consumerist bullshit, and rightfully so. Apparently, plenty of idiots were swayed by their last minute reversals.
There are plenty of people that don't believe the things that Hawkins is professing. They think most of our jobs were lost "overseas" to immigrants, and just elected a narcissistic charlatan into office as a firm reinforcement of that belief.
Hawkins professing something isn't, in and of itself, admissible as any kind of evidence in evaluating their argument...but I'm going to strongly counter that it's plenty of evidence to listen to the argument in the first place. He is an accomplished intellectual, and we give him space out of civilized respect for said accomplishments. It's an insane world where Trump, or any of the god damn batman villains he's filling his cabinet with, are supposed to, somehow, be worthy of our attention or respect, given a total lack of said accomplishments. Make no mistake about it, we're certainly going to be debating their points of view, like it not. The problem with information, nowadays, isn't of evidence, but of preference and exposure. It matters - A LOT - what the actual opinions and arguments are that people are being exposed to in the first place, and this is a problem that precedes the veracity of said arguments. This is why we're stuck firmly in the fake news "make up your own facts and believe them" Trump era. People like Hawkins need to come forward with common sense arguments because we should give a shit about our intellectuals, in the public sphere.
This is because they've had a reputation of relying on reason, logic, evidence, etc. to establish arguments through the academic tradition. I disagreed with nearly every word that came out of William F. Buckley's mouth - but you can't deny that he formed coherent arguments utilizing reason, in an overall civilized manner. Nowadays, nobody but "YOU" ("you" being whoever is reading this) knows what the fuck they are talking about, and is is a total fucking idiot. That's basically "argumentation" for the modern age. It doesn't matter what a person's IQ is, bend over and take a huge rude shit right in their fucking face - because, after all, this is "YOU" we're talking about. You probably know better.
First off, criticism of US is not tantamount with objective coverage of Hussein's Iraq, which is what you would have needed to demonstrate in order to "call bullshit" on my example.
Besides, your response is a bit of a contradiction. You claim that "when both sides are held by generally good actors, you report both sides". You seem to be implying that when both sides are not considered "good" then you don't have to cover both sides objectively? I don't think I need to say much to demonstrate why using a word like "good" is entirely subjective, which completely undermines the point of being "objective" in the first place. You can't claim any kind of objectivity, after we have to administer a very subjective screening process, first. Again, that's called a contradiction. The framing of an issue, in and of itself, makes an ethical statement.
How would you even determine the moral status of the actors at hand, in the first place? At best, it sounds like you're simply promoting consensus based ethical filters to predetermine the expected scope of acceptable reporting, as opposed to anything really resembling truth or objectivity. Observe the "objective" reporting around gay marriage, climate change, evolution, and Donald Trump, for further examples of this.
In other words, you're going to have a hard time explaining why journalists have to be "objective" in a conflict like this, but can rightfully lose that objectivity when it comes to conflicts like the Iraq war, all without resorting to ethical arguments. The slightest drop of morality, here, will simply invalidate objectivity as a governing mandate. It has to be an all or nothing concept, like blind justice, or it's basically nonsense.
Thus, it is objectivity that is bullshit, not journalism. If reporters were truly objective, they would have never had the instincts to expose Catholic priests, just to name an example off the top of my head.
It matters 0% what you're "considered", when journalism is concerned. No journalist has a "responsibility" to be objective, because it's a moral and logical impossibility. What matters is the truth, and how accurately you are presenting it. Should journalists have been "morally objective" when reporting on the Iraq war, giving us Hussein's side of the story in equal measure?
Serious question - if not, why not? The short answer would be that doing so would have rightfully been considered a massive betrayal of our country. If we're at war, you don't write sympathetic pieces for our enemies, "objectivity" be damned. You're quickly going to find the level of "objectivity" a journalist is supposed to have, in covering a conflict, is very, very, subjective. In other words, your appeal to objectivity is a bunch of bullshit. Journalists are objective when it won't betray our country, or otherwise cause such controversies. Conversely, when the state is involved, such as in this case, you're supposed to be "objective", lest you get labelled a "mouthpiece".
