I know how the economy works. I am specifically criticising how the economy works. That you assume I don't know how it works because I don't accept it without complaint says more about you than me.
I'm not the OP, but this is a really easy one to field.
No human has ever done enough work to justify $600,000,000. Even if you could claim that someone created that much wealth, they didn't do it on their own - they did it off the back of hard work of hundreds of other people who will never see a penny of that money, despite earning it for them.
I cannot wait for the Slashdot comments on this one - I wonder how long it'll be until some AC says that they're sending in the lawyers because all diversity efforts are anti-white propaganda paid for by George Soros and they don't want the normies to find out.
They already know where you are within a hundred feet or so via cell-tower triangulation. Not allowing precise location data is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
In addition to what Martin Blank said, Assange's bail conditions were incredibly lenient. He was put up in a comfortable house in Norfolk by one of his supporters who acted as guarantor for his bail. This isn't a case of him accidentally doing something that was a crime, he had to go out of his way to violate the bail conditions.
He skipped bail. That's a crime. You don't get to ignore every law just because you think that another country's attempt to prosecute is without merit.
I'm just going to copy paste this to everyone who doesn't understand the issues around Assange's continued evasion of justice:
He skipped bail. That's a crime. You don't get to ignore every law just because you think that another country's attempt to prosecute is without merit.
Glad to see it. This would have set an uncomfortable precedent of granting a wanted criminal the freedom to roam around the country he is wanted in. Diplomatic immunity status shouldn't be able to be granted after a crime has been committed.
If you don't see how equating trolls that spout racist comments on a forum with Nazis, whom are responsible for massacring and killing 6 million Jews, women and children included, is problematic within any reasonable standard ethical framework where you have to evaluate different behavior, then you're simply passed any hope.
This is the issue - you've failed to prove that this is what happened in any sense of the word, but your entire argument is predicated on this being self-evident and true without any basis.
Prove that this is happening in a significant proportion of the instances that the article talks about and you might be on to something, but you can't because that's not what happened.
There was nothing of worth in his post to engage with, frankly. If someone brought this to a discussion at my social policy tutor group they would be laughed out of the room.
2) If you really want me to break this down, you've made a lot of baseless accusations but you've just thrown them out without explaining why they're important or in some cases what relevance they have to the conversation. Updating the definition of anything isn't "hollowing out", it's expanding. It's already happened and you didn't notice - Oxford dictionary already accepts that people use "Nazi" in a wider context to refer to people with racist and far right ideals. You've given no explanation as to why calling someone a Nazi inaccurately trivialises Nazism other than pretending it's obvious. You've not shown that anyone was called a Nazi inaccurately in the first place. You've failed to explain why widening the definition of Nazi to any racist nationalist does anything bad. The whole "trivialising rape" thing is completely left field and you've failed to associate it to your major point other than "hollowing out words are bad", which again you're wrong about and again you failed to provide any reasonable explanation for. So you've built a massive pile of things that you've pretended or assumed are happening (the straw man) and then failed to explain why what the straw man is doing is actually a problem in any meaningful way.
Are you saying that you think that saying "use the correct terminology" doesn't seek to make a meaningful distinction between a word's definition and the way it's being used in the sentence you're criticising? So, when you say "use the correct terminology when talking about Nazis" you don't think you're asking people to separate between what we were talking about (people who espouse literal Nazi ideology on Twitter and have been identified as such) and what you think a Nazi actually is (only a card-carrying Nazi party member who lived during Germany at around the 2nd World War that you can literally touch from where you're standing)? Or do you think that me pointing out that the specific difference between those two things that we were talking about, right there, is meaningless, means that all comparisons between all people forever with regards to the word "Nazi" are now meaningless?
You're not a nerd, you're a fucking moron. Just... stop.
They've not held me to any standards? They've willingly misinterpreted something I said so they can play some lame 'gotcha'. I said there's no meaningful distinction between people who advocate for, act like and dress like Nazis and "real Nazis", a distinction that they said is meaningful because they're a proper "nerd" who cares about this kind of thing (I have no idea why 'nerds' specifically care about being illogical fucking pedants, you'd have to ask them). They then said that because I think there's no distinction between them, that there's therefore no distinction between me and a Nazi because... YOUR REASONS HAHA GOTCHA
It's pathetic playground debate that only idiots would fall for, and it's a total waste of time to even pretend there's anything meaningful there for you to back up.
I'm not sure what comment you're replying to, because mine didn't even begin to imply that "the vast majority of cis people on Twitter" did anything of the sort.
Did you just compare being trans, something people don't have a choice about and involves little to no genocide, and being a Nazi, which everybody has a choice about and involves quite a lot of genocide, including the systematic murder of actual trans people?
Slashdot is not even slowly descending into "worse than Reddit" territory.
You've managed to take "There's no meaningful distinction between white nationalist supporters of fascistic ethno-states and 'Nazis'" and turn it into "There's no meaningful distinctions between 'Nazis' and everyone else in the whole world, especially people who tell me, slowly and methodically, that I'm wrong".
Are you possibly a Markov chain bot fed by comments from the Daily Stormer? It's the only explanation I have for whatever leap of logic it is you just made.
Slashdot Mirror
You could at least read the headline that specifies it's federal investigation.
Sunk cost fallacy.
I know how the economy works. I am specifically criticising how the economy works. That you assume I don't know how it works because I don't accept it without complaint says more about you than me.
I'm not the OP, but this is a really easy one to field.
No human has ever done enough work to justify $600,000,000. Even if you could claim that someone created that much wealth, they didn't do it on their own - they did it off the back of hard work of hundreds of other people who will never see a penny of that money, despite earning it for them.
