It's something which no longer exists in western culture outside of old books and rare circumstances. You might still find the odd Italian families engaging in vendettas based on a great great great grandparent who stole his neighbours goat, but for the most part we've done away with these concepts. They're certainly not codified in our laws or customs. Whereas in many other places in the world they are alive and well.
It won't affect that at all, because this is about Google bundling. This is about Google forcing people to use their software, not about forcing Google to let other people to use their software. It's the opposite thing.
For some of the other listed complaints sure, but not this one. This one is specifically about manufacturers who wish to use an unapproved OS but also want to be allowed to bundle google software with it.
3. has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
I'll be interested to see how this affects Google's newest decision to "disallow" google apps from being installed on custom ROMs without jumping through hoops, or, more boradly, the blocks which have been in place for ages preventing certain apps (like Netflix) being installed on unapproved devices.
My second cousins roommamte from college got his Tesla 3 delivered last month and it's so bad they even put the cup holders in backwards. Now instead of holding cups they just launch them at the ceiling.
Sure. You're a weirdo who assumed that "them" meant KKK members (or, more broadly in the context of your example, white dudes making racist statements) whereas I clearly meant that when the KKK complains about black people, businesses don't fire those black people.
Are you suggesting that it's impossible for men to view women as equals,
That's a rather funny phrase. I mean... the women who, over the years, have asked me to move furniture for them clearly don't consider themselves to be my equals in that respect. If they did, they would have just done it themselves and maybe asked for some help, instead of standing on the sidelines telling me where to put the insanely heavy desk.
On the other hand I have a female friend I've known since I was 15, and she has just finished her medical residency. I don't believe I'm anywhere near her equal when it comes to medicine.
You're going to have to clarify. What would it mean for me to view a woman as my equal?
It's not about a "longer term horizon", it's about not changing shit too often. To apply it to your amazon complaint, the city might make a 6 year deal with Amazon in order to ensure some stability. That gives Amazon 6 years to build and run their business, and it gives the city 6 years of revenue at a relatively steady rate.
If, on the other hand, the city wanted a 1 year deal, Amazon might tell them to fuck off. Too much instability and uncertainty. It might take a year to build the new warehouse, just in time for a new "deal" to completely change the financial situation. Nobody wants to deal with that mess.
The fact that you have a 6 year term doesn't mean you're inherently planing things for the next 6 years. It just means that you can guarantee your word for at least that long.
As for long term planning, it can be good, and it can be bad. The soviet "5 year plan" blew chunks because in year 1-2 it was obvious that it would fail. But they kept pushing it anyway because Comrade Cumquat wanted it done and those who disagreed mysteriously disappeared. Long term plans are completely useless if you're unwilling to adapt to include new data.
Of course you don't seem to have looked at ANY data, otherwise you wouldn't have been insinuating that Seattle is subsidising Amazon excessively, and you CERTAINLY wouldn't have proposed increasing taxes by an order of magnitude. You seem to be just making shit up as you go along, partly informed by a sophomoric understanding of economics and history.
it's deflection. If someone says, "Look, this group in particular is being singled out and harassed." and you respond, "Hm, yes harassment is bad. Before we do anything else, let's all say that harassment is bad." then you are deflecting from their complaint by changing the topic to something which they hadn't really been discussing. The other person was not talking about harassment being bad, there was an implication that we all already agreed on that point, the other person was talking about this particular group being singled out.
Sure, but that's not what's happening. Nobody is saying "we have to consider all other groups"; they're saying "all these other groups have been getting harassed for decades and you didn't say a word, so why the fuck do you want us to focus on YOUR group now?"
It's very similar to the "all lives matter" deflection that some people use against the Black Lives Matter protestors. The point of the phrase "black lives matter" is not the concept that lives should matter or that black people have lives. The phrase assumes that we all agree on those points already and so is talking about something else.
I agree, it's very similar. People of all colours have been getting killed throughout human history. Why should we focus specifically on the black lives? Are you suggesting that, once we magically stop all black people from being killed, we are suddenly going to see a bunch of black people marching under "Asian lives matter" banners?
How in the world do you conclude that it's "defection" to point out that the problem affects everyone, and it's retarded to focus on just one group?
If I started a "rich white heterosexual male lives matter" group tomorrow, would you march with me? What do you expect would be the response from BLM? From Hispanics? From feminists? From the homeless? When they inevitable mocked my group and pointed out the oppression of their own groups, would you accuse them of deflection?