I understand most of the points you're making, but I think you're on a tangent of sorts. I'm not arguing that Netflix is more important than crucial healthcare infrastructure, or even basic utility services (like my garbage collection example).
My argument is that the relative importance, function, or price, of a service is entirely, utterly, 100% irrelevant, for the same exact reason that it's entirely irrelevant what the purpose, function, or price, of a consumer good is, in valuing consumer rights.
If you purchase consumer goods, it doesn't matter how "cheap" or "useless' the product is. If your $1 pair of shoelaces is defective - you can take them back and get a refund, unless you bought the goods under specific predetermined conditions (all sales final, etc.).
Even cheap pieces of junk have warranties and return policies. We shouldn't be giving services ANY more slack when it comes to consumer rights.
Ok...it sounds like you're telling me that I should purchase backup media of things I already pay to stream. "Getting what I deserve", in your view, is apparently not getting the service I paid for.
That being said... my point was not that we should be overly critical of Netflix for suffering outages. I wasn't personally affected by this outage, and am not coming from that point of view.
My point was that just because Netflix is an entertainment service, that doesn't mean they should be held to lower standards, than any other service. In my opinion, this attitude let's a lot of companies get away with quite a lot of horseshit, particularly on mobile devices. If I run an important service to your area, such as mandatory private garbage collection, and you run a service like hosting Mmorpg servers, the profits we make at the end of the year are equally "real". The fact that one of us hosts an entertainment service shouldn't make us less accountable for delivering on that service to our customers. Inversely, customers that complain about an interruption of their service are not automatically less entitled to compensation just because the service is for a leisure activity.
The headline was the real object of my criticism, and the editorializing of the news was unnecessary. So long as people are accurate in their criticism, and are being reasonable, there's no good reason to downplay those criticisms out of the gate.
You know...I'm kind of sick of the whole attitude that services we pay for, for entertainment value, are supposed to be held to lower standards of accountability. People are allowed to be displeased if ANY service they pay for faces unscheduled interruption. It doesn't matter if the purpose of that service is a leisure activity, business is business. The snark around "real life" is just a way to downplay the situation due to the presumed lack of importance for the activity itself.
Some people's work schedules, routines, etc. only allow for a bit of entertainment at certain hours of the day, each week, and it could really suck if that thing you paid for in advance isn't working, when you just want to relax after work, or whatever. God help you if you have younger children who often work a certain episode of their favorite TV show into a routine request.
For reasons like these, and countless more, people pay Netflix to deliver content.
The argument for inclusion is that it's an industry standard and extremely convenient port that has no signs of going anywhere anytime soon, as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Headphones aren't going to suddenly stop being 3.5mm, nor are standard audio cables.
The arguments for removal....are what exactly? Maybe you'll get a 0.0001% increase in battery life or processing power? I guess it makes customers have to buy more shit to do the same thing they were already doing, which is good for Apple's bottom line? Or what?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try. They weren't defending what the group had to say, they were defending their RIGHT to say it. Big difference.
Horseshit. Horseshit. Horseshit.
Private entities, be they lawyers in practice, finance companies, etc. have NO obligation, whatsoever, to cooperate with you if they don't want to. This is what's loosely referred to as "economic freedom". Even if you can pay me, I don't HAVE to take your case. You know, that whole "refuse the right to render service" shit you see everywhere? Protections of such, under the law, are EXACTLY for bullshit like this. The only mitigating factor here are cases of discrimination, which this CLEARLY is not, as the person is being refused service for their actions, not their inherent qualities.
Nothing about this impedes this person's right to a fair trial, as no matter what, they're still going to get a legal defense. So take you blatantly false upvoted bullshit somewhere else.
Good. Keep coming for them please.
