This is so simple. The car should save the occupants, just like any normal driver would have done. Trying to take this to some Asimov "donot cause harm" bullshit will practically require cars to be self-aware, at which point cars may not actually want to serve their masters anymore.
If only there was some sort of Code, a Code for the Highway, that told you what you should do in these situations. A shame something like that doesn't already exist.
In this case it's true, Bannon isn't a literal Nazi. He shares some of their philosophy and views, but Nazism is just a subset of the alt-right, which Bannon is one of the most important players in.
He's an awful human being, a racist and a bigot, but not an actual Nazi. Just a friend to Nazis, an admirer of them.
Strangely enough, the major difference between a Nazi and a regular, garden variety, classical (Italian) fascist is that the Nazi ideology has a serious racist bend to it.
Both a Nazi and Fascist believe in nationalism, enforced ideologies, control over media, totalitarianism, but a Fascist stops short of thinking, "well that black fellow, he must be subhuman and we white men are the superior race". Sure some fascists are racist by accident, but Nazism has racism baked into its very foundations.
This is why white supremacists are often (and correctly) labelled as Nazis. There are enough similarities between the two ideologies and if the jackboot fits...
Exactly right. I don't think Paul Ryan is a Nazi. I don't think Mitch McConnell is a Nazi. I don't think Ted Cruz is a Nazi.
Let's be pretty clear here, the majority of Republicans are not Nazis. But then again, those marching in Charlottesville with their white nationalist and white supremacist flags and sheilds are not your average Republicans. They are, well, yes, that's right, they're Nazis, and their so repugnant and evil that just about goddamned Republican out there is running from them as fast as possible...
With the exception of the Republican President of the United States.
I dont think anyone in their right mind is calling normal conservatives Nazi's. Whilst Nazism and Fascism is a far-right philosophy, nationalism, it's also inseparability intertwined with authoritarian rule. I think it's fair to say that the majority of Americans, regardless of political leanings want a dictatorship. Put simply, not everyone who leans right is a Nazi (and the corollary, not everyone who leans left is a communist).
Most Republicans are rational people, so are most Democrats. The sad thing is, the media has polarised political issues so much, its hard to hold the middle ground due to the bleating of the extremists on either side.
The thing that separates Nazism from regular classical (Italian) Fascism is that Nazism specifically institutionalises racism, both in believing that some races are inherently inferior (untermesch) and others are inherently superior (Ubermesch). Apologies for any mispellings in German. The problem with Nazism and White Supremacist is that they are extremist ideologies and not at all rational, hence they do irrational things when opposed. What surprises me is that there are people defending them, I would have thought any right minded republican or conservative would be trying to distance themselves from these groups, wanting to make sure it was known that these groups do not represent the majority of republicans (as a white male, I'd be quite offended to be lumped in with Nazis and white supremacists simply for being white and male, fortunately being a white male I'm immune from such generalisations).
The point is, these groups are extremist and should be opposed not because they're on the far right, but because they're too far to the right. I'd say the same about extremist left groups, but none seem to exist any more because we opposed them into extinction.
I honestly believe that the biggest threat to western nations is not any external power or foreign terrorist organisation, but the rise of extremism in our own countries. For the US, UK and other Anglo nations, this is the extreme right as we're nations that tend to lean right and are more tolerant of it. It seems entirely possible that the extreme right can gain enough support that they get to dictate extremist laws or use violence to enforce their ideology. The extreme right needs to be opposed and contrary to popular opinion it cant be done with the extreme left, the opposite of extremism is rationalism, to oppose the far right, we should support the moderates.
You know the far right is on the ropes when they stop trying to defend their position and start pushing conspiracy theories about actors paid to put on a fake Nazi march and fight with the (real) leftists.
This isn't a new thing, it's something they spent the entire election campaign doing. They didn't promote their own policies and values, they spent all of their time trying to sling shit at Clinton. Well, Americans got the government they voted for.
The only group that should censor is the courts, when ever corporations take it up themselves to be above the courts, to rule beyond the courts, it always works out much worse for us. Not happy with 'Daily Stormer' than take it too fucking court, corporations are not the fucking government. Want to take someone down, want to censor them, take it to court.
Erm, no.
Businesses have a right to chose their clients. By forcing them to go to court, you're taking a giant boot to the face of the right of free association. You're pretty much trying to codify that others have to listen and silently agree with the Daily Stormer. That is pretty much the opposite of free speech and probably several other rights.
I've never understood how they teach freedom in the far-right. Having a private business say they dont want to deal with you isn't censorship, it's people telling you you're an arsehole and they don't want to listen to you bullshit any more.
Basically one or more of Cloudflare's bigger customers said, "If you don't stop dealing with group X, we'll find another provider". Its business, and once again businesses are not obligated to provide a platform for anyone and everyone.
So - Cloudflare is NOT a commercial business? Or - since they are - they must provide their services to individuals with different political leanings (which is what the original intent of the First Amendment was - protection of poltical speech)?
Since when have corporations been responsible for enforcing civil rights?
You seem to have that completely backwards.
Cloud-flare is a commercial business, they have the right to pick and chose their clients. This means distancing themselves from clients that could bring their business into ill repute.
Being a Nazi is not a protected class, when I fill out an ESTA to travel to the united states, I was expressly asked if I was or had any affiliation to any Nazi organisation. Same with several terrorist organisations. I'm absolutely certain you would not defend Al Quaeda in the same way you're defending white supremacists... Hell you wouldn't defend the (now defunct) Black Panthers, why do white people get a free pass. I denouce Al Quaeda as a hateful organisation and do not blame any business for not wanting to be in any way associated with them, so why should I give white supremacists a free pass?
