What is "offensive" is defined by the companies who are paying Google to place their ads.
It's defined by the "progressives" that whine the loudest when somebody speaks out against one of their pet causes. The social justice warriors of today are the same breed as the religious right from 20-30 years ago. If these companies had any business sense or corporate responsibility, they would just ignore them instead of trying to appease them.
Known as a "boots and flag" mission. Basically a waste of time and money. If we're going to send people to Mars, we should do so as part of a plan for permanent habitation.
Sometimes stupid positions need to be lambasted. In your case, you're attacking a cornerstone of a free society and a defining characteristic of the United States.
we just elected a president who's doing everything he can to stack the courts with folks friendly to these kind of laws. That's not hyperbole, it was one of his campaign promises.
While this law would be incredibly hard to enforce, maybe we shouldn't be so down on politicians actually doing something, anything at all, in favor of protecting privacy?
No, fuck off. Free speech is the most important part of a free society.
Bells theorem rules out local hidden variables (that is variables that are in the game but are not coupled to you the observer) but it allows global hidden variables to explain all spooky action at a distance by means other that quantum entanglement. that is to say it's what should happen in any simulation in which you are part of the simulation too.
There's a difference between what we observe in quantum mechanics and a classical simulation using global hidden variables, and that's the no-communication theorem.
Sure, but these women had macular degeneration and were going blind anyway.
They had enough vision to read and drive. There's no guarantee they would have gone completely blind, or at what rate they would have lost their vision. And they paid $5,000 for the privilege of going blind while being irresponsibly injected into both eyes instead of one. All while thinking they were taking part in legitimate research, because the "study" was advertised on a government site.
The whole thing is a horror show of profit-seeking irresponsibility.
Five minutes of searching, but I guess you missed references like this one:
"This data base uses the partially preserved Death Books (Sterbebucher) of Auschwitz Concentration Camp prisoners. The 46 volumes of political department (camp Gestapo) record the deaths of almost 69,000 prisoners who were registered in the camp and who died between July 29, 1941 and December 31, 1943. Their names have been entered in the data base.
Limited number of records
When using the data base, please remember that the death certificates cover only registered prisoners who died in the period mentioned in the previous paragraph. The overwhelming majority of victims, mostly Jewish, perished in the gas chambers immediately after arrival, without being entered in the camp records, and without their deaths being noted in the German documents."
What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who tells you what to do is acting as an authoritarian.
Yes, I judge people by their actions, not whether they follow some loose left/right ideology with a basis in monarchy versus republic. What does a monarchy versus a republic have to do with the idiot leftists in Berkeley? Pretty much nothing.
Now what does somebody who wants to control what others can do have with authority? Pretty much everything. They consider themselves arbiters of what should be allowed. They are setting themselves up as authoritarians. That they claim to be anarchists, anti-fascists, or leftists, none of that shit matters when it comes to their authoritarian tendencies.
Almost. He didn't replace the Jewish law of the time and did mention the numerous ways to deserve to be punished or burned in hell in his sermons at the mountains.
He didn't replace the law, but he explicitly said not to resist evil, give Caesar his due, etc. And as you say, the harshest punishments were to be passed down in judgment after death. No examples of Jesus stoning people, etc.
I think it would be fair to say that the later followers of Muhammad took what is basically war instructions and war time legislation and adapted it to the base of the law in their belief system
More like Muhammad went from a peaceful footing when he was weak to a wartime footing when he was strong, expanding his rule through conquest, along with being an authoritarian. He turned into a violent tyrant, and his followers continued in his tradition.
Authoritarianism does not have a monopoly on violence
And neither does the right have a monopoly on authoritarianism. The point of the violence wasn't just violence for the sake of it. It was for an authoritarian position on who is allowed to speak.
About 1 million Jews died at Auschwitz. This according to the Nazis, who kept meticulous records of their crimes.
Then surely those records are online and you can provide a link to them, right?
Spoiler alert: I already did some searching, and you won't find them. Maybe Google needs to hire more independent contractors. Or maybe the truth about the actual number of Jewish deaths, among other people, is a lot murkier than propagandists would like you to believe.
I'm not a Holocaust Denier (TM). I believe it's very probable that millions of Jews did end up dying at the hands of the Nazi regime. It's just that I realize that historical truth isn't as clear or bright as we'd like it to be.
This is fundamentally what the left/right split is about, this is practically the definition. There is nothing authoritarian about anarchy.