Yeah, you got me. Lightly poking fun at a small subset of the population who engage in one specific type of behaviour is totally the same as lumping multiple disparate groups together for no other reason than that they all disagree with you on something.
It's pretty much irrelevant; the difference in speed in unnoticeable unless you've got them side side and are doing a direct comparison. A decent SSD and a top of the line one FEEL the same for general computing.
Of course if he's got his laptop hooked up in a datacenter serving database content to thousands of users, it's going to make a big difference. But if that's the case he's a moron anyway.
This can also be perceived as whining, that's my point. If you argue that everyone who feels that they were taken advantage are whiners, the same can be used against you.
Can you point to an example of me saying that their whining isn't fair?
No?
Then I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing for at this point...
Don't misunderstand me. I don't discredit your experience.
Don't worry about it. If you had read the rest of my comments you'd see that I'm not exactly a snowflake. And I'm pretty sure you fundamentally misunderstood my position.
But I perceive a problem in the Jessica Price case.
Jessica's problem was that she was using Twitter basically as an extension of her work life. She -- apparently constantly -- tweeted to people she knew to be gamers about her work designing games.
In a case like that, yeah, I can see that a backlash on Twitter could lash all the way back to her employer.
But as I said, most cases aren't like that. Generally speaking, unless someone is tweeting about their own criminal behavior or things that are really, grossly unethical, I don't think social media should have any impact on one's work or professional life.
I agree 100% with everything you said, and wish I could mod you up. For my part, I want to give her even more benefit-of-the-doubt just because I realize that, thanks to my dislike for her politics, I'm inherently inclined to judge her more harshly. As you say, if she did regularly mix work PR with her personal feed, that would be the only thing which could possibly justify firing her over this.
Well, not many talked about the IRA as fundamental Christian terrorists, yet they killed 1,823 people over three decades, and nobody should talk about them in this way.
If IRA members had regularly strapped on suicide vests, walked into British cafes, yelled out "Praise Jesus!" and then blown themselves up, I would gladly have referred to them as fundamentalist Christian terrorists. They didn't, so I don't.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking people become terrorists for political reasons, not because of their religion.
That's a distinction without a difference. The big Abrahamic religions, at the very least, are inherently political. Many others are also.
There are about 1.8 billion Muslims and 2.2 billion Christians on the world. Compare those numbers to the hundreds of terrorists - or maybe thousands, if you're very pessimistic - that are active in the world and it's easy to see that religion can hardly play a major role.
Makes sense. There were tens of millions of Nazis, but only a few thousand worked in concentration camps. Clearly Nazism didn't play a major role.
That's what darwinists and capitalists do not understand, if you play this power game to the end, there is no fair and unfair, just success and failure.
"Darwinist" is a really stupid word made up by religious nitwits in order to paint the theory of evolution as some kind of competing religion, so I would strongly suggest you avoid using it if you want to be taken seriously.
Outside of that, people who understand natural selection and capitalists both generally understand that it's not about fair and unfair. They're not the ones whining about fairness. It's typically the socialists and commies who whine about how "things aren't fair" and we need to take other peoples stuff in order to make it fair.
Title to property, and rights of any sort, depend on the social contract.
"Social contract" in the sense that you're using it translates roughly to "things we all agree to", and there isn't a single thing that we all agree to. There are always numerous factions at play, and there are always those who prefer to set out on their own, go against the grain and use force to get what they want. The only way to stop either of those groups is by applying an opposite force.
So, outside of intellectual circle jerks (out in the real world), "social contract" just boils down to force. Those with power make and enforce the rules. In feudal societies that meant the kings, lords, and sometimes the church. In modern democratic societies it means some mix of the will of the majority combined with special interests. Either way, regardless of who is writing the rules, the "social contract" still comes down to those with power imposing their will on those without. So what you call a social contract I just call negotiation and the judicious use of force.
When Madame de Pompadour said "Apres nous, le daluge" ("After us, the flood"), it was likely not a statement of egotism, but of helplessness. She probably saw no way to prevent the revolution. Well, she wasn't notably insightful, but I don't see any way she could have prevented it either. The social contract had been too weakened to endure.