The law in no way says that private businesses have to provide a platform for political speech. It in no way says it has to provide it for hateful speech. In fact a private business is in no way obligated to provide anyone with a platform. Free speech means the government cant arrest you for crisitising it. It does not mean you can say anything you like to anyone, nor does it mean everyone else has to stay silent and agree with you.
You've got a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is.
Except the only thing that these people are actually doing is saying shit you don't like.
You clearly want license to abuse people you don't like and are too arrogant to see this ever being used against you.
You mean the people protesting against the extreme right? Then you're dead wrong.
If you're talking about the other side, the one that beats people for saying things they don't like, the people driving cars into people for saying things they don't like... then you're correct. Its the far-right that requires everyone else to silently agree with them and gets violent when someone opposes them.
While you have tinpot dictators like Rouhani in Iran and Maduro in Venezuela actually persecuting people at large who're not opposing the regimes but just going about their daily lives, and in Iran's case, doing it on the basis of religion, who the Left actually lionizes, you have the same Left getting into the Right for attitudes on Putin, Duterte, potentially Maha Vajiralongkorn, who only go after either their critics, or criminals like drug dealers or terrorists.
I think I've figured how the Left picks its hated dictators. If those dictators are opposed by Muslims anywhere, like in Chechnya, Mindanao or Yala (in these 3 examples), the Left hates them. If these dictators are supported by Muslims or Muslim countries, like in cases of Iran or Venezuela, they love them. Exceptions being cases where the dictators are pro-US, like al Sisi or King Salman, where their being Muslim gets trumped. It explains why the Left was fine w/ Morsi doing a power grab in Egypt, but are furious at al Sisi keeping the Muslim Brotherhood reigned in.
Erm, you have that backwards.
Firstly, theocracy is a far-right ideology. Theocracies are about centralising power and wealth, not distributing benefits.
Secondly, countries don't pick dictators. At best, they're deceived into voting for them and they take power for themselves. My money is still on the military removing Duerte because the military is controlled by the major political houses of the Philippines (Roxas, Quesons, Aroyos).
The Thai government can't prove that he's a *LITERAL NAZI* can they? Because then this would be OK.
In Russia, he would have simply been killed.
The thing with narcissistic ego-driven despots is they do this kind of horrible shit if they're allowed to. Considering his kind words for Putin and Duarte, how long before Trump calls the king of Thailand "a tremendous guy"?
The thing is, it's not the King driving this. Its the military Junta who drives this. The King of Thailand has no real political power.
The lest majesty laws have always been used for political gain, not protecting the royalty. The previous king constantly pardoned anyone convicted of leste majesty and several times asked parliament to remove the leste majesty laws, the Thai parliament refused because they were so convenient.
The thing is, it isn't the King who locks people up.
The King of Thailand hasn't wielded any real political power since 1932, he's a figurehead much like the royalty of Europe. Thailand has been by large, a ill-functioning democracy interrupted by bouts of military dictatorship. Right now is one of those bouts. The Thai military staged a coup in 2014 when elections just didn't go the way they wanted. Politicians have always used the Leste Majesty laws for political and personal gain, even over the objection of the previous King who died last year. Several times he asked the parliament to remove the leste majesty laws but each time they refused. Did I mention he had no real political power?
The ruling junta are looking to maintain power any way they can without making their government look too despotic. The previous king was a populist king, doing what was widely considered right by Thais, when people were locked up for Leste Majestey he would immediately issue a royal pardon (one of the few powers the King holds). Not sure about the new king though.
BTW, the Thais are Buddhists, which is a reincarnation religion. So divine does not mean immortal (or godlike, which is the accurate definition, as Buddhism is an atheist religion), divine means pure. He'll die and be reincarnated like every other Buddhist.
The solution to the problems is really simple: build more housing. How do you get more housing built? Well, for starts not having some of the most restrictive zoning laws in the country, and having people fight back at any housing that is less than ideal would be a major aspect. Unfortunately, there are people who are advocates for the poor who don't get this and have gone out of their way to block housing that doesn't have affordable housing built into it, which just results in total fewer housing.
Actually, the problem is the US's dreadful public transport network.
Here in the UK, a train journey of 80 miles is easily accomplished in 1.5 hours, 2 hours at a stretch. That means you can leave Winchester at 5:15 and make a starting time of 07:00 in Central London and I'm including a short tube journey from London Waterloo to somewhere like Bank.
That being said, a 2 hour journey is still not ideal but the money in central London is often worth it. Much like central San Francisco, no one lives in central London unless they're a multi-millionaire. For popular business hubs, one should be able to live outside it and get in relatively quickly.
yep but no one, not me, you, cloudflare or anyone else has to provide them with the loudspeaker, sell them the server or provide them bandwidth, internet protection etc to spread that opinion. Freedom of speech doesn't put an obligation on anyone else to facilitate that and in fact freedom of speech allows others to explicitly refuse you the platform, if they control it, to speak from.
This.
I defended Goolge and GoDaddy for their right to refuse to do business with these groups because it wasn't a free speech issue. By the same token I'll defend Cloudflare's decision not to do so under the same grounds.
Not that I agree with Cloudflare mind you, in fact I quite strongly disagree, but they are committing no crime here and what they want to do with their business is there business.
The one that would normally prevent the country from being torn in two by radical extremists killing anyone they didn't think was on their side.