He's still going to get a public defender, no matter what, but it doesn't mean ANYONE in the private sector has to take his case, or help facilitate the process. Lawyers are allowed to refuse cases, even if you can afford to pay. Similarly, GoFundMe and the like are PRIVATE fucking companies that can choose to not accept payment if they damn well please.
Fuck off with your slippery slope nonsense, as this is NOT a case of such, unless private entities don't actually have the right to "refuse service" if they so choose.
Bullshit. I obviously see the tactic here, just keep repeating a falsehood until the weakminded believe it, but it still doesn't make it any more true. BLM is not responsible for "hate speech", violence, etc. as this is just a blatant lie to try and force some kind of vague false equivalency, and keep people on the fence.
Their mission, and goals, are not ones of violence or hatred, unlike the FUCKING NAZIS.
God damn dude. It felt like there used to be a time where Nazis were basically treated like pedophiles, with people doing everything they could to avoid association with such, and rightfully so. It's legitimately fucking terrifying how many of you are pretty cozy with the most blatant enemies of human existence nowadays.
Black Lives Matter is not a hate group with a mission of violence. I have nothing good to say about any religion, but there' also nothing inherently violent about the Nation of Islam. There's no reason whatsoever to compare any of the things you mention to neo-nazis, unless we accept the tacit assumptions of your poisonous mentality.
In fact, any political movement is almost certainly fine SO LONG AS THEY AREN'T OPENLY ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. Like, seriously, do you REALLY not even see the fucking difference? Seriously? Scary fucking times.
Oh horseshit. The absolute epitome of the "far-left" spectrum would be anarcho-syndicalism, which by no means holds particular grudges against either white people or men, specifically, unless they happen to be active oppressors, and, indeed, it is possibly the most egalitarian political philosophy ever espoused. While I find a lot to criticize in this political belief system, it's mainly grounded in pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic expectations of humanity. There is certainly nothing that would begin to even remotely resemble "hate speech". And before it's even brought up, contrary to popular belief, state-sponsored Communism is NOT a leftist institution, having little to do with either the visions of Marx, or the utopias envisioned by post-industrial radicals. China is not a leftist nation, it's a market-backed dictatorship. Socialism - not communism - is much closer to a "leftist" institution, but a true far-left nation has never been seen, which is obviously not the case with far-right fascist dictatorships.
Meanwhile, the thing that seems to trigger a lot of you fragile types are what are usually referred to as "identity politics", which may or may not be leftist issues depending on the matter at hand. The overwhelming majority of such issues are simply harmless, such as gay marriage, but are seized upon like someone's asking you to cut one of your nuts off, or whatever. Fringe lunatics calling for the eradication of men via euginics, are obviously fucking fringe lunatics, which you certainly can't identify as the "far-left". History has had a lot of lunatics calling for this or that batshit manifesto to be honored, and rather than do the intelligent thing - ignore blatant idiots - some people try to use the ravings of a few to paint a certain image of a wide range of beliefs. While both are considered "far-right" belief structures, I'm not dumb enough to use the insane ramblings of someone like Richard Spencer to denigrate the beliefs of Libertarians, in general, or make ignorant generalizations about the "far-right". Use specifics, or you just sound like a fucking moron, as far too much debate happens in nebulae, where you're not ACTUALLY saying anything, but you sure are making a point.
The biggest problem, by far, is the human need to oversimplify things and put everything in some nice, digestible basket of a bullshit false equivalency, such as the one you're espousing. The end goal of the neo-nazi is a holocaust. The end goal of the anarcho-syndicalist is egalitarian utopia - without killing people. You'd have us simply see these groups as two sides of the same coin, which - again - is horseshit. It's been well understood by many leftists, since the inception of the atomic bomb, that you'll NEVER win a battle rooted in violence, against either the state, or any oppressive power. Thus, the end-goal of the far-left has always been organizing, in institutions such as unions. We can debate the merits of such approaches, but you sure as fuck can't find much "hate" here.