Yeah, the hold of the ruling powers over the rest had been weakened. They could no longer enforce their rules. That's the kind of thing that happens when those in power no longer have it. It doesn't matter if they're benevolent rulers or brutal ones; the moment they can no longer effectively use force (or at a minimum, credibly project the illusion that they can use force) to impose their will, a new faction will step in to fill the gap. Either that or society will descend into anarchy, and THEN a new faction will step in to fill the gap. Same result either way.
Seattle should respond by making emergency plans for Amazon's leaving, and pass a tax 10 times as high. Or 20 times.
Sounds great. While they're doing that they should also tell people to start forming bread lines. The sooner they get in line, the less likely they are to starve.
Any place that subsidizes a "large employer" at well above value should prepare for a disaster, because sooner or later it will arrive. The problem is that most politicians, and also most businessmen, have a very short time horizon.
I've never heard of a place that did that outside of communist countries. Places with planned economies tend to subsidize all kinds of ridiculous ventures which end up causing all sorts of disasters. Famines are a staple (har!) of such places. Meanwhile, in capitalist economies, regional governments tend to subsidize businesses which actually create value for the local economy, which is exactly why Seattle shitcanned their stupid head-tax idea. They didn't want to lose all of the benefits which Amazon brought with it.
The difference being that when the KKK complains about black people, businesses don't fire them. Whereas when "these people" whine about some perceived slight, it's goodbye paycheque.
You used the #metoo hashtag. You don't seem to have a personal experience.
What kind of experience? Have I been harassed? Of course; who the fuck hasn't. Have I had random internet dipshits try to dox me and get me fired? They didn't succeed, but yeah, quite a few have tried. Have I been sexually assaulted? Absolutely. Only ever by women, too; the few homosexual men who have come on to me over the years were much less presumptuous and understood the word "no" much better than the entitled hetero twats that have tried it.
In the past you have demanded that women make credible and specific accusations, but now when politely asked refuse to provide one of your own.
Except I'm not making accusations. I have no interest in making a fucking federal case out of it. Social Justice Warriors freak out when someone grabs your ass; when it happens to men we just laugh it off. Why would I try to ruin some chicks life just because she was a bit drunk and got grabby? Or because she was horny and misread the signals? Unlike twitters Social Junkie Whales I generally care about people. I might be a dick to you in conversation here but if we happened to meet up in real life and you made an off-color joke or dropped your pants in front of me I wouldn't flip out and try to get you fired. I would either laugh or tell you I'm not interested, and we would move on with our lives. I get no benefit from trying to ruin you; on the contrary, I would be contributing to a toxic culture which insists that every faux pas is an unforgivable crime. I don't want to live in that kind of world so I try not to help create it.
Ah the very least, you seem to be acting in bad faith and got very defensive when I tried to engage with you. Why are you acting this way?
Look, for a Social Junkpile Wanker, you're not all that bad. I mean you're still clearly delusional, looking to be offended, completely unwilling to consider any contrary opinion, and eager to spin things to suit your needs... but compared to the rest you're actually kinda alright. So do you think that, for once in your Slashdot career, you could stop assuming that people who are being completely honest with you are part of some grand conspiracy to deceive you into who-knows-what? Maybe apply the principle of charity? I know it's hard, but it's worth a try. You might even have a decent conversation for a change.
Explaining things for the lowest common denominator always feels so... icky... but just to remove all ambiguity, it had a triple meaning:
1. She said "I know MANY people... who have frequent experience with people calling for their employers to fire them for speaking up, speaking out". Obviously "me too" means that I likewise know many such people.
2. It was a reference to people using the "pound me too movement" to try and ruin the lives of countless men by riling up online lynch mobs, often with the flimsiest of accusations.
3. Combined with the title I chose, it should have been read as obvious mockery of women who would gladly try to get a man fired for making a dongle joke suddenly pulling an about turn and whining when one of their own gets sacked for saying stupid, sexist things.
I understand that all of those concepts are a lot to pack into just two words and a hashtag, but I'm sure that a god chunk of the Slashdot readership had no problem parsing it despite the subtilty/complexity. For the rest of you... well, now you have the annotated version.
Slashdot Mirror
It's something which no longer exists in western culture outside of old books and rare circumstances. You might still find the odd Italian families engaging in vendettas based on a great great great grandparent who stole his neighbours goat, but for the most part we've done away with these concepts. They're certainly not codified in our laws or customs. Whereas in many other places in the world they are alive and well.