Note that this is LITERALLY how the Nazis gained power in Germany. First they fought in the streets with communists, then they got blackballed/arrested, then Hitler wrote his infamous book, and the people were persuaded to his side.
You could have just written "I don't know how the Nazis came to power". It would have been faster than that crap.
The Nazi's didn't just fall into power because some angry little man wrote a book. After they were finished fighting the Bolsheviks. The Sturmabteilung (SA or the Brown Shirts) enforced Nazi power at the local level. Dare to oppose the Nazis, you got the shit beat out of you by semi-uniformed thugs. Dare to protest in the wrong neighbourhood, you'd disappear. It ended up getting to the point where the SA would stand over elections to ensure you voted correctly.
The Nazis gained power by intimidating people just enough that they'd start to believe what the Nazis told them.
The only way they could have been stopped is before the Beer Hall Push (that's what got Hitler arrested) by the government nipping violent organisations in the bud, long before the Nazis got strong enough to openly start beating people in the street with no consequences. The Nazis gained power not just because they gave the people someone to (wrongfully) blame, but because they enforced their political ideology through violence... a lot like the current Neo Nazis are trying to do.
Now we can't mock the posts, debate the facts, or keep tabs on the threat. Nothing will get better; rather, these vile sentiments will fester, and we'll have a tougher time anticipating the next Charlotsville, since it won't be so widely publicized.
You couldn't do that before.
They were echo chambers, any dissent was shut down, mocked, ridiculed or just deleted so that the group think was never challenged. If you posted a disagreeing or even slightly contrary view, you were moderated or banned. Hell, I would not be surprised if you would even get doxxed. The site owners already had an environment where only the vile sentiments were permitted and allowed to fester.
Now their crap wont be referenced. New members wont know how to join (lets face it, Neo-Nazi's are not terribly bright). They are going to fade away into nothing. So bloody good job.
yes. the A pillar, B and C. A is front windshield B is middle and C is the rear. Left and Right
Mostly right, but different cars have different pillar configurations.
A pillars are the forward most pillar, each consecutive letter is the next pillar back.
In a Coupe, the A pillar is at the front and the B pillar is often at the back as many coupes have no centre pillar. Estates and wagons often have a D pillar because B and C are both centre. Convertibles only have an A pillar.
Do you want to die when you have a small accident? That's why.
Lots of glass means not so much steel to protect you from side impacts. Airbags in the A-pillars keep you from dying or being maimed in many types of accidents.
Also, these "workarounds" work a lot better than using your eyes. Rearview cameras have fisheye lenses for a much wider field-of-view than you normally have, and they show you what's directly behind the car. Many children are run over every year by their parents or others when backing out of driveways. It's physically impossible to see a child directly behind a car from the driver's seat, even in older cars. And when I'm backing out of tight parking spaces, the radars in my rear bumper can see oncoming traffic that it's physically impossible for me to see from the driver's seat.
Very poorly thought out argument that makes bad assumptions with a bit of "think of the children" thrown in at the end.
Also you're proving their point. I've driven older cars, pre 2000 designs and their visibility is a lot better than modern cars. My S15 200sx had great visibility, if a child walked behind it I'd know because I'd be able to see it. The problem is that cars have gotten larger and fatter because Safety. This means that they've become harder to see out of and much larger, which is an impediment to safety. Manufacturers recognise this and are working to fix it in a variety of ways, one of the best ways is to restore visibility.
Secondly, so called safety systems are not replacements for good driving practices. A reversing camera is no replacement for a head check, Fisheye lenses distort a lot and most are 120 degrees or less (which is a lot less than the 180 degrees needed to see what is behind your car... not even considering what is next to it. Radar systems are terrible and prone to false alarms, the reversing radar on my BMW M240i is too sensitive to leaves and other things that are not hindrances.
False positives mean that people will ignore the warnings. A blind spot detection system is no replacement for actually turning your head and making sure there is no one next to you.
In fact, I firmly believe that people who rely on technology to save them need to have their licenses removed and should not be permitted to command a vehicle until the rest of us are satisfied that vehicles are advanced enough that they present no danger (this will take decades at best). Thinking that the blind spot detection will look out for you and means you dont have to do a basic "mirror, signal, blindspot" check means you are a bad driver.
People who run over their kids are not just bad drivers, but bad parents. If they haven't been keeping an eye on their kid to begin with, what makes you think a beep, warble or flashing light will stop them? Clue-by-four, it wont. You cant fix ignorance with technology.
Personally I think we could do with a few less airbags. Not just for weight and mass reduction, but also bad driver reduction. Driving cars that can kill you is a great motivator to drive safely. But I doubt the average steering wheel attendant would understand someone who cares about their car and their driving as they're too busy on facebook to pay attention to anything else (like a road).
= = = Reminds me a little of Steve Jobs when it comes to business instincts. = = =
Steve Jobs may have stretched a few laws and regulations over the years (the 'agreement' on not cross-recruiting comes to mind), but none of Jobs' businesses were founded fundamentally on wholesale breaking and flouting of the law. So not such a great comparison there.
Yep, Steve Jobs completely lacked humility and were pretty light with other scruples, but even he didn't wantonly break laws. I'm pretty critical of Jobs, but I'll happily say that of all things, he wasn't a criminal.
Uber was a pyramid scheme from the very beginning. The only difference is he was conning Silicon Valley VC's instead of old grandmas. The death of Uber is now inevitable and the investors that were conned now want their money back. I have no doubt Kalanick has squirrelled away a small fortune of it.