Beyond that, I'd say another huge issue is this concept of forced neutrality, which seems to drive a lot of floppy weiner "that settles that" posts such as yours. In other words, we're supposed to simply pretend that we live in a world without mass discrimination, oppression, and so on. and all conversation and debate should happen in a clean slate vacuum, with no historical context, and no personal context, informing our interpretations of criticisms being presented. It doesn't take a genius to realize that policies such as these dramatically favor those that are already in power. Telling women, minorities, and so on to "chill out" with their indignation is a tactic that mainly benefits people that aren't women or minorities.
If you read something by a person of color, a woman, a member of the LBGTQ community, and so on, and they sound fucking pissed, maybe they have a good fucking reason to be, and it's not all some overblown conspiracy against YOU specifically. You see, you have a couple of options here. One is to interpret t
War is peace, my friend. Freedom is slavery.
You know...just because you spout some bullshit like "BLM is a hate group", in a passive, casual setting, doesn't make it any more true. I mean...do you think anyone actually falls for it, or what? Or is this just another shared delusion y'all believe so you don't actually have to address any of the criticisms BLM brings up? I'm thinking the latter.
I'm not saying you're wrong...but the whole "let them thrive so they make fools of themselves" approach obviously hasn't worked out very well in our past election. More must be done if we don't want evil to win, and fighting back against their vicious propaganda campaign, supported by some of the highest in command, is crucial.
Talks about how it's unfair to criticize the sitting president with no "insight" or "explanation"...
-insert funny meme image-
Accuses the entire left, somehow, of being responsible for the lone actions of a violent psychopath...
---------
Furthermore, there was was a right wing lunatic that killed a couple of people on a bus, in Portland, a little while ago, for politically motivated reasons. Do we get to pin that on all of the right wing? Is that the way logic works?
Like Netflix, you need to do it in a way that's, more or less, invisible to a consumer's monthly expenditures. If you roll something like this out at $20-30/m, people are going to tell you to kiss their ass. This is the #1 reason these buffet-style services never work. They are ALWAYS too expensive. $30/m will get you just about any game you want, if it's a bit older, and you get to KEEP it.
$10-12? Now you're talking. Enjoy your paychecks.
To whom it may concern...
There's an utterly mind-blowing, revolutionary notion called "customization".
There are ancient rumors that before the coming of the return of the Great Dark Apple, people that used shit used to have options on how to do so. Ye, let it be known that you can also give users the option to turn on or off certain UI elements instead of just removing them...so it is written in the ancient texts.
Yes, but what about her emails?
This is so much bullshit. The "seven words" schtick is all about censoring specific words, not an idea. "Fuckface" and "idiot" might have the same relative descriptive power, but one of those is acceptable for broadcast television, and one is not. That was the point of the bit - it doesn't make much of a difference to call some words "forbidden", and allow others to be acceptable, when they pretty much mean the same thing.
This scenario isn't about the words he used, but the underlying idea it represents. Even if we give this dumbass the benefit of the doubt, at best he's a rich white man paying poor people a pittance to do offensive things, in what is, unabashedly, a 21st century minstrel show - all done to enrich himself. Tack on all the weak horseshit you want, about "social commentary", or what the fuck ever. That defense could be used as a justification for just about anything that isn't illegal. Meanwhile, actions will continue to have consequences.
This is, obviously, someone trying to exploit the young male demographic by being "outrageous", due to the predictable tastes of such a market, who will consume anything they're convinced is supposed to be forbidden, like "funny" antisemitism, rape jokes, etc.. This is done in a puerile attempt to practice independent thought, and fight the vague battle against the "status quo", you predictably reference, all the while being quite well contained in the confines of marketing demographics, who's owners exploit this behavior, just like any other market.
Meanwhile, the dumbass got fired from his job. He'll simply find a more appropriate platform, where his market will follow.
Ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Global Warming? We are NOT "OK". For the metric to be "meaningless" you would have to make the case that we can't make probabilistic claims, based on available evidence, as to how likely we are to be annihilated. Furthermore, you'd have to make the case that certain factors are not possible contributors to an increase in such probability - such as sticking your giant blonde head in the sand, and ignoring carbon emissions, while crying big, beautiful, hysterical tears about Muslims and Mexicans.