Yes, problems created by government need government to solve them. Cue the look of shock and surprise.
It won't affect that at all, because this is about Google bundling. This is about Google forcing people to use their software, not about forcing Google to let other people to use their software. It's the opposite thing.
For some of the other listed complaints sure, but not this one. This one is specifically about manufacturers who wish to use an unapproved OS but also want to be allowed to bundle google software with it.
3. has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
I'll be interested to see how this affects Google's newest decision to "disallow" google apps from being installed on custom ROMs without jumping through hoops, or, more boradly, the blocks which have been in place for ages preventing certain apps (like Netflix) being installed on unapproved devices.
My second cousins roommamte from college got his Tesla 3 delivered last month and it's so bad they even put the cup holders in backwards. Now instead of holding cups they just launch them at the ceiling.
It's not really a capitalism problem, it's a government regulations clashing with capitalism problem.
It's probably marked as troll because you're trying to drag religion into a conversation which has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Sure. You're a weirdo who assumed that "them" meant KKK members (or, more broadly in the context of your example, white dudes making racist statements) whereas I clearly meant that when the KKK complains about black people, businesses don't fire those black people.
Are you suggesting that it's impossible for men to view women as equals,
That's a rather funny phrase. I mean ... the women who, over the years, have asked me to move furniture for them clearly don't consider themselves to be my equals in that respect. If they did, they would have just done it themselves and maybe asked for some help, instead of standing on the sidelines telling me where to put the insanely heavy desk.
On the other hand I have a female friend I've known since I was 15, and she has just finished her medical residency. I don't believe I'm anywhere near her equal when it comes to medicine.
You're going to have to clarify. What would it mean for me to view a woman as my equal?
It's not about a "longer term horizon", it's about not changing shit too often. To apply it to your amazon complaint, the city might make a 6 year deal with Amazon in order to ensure some stability. That gives Amazon 6 years to build and run their business, and it gives the city 6 years of revenue at a relatively steady rate.
If, on the other hand, the city wanted a 1 year deal, Amazon might tell them to fuck off. Too much instability and uncertainty. It might take a year to build the new warehouse, just in time for a new "deal" to completely change the financial situation. Nobody wants to deal with that mess.
The fact that you have a 6 year term doesn't mean you're inherently planing things for the next 6 years. It just means that you can guarantee your word for at least that long.
As for long term planning, it can be good, and it can be bad. The soviet "5 year plan" blew chunks because in year 1-2 it was obvious that it would fail. But they kept pushing it anyway because Comrade Cumquat wanted it done and those who disagreed mysteriously disappeared. Long term plans are completely useless if you're unwilling to adapt to include new data.
Of course you don't seem to have looked at ANY data, otherwise you wouldn't have been insinuating that Seattle is subsidising Amazon excessively, and you CERTAINLY wouldn't have proposed increasing taxes by an order of magnitude. You seem to be just making shit up as you go along, partly informed by a sophomoric understanding of economics and history.
it's deflection. If someone says, "Look, this group in particular is being singled out and harassed." and you respond, "Hm, yes harassment is bad. Before we do anything else, let's all say that harassment is bad." then you are deflecting from their complaint by changing the topic to something which they hadn't really been discussing. The other person was not talking about harassment being bad, there was an implication that we all already agreed on that point, the other person was talking about this particular group being singled out.
Sure, but that's not what's happening. Nobody is saying "we have to consider all other groups"; they're saying "all these other groups have been getting harassed for decades and you didn't say a word, so why the fuck do you want us to focus on YOUR group now?"
It's very similar to the "all lives matter" deflection that some people use against the Black Lives Matter protestors. The point of the phrase "black lives matter" is not the concept that lives should matter or that black people have lives. The phrase assumes that we all agree on those points already and so is talking about something else.
I agree, it's very similar. People of all colours have been getting killed throughout human history. Why should we focus specifically on the black lives? Are you suggesting that, once we magically stop all black people from being killed, we are suddenly going to see a bunch of black people marching under "Asian lives matter" banners?
How in the world do you conclude that it's "defection" to point out that the problem affects everyone, and it's retarded to focus on just one group?
If I started a "rich white heterosexual male lives matter" group tomorrow, would you march with me? What do you expect would be the response from BLM? From Hispanics? From feminists? From the homeless? When they inevitable mocked my group and pointed out the oppression of their own groups, would you accuse them of deflection?