Well, in the UK it's legal to hire a woman ahead of a man. To hire someone that's BME ("black or minority ethnic", a phrase in use in the UK) instead of someone that's white.
I'm calling bollocks on this.
You're being disingenuous here. You haven't said it is required, you said it was legal.
What you've said is that if a more qualified woman or black person applies for the job, an employer is in no way obligated to accept a while, male candidate. OTOH, there is no law stating a less qualified candidate who is not white or male must be accepted. You're pretty much trying to do what Damore did in his memo, insinuate a conclusion and lie by omission.
Basically, you've said that no-one is being discriminated against, but tried to dress it up as a bad thing. I live in the UK, white male privilege is still very much a thing. Its not an automatic thing, you now have to work for that privilege (unless you're old money, but that's a different argument). White males are not discriminated against in any way, its just upset some people with outdated ideas that non whites and non males now enjoy this same privilege.
I'll close on the constant attacks in the media. Some are subtle, some are downright nasty, and many tacitly support anti-white and/or anti-male writings on less formal channels.
I'm calling bollocks on that too.
The nastiest and most vitriolic attacks are from the likes of the Daily Mail and they're not attacking white males with low intelligence (their core audience). In fact the only paper trying to convince me that white males are under attack... are papers like the Daily Mail. Not even the Guardian tries to say that white men are evil, that shit is entirely the DM's area.
No one is attacking you for being white or male, you're being attacked because you spout a lot of bullshit and the rest of us are sick of it.
with an internal memo criticizing the company's diversity efforts and claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers.
At no point in the memo was this ever stated.
I'm fucking tired of disingenuous assholes trying to spin something that says one thing, into something else to further their agenda.
Thats why he immediately went to a reputable medical journal to have his findings openly debated. Oh that's right, he went to not one, but two known anti-feminist Youtubers instead.
Actual psychologist have noted a lot of flaws with his assertions.
The problem we have is that he whilst he never directly made claims, he certainly insinuated them and dressed them up in nice language to make it look like he wasn't making them. Re-read page 5, he says that men have high stress jobs because women want "balance". In fact a lot that memo is trying to insinuate that women cant handle stress. Basically he's trying to use the whole "I'm not racist because X is not a race" defence. Most of us saw through it.
But like you said, there's a lot of disingenuous assholes trying to spin something that says one thing, into something else to further their agenda. Damore is one of them, just because he strokes your ego does not mean he's on the level (in fact that's a pretty good sign he's not).
Seems like people who know they're wrong will never dare confirm the facts.
Yep,
Some people have accepted Damore's memo as an almost holy truth and refuse to consider that the evidence may not support his conclusion. Just as many scientists have pointed out the flaws in his arguments, however presenting an opposing view point to those who want to believe Damore's memo is like arguing with a brick wall with the letters S, J and W written on it.
I've read the memo, it doesn't pass basic rigour (he uses large demographics which have to ignore differences in individuals), uses very loosely understood concepts (he asserts that gender roles were asserted by evolution, there is little to no evidence that males hunted exclusively or that females reared children exclusively, in fact, there is significant evidence that both sexes contributed to rearing children and that gender roles as we know them are a quite recent thing on an evolutionary time scale). There are many flaws with it but try pointing those flaws out to those who want to believe it.
>> claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers.
Come on, He didn't make such a claim. He said biology may play a part in women's preferences in choosing to go into the field.
He may not have made the claim, but certainly tried to insinuate it.
If the science was solid, why did he then need to go to not one, but two well known Anti-Feminist Youtubers instead of a more reputable organisation like Psychology Today or the AMA? Hell, even the "I fucking love science" or "A science enthusiast" facebook pages would have given him more credence. He didn't go there because whilst he didn't technically misrepresent the science, it doesn't stand up to basic rigour. As David P Schmidt said in Psychology Today said, whilst he is technically correct the differences aren't significant enough to explain his conclusion.
I'm still of the mind that he leaked the memo himself to create controversy over what was probably a different event that justified his dismissal. Firstly, too much time passed between the memo being released and his dismissal, secondly, CEO's of fortune 500 companies don't get called back from holiday to deal with a nicely worded memo. HR can do that on its own.
Discrimination against white males is no more "tolerant" than discrimination against any other race or gender.
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what group it is against. Just because it's socially acceptable to discriminate against white men doesn't make it right.
The problem that the allegedly "downtrodden" while males have isn't that they don't have any privilege any more, its that now all races and sexes get the same opportunities that they do.
While male privilege hasn't disappears either but it does mean you're no longer automatically guaranteed to get ahead by being the right colour or sex.
Its not even that they dont get the benefits of being white and male, it's that they don't get to lord it over others.
BTW, the only time I've been discriminated against for being a white male... was when I lived in Thailand, even then that just constituted paying a little bit extra than the Thais at a food stand. Those poor little well-to-do white boys complaining that they don't get an automatic leg up in life for being the right colour and sex have no idea what discrimination is. No-one ever has refused to serve me because I'm white or male, cant say I've never seen the opposite for those who aren't white and male.
If there were nazis that marched but didn't actually commit any violence, should they be denounced?
Yes. Because they are FUCKING NAZIS.
Almost.
If your political philosophy cannot withstand a little valid criticism, then your philosophy is wrong and needs to be strongly denounced if not willingly given up.
That's what happens with James Alex Fields Jr, he couldn't handle people protesting against his philosophy. He couldn't meet them with rational discussion and wouldn't ignore them, so he drove a car into them.