You're wrong. Look at the lefty, idiot thugs at Berkeley smashing shit up and attacking people who went to go see a Milo talk. They used violence to shut down somebody else's speech. That's authoritarian.
I don't know what you mean by "the people" becoming the state
"see any communist regime that arose in the 20th century"
Only real difference being that Jesus is not the son of god but just another prophet.
Bullshit. Jesus, as described in the gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord.
Islam is as "compatible with the civilized world" as any ancient religion [..] You know... like all those flavors of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism
Bullshit. Islam is uniquely violent, political, authoritarian, and expansionist. Not that you can't find some of the above in other religions, in particular the Old Testament, but Islam took it to a whole new level:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
It seems silly to nitpick this, since they're both just excuses to get rid of someone
It is silly, because at its heart its authoritarianism. The left/right angle does not matter one bit. Oh, and if "the people" win and become the state, the rhetoric stays the same: it is still "enemies of the people", but now with the full power of government behind it (see any communist regime that arose in the 20th century).
Let's pretend you own a business, and on the first day of your new hire he tells you his wife has late-stage cancer. He says he'll put his full day in at the office, but needs his nights and weekends at home.
Now what is the first thing that's going to cross your mind? Oh shit, this guy is going to be taking a lot of time off from work for who knows how long, and I just hired him! It's one thing to cut a long-time employee some slack, but new hires dropping bombs on their first day in is something different.
Now this is a corporation, and the manager probably had the same thought, but didn't want to be an asshole to what at first blush is a reasonable request. He mulls it over, discusses it with his manager and HR, and they drop the hammer.
Wow, I'm surprised jwz is still around and coding, on xscreensaver of all the stupid things. He's being an ass, though, as thoroughly explained by the Anon.
Slashdot Mirror
What is "offensive" is defined by the companies who are paying Google to place their ads.
It's defined by the "progressives" that whine the loudest when somebody speaks out against one of their pet causes. The social justice warriors of today are the same breed as the religious right from 20-30 years ago. If these companies had any business sense or corporate responsibility, they would just ignore them instead of trying to appease them.
Known as a "boots and flag" mission. Basically a waste of time and money. If we're going to send people to Mars, we should do so as part of a plan for permanent habitation.
So if 90% certainly is good enough to lock up some poor black kids for life, why isn't it good enough for a rich white guy with a Macbook Pro?
1) Because you have a right not to testify against yourself in the 5th amendment.
2) Contempt of court should not be a life sentence.
There, done.
Sometimes stupid positions need to be lambasted. In your case, you're attacking a cornerstone of a free society and a defining characteristic of the United States.
we just elected a president who's doing everything he can to stack the courts with folks friendly to these kind of laws. That's not hyperbole, it was one of his campaign promises.
Where is your evidence? Citations, please.
While this law would be incredibly hard to enforce, maybe we shouldn't be so down on politicians actually doing something, anything at all, in favor of protecting privacy?
No, fuck off. Free speech is the most important part of a free society.
Bells theorem rules out local hidden variables (that is variables that are in the game but are not coupled to you the observer) but it allows global hidden variables to explain all spooky action at a distance by means other that quantum entanglement. that is to say it's what should happen in any simulation in which you are part of the simulation too.
There's a difference between what we observe in quantum mechanics and a classical simulation using global hidden variables, and that's the no-communication theorem.
Interesting article on the collapsed Halo movie. Seemed like it could have been pretty cool.
Sure, but these women had macular degeneration and were going blind anyway.
They had enough vision to read and drive. There's no guarantee they would have gone completely blind, or at what rate they would have lost their vision. And they paid $5,000 for the privilege of going blind while being irresponsibly injected into both eyes instead of one. All while thinking they were taking part in legitimate research, because the "study" was advertised on a government site.
The whole thing is a horror show of profit-seeking irresponsibility.
And you keep living in your pedantic fantasy world where only the right acts authoritarian.
Five minutes of searching, but I guess you missed references like this one:
"This data base uses the partially preserved Death Books (Sterbebucher) of Auschwitz Concentration Camp prisoners. The 46 volumes of political department (camp Gestapo) record the deaths of almost 69,000 prisoners who were registered in the camp and who died between July 29, 1941 and December 31, 1943. Their names have been entered in the data base.
