Equality (in this sort of sense) is not a legitimate governmental purpose.
Maybe not in the US. But in Canada, the purpose of a government is whatever Canadians decide it should be, and if most of us think the government should help marginalized and disadvantaged groups, then that is by definition a legitimate governmental purpose.
The basic reason we don't want the government to meddle in these things is that they never do a good job. Some examples from your list:
Maybe in the US. The Canadian health-care system, for all the complaints you hear, is actually pretty good. It was a major reason my sister moved here from the US. And all your other examples of things done badly in the US are not nearly as big a problem here in Canada.
Could it be that the US system of government is completely dysfunctional, and the Canadian one isn't?
If you want your statistical data to be reliable, it has to be random and that means it cannot be a self-selecting group of responders.
The actual questions on the long form (which is sent to one in five households, randomly selected) are here: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs...
And no, most Canadians don't believe the government will do anything sinister with the information. We have a long tradition of democratic traditions and strong democratic institutions and those offer far more protection than refusing to answer a bunch of questions. If a government is out to get you, it won't matter whether or not it has census data.
I celebrate neither Christmas nor Halloween, but I have been sorely tempted to decorate my house with ghouls, skeletons and gravestones come December, just to shake things up a little bit...
Words can affect anyone, not just the mentally instable. To use your Mein Kampf example, most Nazis were certainly not mentally unstable. They were just manipulated into believing evil things and doing evil acts.
And if you believe you're too smart to be manipulated that way, you're almost certainly wrong.
Please note that I'm not advocating censorship or banning of Mein Kampf or anything like that. But the reactionary outrage to a panel about online harassment is completely stupid and childish. Online harassment is a real issue, and if you get offended just by people discussing it, then you're worse than all the SJWs you put down.
Your pointless hair-splitting fails to impress. The panel on harassment is designed to discuss harassment, not whether it's "people" or "words" that are the problem. And your "words can't incite any such thing" is clearly wrong. There have been any number of deaths that started because of "words" that someone took offense too.
You don't believe that text (and videos and images) can incite real-world violence? How naive of you. How do you suppose ISIS gets its recruits if not via propaganda?
Yeah, that's an extreme example, but there are tons of other examples of people being incited to violence by mere words. Just watch any speeches made by genocidal megalomaniacs just prior to a genocide.
Freedom of speech is important. It needs protection for sure. But it's also no good to deny that speech can cause real harm.
To protect against that, you'd need some beefy diodes or zener diodes to divert any harmful energy. Can't see MB manufacturers doing that any time soon.
I dunno, I find it a bit pathetic that guys would be so desperate to ogle pictures in magazines that they'd actually plunk down money. But that's just me.
The SI swimsuit edition is always a blockbuster, even though there's no actual nudity (though lately it's become pretty darn close.)
So there's still a huge market of guys [I assume it's 99.99% guys] who pathetically pay to ogle sexy women in magazines, even if the women are partly clad.
Common sense, the human brain? Reform of policing so citizens actually trust the police?
Of course sometimes force, even lethal force, is needed. The best non-lethal immobilizer we have at the moment is the taser, although that can sometimes be lethal.
But it seems to me that training in de-escalation can go a long way to not needing immobilizers.
by 2015 a G20 nation will see its critical infrastructure disrupted by online sabotage. Nope, wrong; didn't happen. I suppose there are still a couple of months left...:)
By 2015, automation will cut 25 percent of IT labor hours. No, don't think that's happened.
And the ones they got right or mostly-right were timid and obvious predictions anyway.
The bro thing is completely ridiculous, but actually the person on that geekfeminism blog did have a point, and I don't see the term "hatred" anywhere in her article. Maybe some guys are getting a bit over-sensitive?
But who decides what is toxic and what is merely communication pointing out people's mistakes?
It's a judgment call, but you have to decide what a reasonable person could honestly think is inappropriate and go from there.
I doubt there's a single competent corporate manager who would not discipline someone who said things like this at work. And if there were, I'd hate to work at that person's company.
The world doesn't work in any one way. There are all sorts of different companies, communities, and development teams. Women should do the same thing men do: if your workplace or project culture isn't a good match, you leave without making a big fuss. Simple as that.
Yes, that's fine, and then all but the assholes will leave and you'll end up with a really toxic environment. That's not something to be proud of and more importantly, I think it's a long-term recipe for failure.
Guys insult each other. It's how we communicate, it's how we bond. It's also brutally honest and helps to enforce the environment that makes for good IT
Yeah? Nonsense. Some of the stuff on LKML and especially some of Torvalds' rants are way over the top. I run a software company and I would fire anyone, no matter how talented, who said or posted stuff like this in public or to another employee.
Guys have different modes of interacting than women. I get that. But that doesn't give anyone the right to be an asshole. Time for people who think that it's OK to grow up.
Yes, bottled water is a real WTF. For people who live in first-world countries with proper sanitation and water treatment, it makes no sense whatsoever to buy bottled water. Plus all those plastic bottles are terrible for the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Equality (in this sort of sense) is not a legitimate governmental purpose.
Maybe not in the US. But in Canada, the purpose of a government is whatever Canadians decide it should be, and if most of us think the government should help marginalized and disadvantaged groups, then that is by definition a legitimate governmental purpose.
The basic reason we don't want the government to meddle in these things is that they never do a good job. Some examples from your list:
Maybe in the US. The Canadian health-care system, for all the complaints you hear, is actually pretty good. It was a major reason my sister moved here from the US. And all your other examples of things done badly in the US are not nearly as big a problem here in Canada.