Slashdot Mirror
This is so simple. The car should save the occupants, just like any normal driver would have done. Trying to take this to some Asimov "donot cause harm" bullshit will practically require cars to be self-aware, at which point cars may not actually want to serve their masters anymore.
If only there was some sort of Code, a Code for the Highway, that told you what you should do in these situations. A shame something like that doesn't already exist.
What successes are you referring to?
Well, getting elected as President of the United States does come to mind.
If Trump has demonstrated anything, it's that any idiot can be elected President of the United States.
In this case it's true, Bannon isn't a literal Nazi. He shares some of their philosophy and views, but Nazism is just a subset of the alt-right, which Bannon is one of the most important players in.
He's an awful human being, a racist and a bigot, but not an actual Nazi. Just a friend to Nazis, an admirer of them.
Strangely enough, the major difference between a Nazi and a regular, garden variety, classical (Italian) fascist is that the Nazi ideology has a serious racist bend to it.
Both a Nazi and Fascist believe in nationalism, enforced ideologies, control over media, totalitarianism, but a Fascist stops short of thinking, "well that black fellow, he must be subhuman and we white men are the superior race". Sure some fascists are racist by accident, but Nazism has racism baked into its very foundations.
This is why white supremacists are often (and correctly) labelled as Nazis. There are enough similarities between the two ideologies and if the jackboot fits...
Exactly right. I don't think Paul Ryan is a Nazi. I don't think Mitch McConnell is a Nazi. I don't think Ted Cruz is a Nazi.
Let's be pretty clear here, the majority of Republicans are not Nazis. But then again, those marching in Charlottesville with their white nationalist and white supremacist flags and sheilds are not your average Republicans. They are, well, yes, that's right, they're Nazis, and their so repugnant and evil that just about goddamned Republican out there is running from them as fast as possible...
With the exception of the Republican President of the United States.
I dont think anyone in their right mind is calling normal conservatives Nazi's. Whilst Nazism and Fascism is a far-right philosophy, nationalism, it's also inseparability intertwined with authoritarian rule. I think it's fair to say that the majority of Americans, regardless of political leanings want a dictatorship. Put simply, not everyone who leans right is a Nazi (and the corollary, not everyone who leans left is a communist).
Most Republicans are rational people, so are most Democrats. The sad thing is, the media has polarised political issues so much, its hard to hold the middle ground due to the bleating of the extremists on either side.
The thing that separates Nazism from regular classical (Italian) Fascism is that Nazism specifically institutionalises racism, both in believing that some races are inherently inferior (untermesch) and others are inherently superior (Ubermesch). Apologies for any mispellings in German. The problem with Nazism and White Supremacist is that they are extremist ideologies and not at all rational, hence they do irrational things when opposed. What surprises me is that there are people defending them, I would have thought any right minded republican or conservative would be trying to distance themselves from these groups, wanting to make sure it was known that these groups do not represent the majority of republicans (as a white male, I'd be quite offended to be lumped in with Nazis and white supremacists simply for being white and male, fortunately being a white male I'm immune from such generalisations).
The point is, these groups are extremist and should be opposed not because they're on the far right, but because they're too far to the right. I'd say the same about extremist left groups, but none seem to exist any more because we opposed them into extinction.
I honestly believe that the biggest threat to western nations is not any external power or foreign terrorist organisation, but the rise of extremism in our own countries. For the US, UK and other Anglo nations, this is the extreme right as we're nations that tend to lean right and are more tolerant of it. It seems entirely possible that the extreme right can gain enough support that they get to dictate extremist laws or use violence to enforce their ideology. The extreme right needs to be opposed and contrary to popular opinion it cant be done with the extreme left, the opposite of extremism is rationalism, to oppose the far right, we should support the moderates.
You know the far right is on the ropes when they stop trying to defend their position and start pushing conspiracy theories about actors paid to put on a fake Nazi march and fight with the (real) leftists.
This isn't a new thing, it's something they spent the entire election campaign doing. They didn't promote their own policies and values, they spent all of their time trying to sling shit at Clinton. Well, Americans got the government they voted for.
The only group that should censor is the courts, when ever corporations take it up themselves to be above the courts, to rule beyond the courts, it always works out much worse for us. Not happy with 'Daily Stormer' than take it too fucking court, corporations are not the fucking government. Want to take someone down, want to censor them, take it to court.
Erm, no.
Businesses have a right to chose their clients. By forcing them to go to court, you're taking a giant boot to the face of the right of free association. You're pretty much trying to codify that others have to listen and silently agree with the Daily Stormer. That is pretty much the opposite of free speech and probably several other rights.
I've never understood how they teach freedom in the far-right. Having a private business say they dont want to deal with you isn't censorship, it's people telling you you're an arsehole and they don't want to listen to you bullshit any more.
They put up a blog post explaining their decision a little while ago.
You might be a bit confused. I'll help.
Basically one or more of Cloudflare's bigger customers said, "If you don't stop dealing with group X, we'll find another provider". Its business, and once again businesses are not obligated to provide a platform for anyone and everyone.
So - Cloudflare is NOT a commercial business? Or - since they are - they must provide their services to individuals with different political leanings (which is what the original intent of the First Amendment was - protection of poltical speech)?
Since when have corporations been responsible for enforcing civil rights?
You seem to have that completely backwards.
Cloud-flare is a commercial business, they have the right to pick and chose their clients. This means distancing themselves from clients that could bring their business into ill repute.