Obviously, the clock is a metaphor, so your attempt to explain something so intentionally blatant is just another example of the anti-intellectual bias rampant in Trump's America. It's that deep seated belief people hold that they're somehow "smarter than scientists" and all information that runs contrary to their "gut" is to be discarded, no matter how credible the source, that is the root of many of our problems.
Microsoft unrolled a plan that put major roadblocks up to trading or selling used games. Consumers told them to go fuck themselves. ...fast forward...
Sales are 2 to 1, in favor of the company that didn't try to pull this blatantly anti-consumerist bullshit, and rightfully so. Apparently, plenty of idiots were swayed by their last minute reversals.
There are plenty of people that don't believe the things that Hawkins is professing. They think most of our jobs were lost "overseas" to immigrants, and just elected a narcissistic charlatan into office as a firm reinforcement of that belief.
Hawkins professing something isn't, in and of itself, admissible as any kind of evidence in evaluating their argument...but I'm going to strongly counter that it's plenty of evidence to listen to the argument in the first place. He is an accomplished intellectual, and we give him space out of civilized respect for said accomplishments. It's an insane world where Trump, or any of the god damn batman villains he's filling his cabinet with, are supposed to, somehow, be worthy of our attention or respect, given a total lack of said accomplishments. Make no mistake about it, we're certainly going to be debating their points of view, like it not. The problem with information, nowadays, isn't of evidence, but of preference and exposure. It matters - A LOT - what the actual opinions and arguments are that people are being exposed to in the first place, and this is a problem that precedes the veracity of said arguments. This is why we're stuck firmly in the fake news "make up your own facts and believe them" Trump era. People like Hawkins need to come forward with common sense arguments because we should give a shit about our intellectuals, in the public sphere.
This is because they've had a reputation of relying on reason, logic, evidence, etc. to establish arguments through the academic tradition. I disagreed with nearly every word that came out of William F. Buckley's mouth - but you can't deny that he formed coherent arguments utilizing reason, in an overall civilized manner. Nowadays, nobody but "YOU" ("you" being whoever is reading this) knows what the fuck they are talking about, and is is a total fucking idiot. That's basically "argumentation" for the modern age. It doesn't matter what a person's IQ is, bend over and take a huge rude shit right in their fucking face - because, after all, this is "YOU" we're talking about. You probably know better.
First off, criticism of US is not tantamount with objective coverage of Hussein's Iraq, which is what you would have needed to demonstrate in order to "call bullshit" on my example.
Besides, your response is a bit of a contradiction. You claim that "when both sides are held by generally good actors, you report both sides". You seem to be implying that when both sides are not considered "good" then you don't have to cover both sides objectively? I don't think I need to say much to demonstrate why using a word like "good" is entirely subjective, which completely undermines the point of being "objective" in the first place. You can't claim any kind of objectivity, after we have to administer a very subjective screening process, first. Again, that's called a contradiction. The framing of an issue, in and of itself, makes an ethical statement.
How would you even determine the moral status of the actors at hand, in the first place? At best, it sounds like you're simply promoting consensus based ethical filters to predetermine the expected scope of acceptable reporting, as opposed to anything really resembling truth or objectivity. Observe the "objective" reporting around gay marriage, climate change, evolution, and Donald Trump, for further examples of this.
In other words, you're going to have a hard time explaining why journalists have to be "objective" in a conflict like this, but can rightfully lose that objectivity when it comes to conflicts like the Iraq war, all without resorting to ethical arguments. The slightest drop of morality, here, will simply invalidate objectivity as a governing mandate. It has to be an all or nothing concept, like blind justice, or it's basically nonsense.
Thus, it is objectivity that is bullshit, not journalism. If reporters were truly objective, they would have never had the instincts to expose Catholic priests, just to name an example off the top of my head.