Limited number of records
When using the data base, please remember that the death certificates cover only registered prisoners who died in the period mentioned in the previous paragraph. The overwhelming majority of victims, mostly Jewish, perished in the gas chambers immediately after arrival, without being entered in the camp records, and without their deaths being noted in the German documents."
traditional European and Christian values
You mean like repelling the Islamic invasion of Europe instead of inviting it in?
What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who tells you what to do is acting as an authoritarian.
Yes, I judge people by their actions, not whether they follow some loose left/right ideology with a basis in monarchy versus republic. What does a monarchy versus a republic have to do with the idiot leftists in Berkeley? Pretty much nothing.
Now what does somebody who wants to control what others can do have with authority? Pretty much everything. They consider themselves arbiters of what should be allowed. They are setting themselves up as authoritarians. That they claim to be anarchists, anti-fascists, or leftists, none of that shit matters when it comes to their authoritarian tendencies.
Almost. He didn't replace the Jewish law of the time and did mention the numerous ways to deserve to be punished or burned in hell in his sermons at the mountains.
He didn't replace the law, but he explicitly said not to resist evil, give Caesar his due, etc. And as you say, the harshest punishments were to be passed down in judgment after death. No examples of Jesus stoning people, etc.
I think it would be fair to say that the later followers of Muhammad took what is basically war instructions and war time legislation and adapted it to the base of the law in their belief system
More like Muhammad went from a peaceful footing when he was weak to a wartime footing when he was strong, expanding his rule through conquest, along with being an authoritarian. He turned into a violent tyrant, and his followers continued in his tradition.
Authoritarianism does not have a monopoly on violence
And neither does the right have a monopoly on authoritarianism. The point of the violence wasn't just violence for the sake of it. It was for an authoritarian position on who is allowed to speak.
About 1 million Jews died at Auschwitz. This according to the Nazis, who kept meticulous records of their crimes.
Then surely those records are online and you can provide a link to them, right?
Spoiler alert: I already did some searching, and you won't find them. Maybe Google needs to hire more independent contractors. Or maybe the truth about the actual number of Jewish deaths, among other people, is a lot murkier than propagandists would like you to believe.
I'm not a Holocaust Denier (TM). I believe it's very probable that millions of Jews did end up dying at the hands of the Nazi regime. It's just that I realize that historical truth isn't as clear or bright as we'd like it to be.
This is fundamentally what the left/right split is about, this is practically the definition. There is nothing authoritarian about anarchy.
You're wrong. Look at the lefty, idiot thugs at Berkeley smashing shit up and attacking people who went to go see a Milo talk. They used violence to shut down somebody else's speech. That's authoritarian.
I don't know what you mean by "the people" becoming the state
"see any communist regime that arose in the 20th century"
Here or here.
Only real difference being that Jesus is not the son of god but just another prophet.
Bullshit. Jesus, as described in the gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord.
Islam is as "compatible with the civilized world" as any ancient religion [..] You know... like all those flavors of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism
Bullshit. Islam is uniquely violent, political, authoritarian, and expansionist. Not that you can't find some of the above in other religions, in particular the Old Testament, but Islam took it to a whole new level:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
It seems silly to nitpick this, since they're both just excuses to get rid of someone
It is silly, because at its heart its authoritarianism. The left/right angle does not matter one bit. Oh, and if "the people" win and become the state, the rhetoric stays the same: it is still "enemies of the people", but now with the full power of government behind it (see any communist regime that arose in the 20th century).
Battleship? Really?
Yeah, I had the same reaction. On the other end of the spectrum, you've got the mashup movies like "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter".
Diversity is strength.
Let's pretend you own a business, and on the first day of your new hire he tells you his wife has late-stage cancer. He says he'll put his full day in at the office, but needs his nights and weekends at home.
Now what is the first thing that's going to cross your mind? Oh shit, this guy is going to be taking a lot of time off from work for who knows how long, and I just hired him! It's one thing to cut a long-time employee some slack, but new hires dropping bombs on their first day in is something different.
Now this is a corporation, and the manager probably had the same thought, but didn't want to be an asshole to what at first blush is a reasonable request. He mulls it over, discusses it with his manager and HR, and they drop the hammer.
Wow, I'm surprised jwz is still around and coding, on xscreensaver of all the stupid things. He's being an ass, though, as thoroughly explained by the Anon.
And those solutions are the can of worms that come with their own downsides. I prefer comments the way they are.