Being a Nazi is not a protected class, when I fill out an ESTA to travel to the united states, I was expressly asked if I was or had any affiliation to any Nazi organisation. Same with several terrorist organisations. I'm absolutely certain you would not defend Al Quaeda in the same way you're defending white supremacists... Hell you wouldn't defend the (now defunct) Black Panthers, why do white people get a free pass. I denouce Al Quaeda as a hateful organisation and do not blame any business for not wanting to be in any way associated with them, so why should I give white supremacists a free pass?
The law in no way says that private businesses have to provide a platform for political speech. It in no way says it has to provide it for hateful speech. In fact a private business is in no way obligated to provide anyone with a platform. Free speech means the government cant arrest you for crisitising it. It does not mean you can say anything you like to anyone, nor does it mean everyone else has to stay silent and agree with you.
You've got a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is.
Except the only thing that these people are actually doing is saying shit you don't like.
You clearly want license to abuse people you don't like and are too arrogant to see this ever being used against you.
You mean the people protesting against the extreme right? Then you're dead wrong. If you're talking about the other side, the one that beats people for saying things they don't like, the people driving cars into people for saying things they don't like... then you're correct. Its the far-right that requires everyone else to silently agree with them and gets violent when someone opposes them.
While you have tinpot dictators like Rouhani in Iran and Maduro in Venezuela actually persecuting people at large who're not opposing the regimes but just going about their daily lives, and in Iran's case, doing it on the basis of religion, who the Left actually lionizes, you have the same Left getting into the Right for attitudes on Putin, Duterte, potentially Maha Vajiralongkorn, who only go after either their critics, or criminals like drug dealers or terrorists.
I think I've figured how the Left picks its hated dictators. If those dictators are opposed by Muslims anywhere, like in Chechnya, Mindanao or Yala (in these 3 examples), the Left hates them. If these dictators are supported by Muslims or Muslim countries, like in cases of Iran or Venezuela, they love them. Exceptions being cases where the dictators are pro-US, like al Sisi or King Salman, where their being Muslim gets trumped. It explains why the Left was fine w/ Morsi doing a power grab in Egypt, but are furious at al Sisi keeping the Muslim Brotherhood reigned in.
Erm, you have that backwards.
.
Firstly, theocracy is a far-right ideology. Theocracies are about centralising power and wealth, not distributing benefits.
Secondly, countries don't pick dictators. At best, they're deceived into voting for them and they take power for themselves. My money is still on the military removing Duerte because the military is controlled by the major political houses of the Philippines (Roxas, Quesons, Aroyos)
In Russia, he would have simply been killed.
The thing with narcissistic ego-driven despots is they do this kind of horrible shit if they're allowed to. Considering his kind words for Putin and Duarte, how long before Trump calls the king of Thailand "a tremendous guy"?
The thing is, it's not the King driving this. Its the military Junta who drives this. The King of Thailand has no real political power.
The lest majesty laws have always been used for political gain, not protecting the royalty. The previous king constantly pardoned anyone convicted of leste majesty and several times asked parliament to remove the leste majesty laws, the Thai parliament refused because they were so convenient.
If the words of a mere mortal scare him?
You must be sanook at parties.
The thing is, it isn't the King who locks people up.
The King of Thailand hasn't wielded any real political power since 1932, he's a figurehead much like the royalty of Europe. Thailand has been by large, a ill-functioning democracy interrupted by bouts of military dictatorship. Right now is one of those bouts. The Thai military staged a coup in 2014 when elections just didn't go the way they wanted. Politicians have always used the Leste Majesty laws for political and personal gain, even over the objection of the previous King who died last year. Several times he asked the parliament to remove the leste majesty laws but each time they refused. Did I mention he had no real political power?
The ruling junta are looking to maintain power any way they can without making their government look too despotic. The previous king was a populist king, doing what was widely considered right by Thais, when people were locked up for Leste Majestey he would immediately issue a royal pardon (one of the few powers the King holds). Not sure about the new king though.
BTW, the Thais are Buddhists, which is a reincarnation religion. So divine does not mean immortal (or godlike, which is the accurate definition, as Buddhism is an atheist religion), divine means pure. He'll die and be reincarnated like every other Buddhist.
The solution to the problems is really simple: build more housing. How do you get more housing built? Well, for starts not having some of the most restrictive zoning laws in the country, and having people fight back at any housing that is less than ideal would be a major aspect. Unfortunately, there are people who are advocates for the poor who don't get this and have gone out of their way to block housing that doesn't have affordable housing built into it, which just results in total fewer housing.
Actually, the problem is the US's dreadful public transport network.
Here in the UK, a train journey of 80 miles is easily accomplished in 1.5 hours, 2 hours at a stretch. That means you can leave Winchester at 5:15 and make a starting time of 07:00 in Central London and I'm including a short tube journey from London Waterloo to somewhere like Bank.
That being said, a 2 hour journey is still not ideal but the money in central London is often worth it. Much like central San Francisco, no one lives in central London unless they're a multi-millionaire. For popular business hubs, one should be able to live outside it and get in relatively quickly.
yep but no one, not me, you, cloudflare or anyone else has to provide them with the loudspeaker, sell them the server or provide them bandwidth, internet protection etc to spread that opinion. Freedom of speech doesn't put an obligation on anyone else to facilitate that and in fact freedom of speech allows others to explicitly refuse you the platform, if they control it, to speak from.
This.
I defended Goolge and GoDaddy for their right to refuse to do business with these groups because it wasn't a free speech issue. By the same token I'll defend Cloudflare's decision not to do so under the same grounds.