Yeah, you got me. Lightly poking fun at a small subset of the population who engage in one specific type of behaviour is totally the same as lumping multiple disparate groups together for no other reason than that they all disagree with you on something.
It's pretty much irrelevant; the difference in speed in unnoticeable unless you've got them side side and are doing a direct comparison. A decent SSD and a top of the line one FEEL the same for general computing.
Of course if he's got his laptop hooked up in a datacenter serving database content to thousands of users, it's going to make a big difference. But if that's the case he's a moron anyway.
This can also be perceived as whining, that's my point. If you argue that everyone who feels that they were taken advantage are whiners, the same can be used against you.
Can you point to an example of me saying that their whining isn't fair?
No?
Then I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing for at this point ...
Don't misunderstand me. I don't discredit your experience.
Don't worry about it. If you had read the rest of my comments you'd see that I'm not exactly a snowflake. And I'm pretty sure you fundamentally misunderstood my position.
But I perceive a problem in the Jessica Price case.
Jessica's problem was that she was using Twitter basically as an extension of her work life. She -- apparently constantly -- tweeted to people she knew to be gamers about her work designing games.
In a case like that, yeah, I can see that a backlash on Twitter could lash all the way back to her employer.
But as I said, most cases aren't like that. Generally speaking, unless someone is tweeting about their own criminal behavior or things that are really, grossly unethical, I don't think social media should have any impact on one's work or professional life.
I agree 100% with everything you said, and wish I could mod you up. For my part, I want to give her even more benefit-of-the-doubt just because I realize that, thanks to my dislike for her politics, I'm inherently inclined to judge her more harshly. As you say, if she did regularly mix work PR with her personal feed, that would be the only thing which could possibly justify firing her over this.
Well, not many talked about the IRA as fundamental Christian terrorists, yet they killed 1,823 people over three decades, and nobody should talk about them in this way.
If IRA members had regularly strapped on suicide vests, walked into British cafes, yelled out "Praise Jesus!" and then blown themselves up, I would gladly have referred to them as fundamentalist Christian terrorists. They didn't, so I don't.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking people become terrorists for political reasons, not because of their religion.
That's a distinction without a difference. The big Abrahamic religions, at the very least, are inherently political. Many others are also.
There are about 1.8 billion Muslims and 2.2 billion Christians on the world. Compare those numbers to the hundreds of terrorists - or maybe thousands, if you're very pessimistic - that are active in the world and it's easy to see that religion can hardly play a major role.
Makes sense. There were tens of millions of Nazis, but only a few thousand worked in concentration camps. Clearly Nazism didn't play a major role.
How dare you presume the gender of those burly divers!
That's what darwinists and capitalists do not understand, if you play this power game to the end, there is no fair and unfair, just success and failure.
"Darwinist" is a really stupid word made up by religious nitwits in order to paint the theory of evolution as some kind of competing religion, so I would strongly suggest you avoid using it if you want to be taken seriously.
Outside of that, people who understand natural selection and capitalists both generally understand that it's not about fair and unfair. They're not the ones whining about fairness. It's typically the socialists and commies who whine about how "things aren't fair" and we need to take other peoples stuff in order to make it fair.
Title to property, and rights of any sort, depend on the social contract.
"Social contract" in the sense that you're using it translates roughly to "things we all agree to", and there isn't a single thing that we all agree to. There are always numerous factions at play, and there are always those who prefer to set out on their own, go against the grain and use force to get what they want. The only way to stop either of those groups is by applying an opposite force.
So, outside of intellectual circle jerks (out in the real world), "social contract" just boils down to force. Those with power make and enforce the rules. In feudal societies that meant the kings, lords, and sometimes the church. In modern democratic societies it means some mix of the will of the majority combined with special interests. Either way, regardless of who is writing the rules, the "social contract" still comes down to those with power imposing their will on those without. So what you call a social contract I just call negotiation and the judicious use of force.
When Madame de Pompadour said "Apres nous, le daluge" ("After us, the flood"), it was likely not a statement of egotism, but of helplessness. She probably saw no way to prevent the revolution. Well, she wasn't notably insightful, but I don't see any way she could have prevented it either. The social contract had been too weakened to endure.