It matters 0% what you're "considered", when journalism is concerned. No journalist has a "responsibility" to be objective, because it's a moral and logical impossibility. What matters is the truth, and how accurately you are presenting it. Should journalists have been "morally objective" when reporting on the Iraq war, giving us Hussein's side of the story in equal measure?
Serious question - if not, why not? The short answer would be that doing so would have rightfully been considered a massive betrayal of our country. If we're at war, you don't write sympathetic pieces for our enemies, "objectivity" be damned. You're quickly going to find the level of "objectivity" a journalist is supposed to have, in covering a conflict, is very, very, subjective. In other words, your appeal to objectivity is a bunch of bullshit. Journalists are objective when it won't betray our country, or otherwise cause such controversies. Conversely, when the state is involved, such as in this case, you're supposed to be "objective", lest you get labelled a "mouthpiece".
I understand most of the points you're making, but I think you're on a tangent of sorts. I'm not arguing that Netflix is more important than crucial healthcare infrastructure, or even basic utility services (like my garbage collection example).
My argument is that the relative importance, function, or price, of a service is entirely, utterly, 100% irrelevant, for the same exact reason that it's entirely irrelevant
what the purpose, function, or price, of a consumer good is, in valuing consumer rights.
If you purchase consumer goods, it doesn't matter how "cheap" or "useless' the product is. If your $1 pair of shoelaces is defective - you can take them back and get a refund, unless you bought the goods under specific predetermined conditions (all sales final, etc.).
Even cheap pieces of junk have warranties and return policies. We shouldn't be giving services ANY more slack when it comes to consumer rights.
Ok...it sounds like you're telling me that I should purchase backup media of things I already pay to stream. "Getting what I deserve", in your view, is apparently not getting the service I paid for.
That being said... my point was not that we should be overly critical of Netflix for suffering outages. I wasn't personally affected by this outage, and am not coming from that point of view.
My point was that just because Netflix is an entertainment service, that doesn't mean they should be held to lower standards, than any other service. In my opinion, this attitude let's a lot of companies get away with quite a lot of horseshit, particularly on mobile devices. If I run an important service to your area, such as mandatory private garbage collection, and you run a service like hosting Mmorpg servers, the profits we make at the end of the year are equally "real". The fact that one of us hosts an entertainment service shouldn't make us less accountable for delivering on that service to our customers. Inversely, customers that complain about an interruption of their service are not automatically less entitled to compensation just because the service is for a leisure activity.
The headline was the real object of my criticism, and the editorializing of the news was unnecessary. So long as people are accurate in their criticism, and are being reasonable, there's no good reason to downplay those criticisms out of the gate.
You know...I'm kind of sick of the whole attitude that services we pay for, for entertainment value, are supposed to be held to lower standards of accountability. People are allowed to be displeased if ANY service they pay for faces unscheduled interruption. It doesn't matter if the purpose of that service is a leisure activity, business is business. The snark around "real life" is just a way to downplay the situation due to the presumed lack of importance for the activity itself.
Some people's work schedules, routines, etc. only allow for a bit of entertainment at certain hours of the day, each week, and it could really suck if that thing you paid for in advance isn't working, when you just want to relax after work, or whatever. God help you if you have younger children who often work a certain episode of their favorite TV show into a routine request.
For reasons like these, and countless more, people pay Netflix to deliver content.
Don't like criticism on the Internet?
then don't read it? I don't understand the need to respond.
Guess how much more useful that bullshit is than a 3.5mm headphone jack? That's called a downgrade.
Uh....wait. Why are the arguments "weak"?
The argument for inclusion is that it's an industry standard and extremely convenient port that has no signs of going anywhere anytime soon, as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Headphones aren't going to suddenly stop being 3.5mm, nor are standard audio cables.
The arguments for removal....are what exactly? Maybe you'll get a 0.0001% increase in battery life or processing power? I guess it makes customers have to buy more shit to do the same thing they were already doing, which is good for Apple's bottom line? Or what?
Yeah, fuck that.