Not that I agree with Cloudflare mind you, in fact I quite strongly disagree, but they are committing no crime here and what they want to do with their business is there business.
The one that would normally prevent the country from being torn in two by radical extremists killing anyone they didn't think was on their side.
Note that this is LITERALLY how the Nazis gained power in Germany. First they fought in the streets with communists, then they got blackballed/arrested, then Hitler wrote his infamous book, and the people were persuaded to his side.
You could have just written "I don't know how the Nazis came to power". It would have been faster than that crap.
The Nazi's didn't just fall into power because some angry little man wrote a book. After they were finished fighting the Bolsheviks. The Sturmabteilung (SA or the Brown Shirts) enforced Nazi power at the local level. Dare to oppose the Nazis, you got the shit beat out of you by semi-uniformed thugs. Dare to protest in the wrong neighbourhood, you'd disappear. It ended up getting to the point where the SA would stand over elections to ensure you voted correctly.
The Nazis gained power by intimidating people just enough that they'd start to believe what the Nazis told them.
The only way they could have been stopped is before the Beer Hall Push (that's what got Hitler arrested) by the government nipping violent organisations in the bud, long before the Nazis got strong enough to openly start beating people in the street with no consequences. The Nazis gained power not just because they gave the people someone to (wrongfully) blame, but because they enforced their political ideology through violence... a lot like the current Neo Nazis are trying to do.
Now we can't mock the posts, debate the facts, or keep tabs on the threat. Nothing will get better; rather, these vile sentiments will fester, and we'll have a tougher time anticipating the next Charlotsville, since it won't be so widely publicized.
You couldn't do that before.
They were echo chambers, any dissent was shut down, mocked, ridiculed or just deleted so that the group think was never challenged. If you posted a disagreeing or even slightly contrary view, you were moderated or banned. Hell, I would not be surprised if you would even get doxxed. The site owners already had an environment where only the vile sentiments were permitted and allowed to fester.
Now their crap wont be referenced. New members wont know how to join (lets face it, Neo-Nazi's are not terribly bright). They are going to fade away into nothing. So bloody good job.
yes. the A pillar, B and C. A is front windshield B is middle and C is the rear. Left and Right
Mostly right, but different cars have different pillar configurations.
A pillars are the forward most pillar, each consecutive letter is the next pillar back.
In a Coupe, the A pillar is at the front and the B pillar is often at the back as many coupes have no centre pillar. Estates and wagons often have a D pillar because B and C are both centre. Convertibles only have an A pillar.
Do you want to die when you have a small accident? That's why.
Lots of glass means not so much steel to protect you from side impacts. Airbags in the A-pillars keep you from dying or being maimed in many types of accidents.
Also, these "workarounds" work a lot better than using your eyes. Rearview cameras have fisheye lenses for a much wider field-of-view than you normally have, and they show you what's directly behind the car. Many children are run over every year by their parents or others when backing out of driveways. It's physically impossible to see a child directly behind a car from the driver's seat, even in older cars. And when I'm backing out of tight parking spaces, the radars in my rear bumper can see oncoming traffic that it's physically impossible for me to see from the driver's seat.
Very poorly thought out argument that makes bad assumptions with a bit of "think of the children" thrown in at the end.
Also you're proving their point. I've driven older cars, pre 2000 designs and their visibility is a lot better than modern cars. My S15 200sx had great visibility, if a child walked behind it I'd know because I'd be able to see it. The problem is that cars have gotten larger and fatter because Safety. This means that they've become harder to see out of and much larger, which is an impediment to safety. Manufacturers recognise this and are working to fix it in a variety of ways, one of the best ways is to restore visibility.
Secondly, so called safety systems are not replacements for good driving practices. A reversing camera is no replacement for a head check, Fisheye lenses distort a lot and most are 120 degrees or less (which is a lot less than the 180 degrees needed to see what is behind your car... not even considering what is next to it. Radar systems are terrible and prone to false alarms, the reversing radar on my BMW M240i is too sensitive to leaves and other things that are not hindrances. False positives mean that people will ignore the warnings. A blind spot detection system is no replacement for actually turning your head and making sure there is no one next to you.
In fact, I firmly believe that people who rely on technology to save them need to have their licenses removed and should not be permitted to command a vehicle until the rest of us are satisfied that vehicles are advanced enough that they present no danger (this will take decades at best). Thinking that the blind spot detection will look out for you and means you dont have to do a basic "mirror, signal, blindspot" check means you are a bad driver.
People who run over their kids are not just bad drivers, but bad parents. If they haven't been keeping an eye on their kid to begin with, what makes you think a beep, warble or flashing light will stop them? Clue-by-four, it wont. You cant fix ignorance with technology.
Personally I think we could do with a few less airbags. Not just for weight and mass reduction, but also bad driver reduction. Driving cars that can kill you is a great motivator to drive safely. But I doubt the average steering wheel attendant would understand someone who cares about their car and their driving as they're too busy on facebook to pay attention to anything else (like a road).
Steve Jobs may have stretched a few laws and regulations over the years (the 'agreement' on not cross-recruiting comes to mind), but none of Jobs' businesses were founded fundamentally on wholesale breaking and flouting of the law. So not such a great comparison there.
Yep, Steve Jobs completely lacked humility and were pretty light with other scruples, but even he didn't wantonly break laws. I'm pretty critical of Jobs, but I'll happily say that of all things, he wasn't a criminal.