Could it be that the US system of government is completely dysfunctional, and the Canadian one isn't?
If you want your statistical data to be reliable, it has to be random and that means it cannot be a self-selecting group of responders.
The actual questions on the long form (which is sent to one in five households, randomly selected) are here: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs...
And no, most Canadians don't believe the government will do anything sinister with the information. We have a long tradition of democratic traditions and strong democratic institutions and those offer far more protection than refusing to answer a bunch of questions. If a government is out to get you, it won't matter whether or not it has census data.
I celebrate neither Christmas nor Halloween, but I have been sorely tempted to decorate my house with ghouls, skeletons and gravestones come December, just to shake things up a little bit...
Words can affect anyone, not just the mentally instable. To use your Mein Kampf example, most Nazis were certainly not mentally unstable. They were just manipulated into believing evil things and doing evil acts.
And if you believe you're too smart to be manipulated that way, you're almost certainly wrong.
Please note that I'm not advocating censorship or banning of Mein Kampf or anything like that. But the reactionary outrage to a panel about online harassment is completely stupid and childish. Online harassment is a real issue, and if you get offended just by people discussing it, then you're worse than all the SJWs you put down.
I'm totally offended that you would think I would use anything made by Apple. I mean really!
But hey, great rebuttal. Not just an ad hominem attack, but content-free too! Well done.
Your pointless hair-splitting fails to impress. The panel on harassment is designed to discuss harassment, not whether it's "people" or "words" that are the problem. And your "words can't incite any such thing" is clearly wrong. There have been any number of deaths that started because of "words" that someone took offense too.
Meh. Continue being stupid if you like; I'm done.
Straw man. DId I write anywhere that words can incite real-world violence in every single person who reads them?
Go back to school and learn some logic, or possibly how to read.
I cannot connect your reply to my post. It seems entirely unrelated, so I don't get your point.
You don't believe that text (and videos and images) can incite real-world violence? How naive of you. How do you suppose ISIS gets its recruits if not via propaganda?
Yeah, that's an extreme example, but there are tons of other examples of people being incited to violence by mere words. Just watch any speeches made by genocidal megalomaniacs just prior to a genocide.
Freedom of speech is important. It needs protection for sure. But it's also no good to deny that speech can cause real harm.
So those people who aren't interested in the panels can skip them, and those who are interested can attend. Where's the problem?
To protect against that, you'd need some beefy diodes or zener diodes to divert any harmful energy. Can't see MB manufacturers doing that any time soon.
"Guns don't kill toddlers. Toddlers kill toddlers."
Tests conducted by VW showed that their electric cars actually have negative emissions, leaving the air cleaner than it was before they drove through.
I dunno, I find it a bit pathetic that guys would be so desperate to ogle pictures in magazines that they'd actually plunk down money. But that's just me.
The SI swimsuit edition is always a blockbuster, even though there's no actual nudity (though lately it's become pretty darn close.)
So there's still a huge market of guys [I assume it's 99.99% guys] who pathetically pay to ogle sexy women in magazines, even if the women are partly clad.
Common sense, the human brain? Reform of policing so citizens actually trust the police?
Of course sometimes force, even lethal force, is needed. The best non-lethal immobilizer we have at the moment is the taser, although that can sometimes be lethal.
But it seems to me that training in de-escalation can go a long way to not needing immobilizers.
... then you know it's a load of manure.
Check out some of their other predictions:
by 2015 a G20 nation will see its critical infrastructure disrupted by online sabotage. Nope, wrong; didn't happen. I suppose there are still a couple of months left... :)
By 2015, automation will cut 25 percent of IT labor hours. No, don't think that's happened.
And the ones they got right or mostly-right were timid and obvious predictions anyway.
I guess you're in the majority, then.
The bro thing is completely ridiculous, but actually the person on that geekfeminism blog did have a point, and I don't see the term "hatred" anywhere in her article. Maybe some guys are getting a bit over-sensitive?
But who decides what is toxic and what is merely communication pointing out people's mistakes?
It's a judgment call, but you have to decide what a reasonable person could honestly think is inappropriate and go from there.
I doubt there's a single competent corporate manager who would not discipline someone who said things like this at work. And if there were, I'd hate to work at that person's company.
The world doesn't work in any one way. There are all sorts of different companies, communities, and development teams. Women should do the same thing men do: if your workplace or project culture isn't a good match, you leave without making a big fuss. Simple as that.
Yes, that's fine, and then all but the assholes will leave and you'll end up with a really toxic environment. That's not something to be proud of and more importantly, I think it's a long-term recipe for failure.
Guys insult each other. It's how we communicate, it's how we bond. It's also brutally honest and helps to enforce the environment that makes for good IT
Yeah? Nonsense. Some of the stuff on LKML and especially some of Torvalds' rants are way over the top. I run a software company and I would fire anyone, no matter how talented, who said or posted stuff like this in public or to another employee.
Guys have different modes of interacting than women. I get that. But that doesn't give anyone the right to be an asshole. Time for people who think that it's OK to grow up.
But alas, Big Bang Theory has jumped its shark and become plain stupid and tedious.
Yes, bottled water is a real WTF. For people who live in first-world countries with proper sanitation and water treatment, it makes no sense whatsoever to buy bottled water. Plus all those plastic bottles are terrible for the environment.