Yeah, the hold of the ruling powers over the rest had been weakened. They could no longer enforce their rules. That's the kind of thing that happens when those in power no longer have it. It doesn't matter if they're benevolent rulers or brutal ones; the moment they can no longer effectively use force (or at a minimum, credibly project the illusion that they can use force) to impose their will, a new faction will step in to fill the gap. Either that or society will descend into anarchy, and THEN a new faction will step in to fill the gap. Same result either way.
Seattle should respond by making emergency plans for Amazon's leaving, and pass a tax 10 times as high. Or 20 times.
Sounds great. While they're doing that they should also tell people to start forming bread lines. The sooner they get in line, the less likely they are to starve.
Any place that subsidizes a "large employer" at well above value should prepare for a disaster, because sooner or later it will arrive. The problem is that most politicians, and also most businessmen, have a very short time horizon.
I've never heard of a place that did that outside of communist countries. Places with planned economies tend to subsidize all kinds of ridiculous ventures which end up causing all sorts of disasters. Famines are a staple (har!) of such places. Meanwhile, in capitalist economies, regional governments tend to subsidize businesses which actually create value for the local economy, which is exactly why Seattle shitcanned their stupid head-tax idea. They didn't want to lose all of the benefits which Amazon brought with it.
The difference being that when the KKK complains about black people, businesses don't fire them. Whereas when "these people" whine about some perceived slight, it's goodbye paycheque.
You used the #metoo hashtag. You don't seem to have a personal experience.
What kind of experience? Have I been harassed? Of course; who the fuck hasn't. Have I had random internet dipshits try to dox me and get me fired? They didn't succeed, but yeah, quite a few have tried. Have I been sexually assaulted? Absolutely. Only ever by women, too; the few homosexual men who have come on to me over the years were much less presumptuous and understood the word "no" much better than the entitled hetero twats that have tried it.
In the past you have demanded that women make credible and specific accusations, but now when politely asked refuse to provide one of your own.
Except I'm not making accusations. I have no interest in making a fucking federal case out of it. Social Justice Warriors freak out when someone grabs your ass; when it happens to men we just laugh it off. Why would I try to ruin some chicks life just because she was a bit drunk and got grabby? Or because she was horny and misread the signals? Unlike twitters Social Junkie Whales I generally care about people. I might be a dick to you in conversation here but if we happened to meet up in real life and you made an off-color joke or dropped your pants in front of me I wouldn't flip out and try to get you fired. I would either laugh or tell you I'm not interested, and we would move on with our lives. I get no benefit from trying to ruin you; on the contrary, I would be contributing to a toxic culture which insists that every faux pas is an unforgivable crime. I don't want to live in that kind of world so I try not to help create it.
Ah the very least, you seem to be acting in bad faith and got very defensive when I tried to engage with you. Why are you acting this way?
Look, for a Social Junkpile Wanker, you're not all that bad. I mean you're still clearly delusional, looking to be offended, completely unwilling to consider any contrary opinion, and eager to spin things to suit your needs ... but compared to the rest you're actually kinda alright. So do you think that, for once in your Slashdot career, you could stop assuming that people who are being completely honest with you are part of some grand conspiracy to deceive you into who-knows-what? Maybe apply the principle of charity? I know it's hard, but it's worth a try. You might even have a decent conversation for a change.
You could have bought a $500 laptop, tossed a $100 SSD in it, and been equally blown away.
That's just awkward. You could have just said "shagging" and left the sheep alone, ya cunt.
Would have been far more pleased if I didn't have to explain it. But there's always at least one ...
Explaining things for the lowest common denominator always feels so ... icky ... but just to remove all ambiguity, it had a triple meaning:
1. She said "I know MANY people ... who have frequent experience with people calling for their employers to fire them for speaking up, speaking out". Obviously "me too" means that I likewise know many such people.
2. It was a reference to people using the "pound me too movement" to try and ruin the lives of countless men by riling up online lynch mobs, often with the flimsiest of accusations.
3. Combined with the title I chose, it should have been read as obvious mockery of women who would gladly try to get a man fired for making a dongle joke suddenly pulling an about turn and whining when one of their own gets sacked for saying stupid, sexist things.
I understand that all of those concepts are a lot to pack into just two words and a hashtag, but I'm sure that a god chunk of the Slashdot readership had no problem parsing it despite the subtilty/complexity. For the rest of you ... well, now you have the annotated version.