Uber was a pyramid scheme from the very beginning. The only difference is he was conning Silicon Valley VC's instead of old grandmas. The death of Uber is now inevitable and the investors that were conned now want their money back. I have no doubt Kalanick has squirrelled away a small fortune of it.
Well, in the UK it's legal to hire a woman ahead of a man. To hire someone that's BME ("black or minority ethnic", a phrase in use in the UK) instead of someone that's white.
I'm calling bollocks on this.
You're being disingenuous here. You haven't said it is required, you said it was legal.
What you've said is that if a more qualified woman or black person applies for the job, an employer is in no way obligated to accept a while, male candidate. OTOH, there is no law stating a less qualified candidate who is not white or male must be accepted. You're pretty much trying to do what Damore did in his memo, insinuate a conclusion and lie by omission.
Basically, you've said that no-one is being discriminated against, but tried to dress it up as a bad thing. I live in the UK, white male privilege is still very much a thing. Its not an automatic thing, you now have to work for that privilege (unless you're old money, but that's a different argument). White males are not discriminated against in any way, its just upset some people with outdated ideas that non whites and non males now enjoy this same privilege.
I'm calling bollocks on that too.
The nastiest and most vitriolic attacks are from the likes of the Daily Mail and they're not attacking white males with low intelligence (their core audience). In fact the only paper trying to convince me that white males are under attack... are papers like the Daily Mail. Not even the Guardian tries to say that white men are evil, that shit is entirely the DM's area.
No one is attacking you for being white or male, you're being attacked because you spout a lot of bullshit and the rest of us are sick of it.
with an internal memo criticizing the company's diversity efforts and claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers.
At no point in the memo was this ever stated.
I'm fucking tired of disingenuous assholes trying to spin something that says one thing, into something else to further their agenda.
Thats why he immediately went to a reputable medical journal to have his findings openly debated. Oh that's right, he went to not one, but two known anti-feminist Youtubers instead.
Actual psychologist have noted a lot of flaws with his assertions.
The problem we have is that he whilst he never directly made claims, he certainly insinuated them and dressed them up in nice language to make it look like he wasn't making them. Re-read page 5, he says that men have high stress jobs because women want "balance". In fact a lot that memo is trying to insinuate that women cant handle stress. Basically he's trying to use the whole "I'm not racist because X is not a race" defence. Most of us saw through it.
But like you said, there's a lot of disingenuous assholes trying to spin something that says one thing, into something else to further their agenda. Damore is one of them, just because he strokes your ego does not mean he's on the level (in fact that's a pretty good sign he's not).
Seems like people who know they're wrong will never dare confirm the facts.
Yep,
Some people have accepted Damore's memo as an almost holy truth and refuse to consider that the evidence may not support his conclusion. Just as many scientists have pointed out the flaws in his arguments, however presenting an opposing view point to those who want to believe Damore's memo is like arguing with a brick wall with the letters S, J and W written on it.
I've read the memo, it doesn't pass basic rigour (he uses large demographics which have to ignore differences in individuals), uses very loosely understood concepts (he asserts that gender roles were asserted by evolution, there is little to no evidence that males hunted exclusively or that females reared children exclusively, in fact, there is significant evidence that both sexes contributed to rearing children and that gender roles as we know them are a quite recent thing on an evolutionary time scale). There are many flaws with it but try pointing those flaws out to those who want to believe it.
>> claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers.
Come on, He didn't make such a claim. He said biology may play a part in women's preferences in choosing to go into the field.
He may not have made the claim, but certainly tried to insinuate it.
If the science was solid, why did he then need to go to not one, but two well known Anti-Feminist Youtubers instead of a more reputable organisation like Psychology Today or the AMA? Hell, even the "I fucking love science" or "A science enthusiast" facebook pages would have given him more credence. He didn't go there because whilst he didn't technically misrepresent the science, it doesn't stand up to basic rigour. As David P Schmidt said in Psychology Today said, whilst he is technically correct the differences aren't significant enough to explain his conclusion.
I'm still of the mind that he leaked the memo himself to create controversy over what was probably a different event that justified his dismissal. Firstly, too much time passed between the memo being released and his dismissal, secondly, CEO's of fortune 500 companies don't get called back from holiday to deal with a nicely worded memo. HR can do that on its own.
Discrimination against white males is no more "tolerant" than discrimination against any other race or gender.
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what group it is against. Just because it's socially acceptable to discriminate against white men doesn't make it right.
The problem that the allegedly "downtrodden" while males have isn't that they don't have any privilege any more, its that now all races and sexes get the same opportunities that they do.
While male privilege hasn't disappears either but it does mean you're no longer automatically guaranteed to get ahead by being the right colour or sex.
Its not even that they dont get the benefits of being white and male, it's that they don't get to lord it over others.
BTW, the only time I've been discriminated against for being a white male... was when I lived in Thailand, even then that just constituted paying a little bit extra than the Thais at a food stand. Those poor little well-to-do white boys complaining that they don't get an automatic leg up in life for being the right colour and sex have no idea what discrimination is. No-one ever has refused to serve me because I'm white or male, cant say I've never seen the opposite for those who aren't white and male.
If there were nazis that marched but didn't actually commit any violence, should they be denounced?
Yes. Because they are FUCKING NAZIS.
Almost.
If your political philosophy cannot withstand a little valid criticism, then your philosophy is wrong and needs to be strongly denounced if not willingly given up.
That's what happens with James Alex Fields Jr, he couldn't handle people protesting against his philosophy. He couldn't meet them with rational discussion and wouldn't ignore them, so he drove a car into them.