I cannot wait for the Slashdot comments on this one - I wonder how long it'll be until some AC says that they're sending in the lawyers because all diversity efforts are anti-white propaganda paid for by George Soros and they don't want the normies to find out.
They already know where you are within a hundred feet or so via cell-tower triangulation. Not allowing precise location data is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
In addition to what Martin Blank said, Assange's bail conditions were incredibly lenient. He was put up in a comfortable house in Norfolk by one of his supporters who acted as guarantor for his bail. This isn't a case of him accidentally doing something that was a crime, he had to go out of his way to violate the bail conditions.
He skipped bail. That's a crime. You don't get to ignore every law just because you think that another country's attempt to prosecute is without merit.
I'm just going to copy paste this to everyone who doesn't understand the issues around Assange's continued evasion of justice:
He skipped bail. That's a crime. You don't get to ignore every law just because you think that another country's attempt to prosecute is without merit.
He skipped bail. That's a crime, whether you think the bail conditions are warranted or not.
Glad to see it. This would have set an uncomfortable precedent of granting a wanted criminal the freedom to roam around the country he is wanted in. Diplomatic immunity status shouldn't be able to be granted after a crime has been committed.
You missed an option:
3) This AC's assessment of the memo is incorrect or dishonest and the distinction doesn't exist.
If you don't see how equating trolls that spout racist comments on a forum with Nazis, whom are responsible for massacring and killing 6 million Jews, women and children included, is problematic within any reasonable standard ethical framework where you have to evaluate different behavior, then you're simply passed any hope.
This is the issue - you've failed to prove that this is what happened in any sense of the word, but your entire argument is predicated on this being self-evident and true without any basis.
Prove that this is happening in a significant proportion of the instances that the article talks about and you might be on to something, but you can't because that's not what happened.
There was nothing of worth in his post to engage with, frankly. If someone brought this to a discussion at my social policy tutor group they would be laughed out of the room.
1) Not a fellow.
2) If you really want me to break this down, you've made a lot of baseless accusations but you've just thrown them out without explaining why they're important or in some cases what relevance they have to the conversation. Updating the definition of anything isn't "hollowing out", it's expanding. It's already happened and you didn't notice - Oxford dictionary already accepts that people use "Nazi" in a wider context to refer to people with racist and far right ideals. You've given no explanation as to why calling someone a Nazi inaccurately trivialises Nazism other than pretending it's obvious. You've not shown that anyone was called a Nazi inaccurately in the first place. You've failed to explain why widening the definition of Nazi to any racist nationalist does anything bad. The whole "trivialising rape" thing is completely left field and you've failed to associate it to your major point other than "hollowing out words are bad", which again you're wrong about and again you failed to provide any reasonable explanation for. So you've built a massive pile of things that you've pretended or assumed are happening (the straw man) and then failed to explain why what the straw man is doing is actually a problem in any meaningful way.
So, yeah, worthless.
What?
Are you saying that you think that saying "use the correct terminology" doesn't seek to make a meaningful distinction between a word's definition and the way it's being used in the sentence you're criticising? So, when you say "use the correct terminology when talking about Nazis" you don't think you're asking people to separate between what we were talking about (people who espouse literal Nazi ideology on Twitter and have been identified as such) and what you think a Nazi actually is (only a card-carrying Nazi party member who lived during Germany at around the 2nd World War that you can literally touch from where you're standing)? Or do you think that me pointing out that the specific difference between those two things that we were talking about, right there, is meaningless, means that all comparisons between all people forever with regards to the word "Nazi" are now meaningless?
You're not a nerd, you're a fucking moron. Just... stop.
They've not held me to any standards? They've willingly misinterpreted something I said so they can play some lame 'gotcha'. I said there's no meaningful distinction between people who advocate for, act like and dress like Nazis and "real Nazis", a distinction that they said is meaningful because they're a proper "nerd" who cares about this kind of thing (I have no idea why 'nerds' specifically care about being illogical fucking pedants, you'd have to ask them). They then said that because I think there's no distinction between them, that there's therefore no distinction between me and a Nazi because... YOUR REASONS HAHA GOTCHA
It's pathetic playground debate that only idiots would fall for, and it's a total waste of time to even pretend there's anything meaningful there for you to back up.
I'm not sure what comment you're replying to, because mine didn't even begin to imply that "the vast majority of cis people on Twitter" did anything of the sort.
Defensive?
Did you just compare being trans, something people don't have a choice about and involves little to no genocide, and being a Nazi, which everybody has a choice about and involves quite a lot of genocide, including the systematic murder of actual trans people?
Slashdot is not even slowly descending into "worse than Reddit" territory.
Did you just literally "not all cis people" my comment that didn't even say all cis people did it?
Wow.
crying baby screaming WHAT ABOUT ANTIFA
Selected deaths from Neo-Nazi and White Nationalist violence in US, 2017
Heather Heyer
Ricky John Best
Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche
Richard Collins III
Timothy Caughman
Srinivas Kuchibhotla
Total deaths from Antifa violence in US, 2017
0
You've managed to take "There's no meaningful distinction between white nationalist supporters of fascistic ethno-states and 'Nazis'" and turn it into "There's no meaningful distinctions between 'Nazis' and everyone else in the whole world, especially people who tell me, slowly and methodically, that I'm wrong".
Are you possibly a Markov chain bot fed by comments from the Daily Stormer? It's the only explanation I have for whatever leap of logic it is you just made.
How can I be a Nazi when the real Nazis don't exist any more? Why don't you go back to Twitter
If you dress like a Nazi and act like a Nazi, then functionally what is the difference to the person you're hurling slurs at? Literally nothing.
If you don't want to be called a Nazi, stop yelling "Blood and Soil!" and advocating for genocide? I mean, it's such a low fucking bar.
That's a huge strawman you constructed and then failed to meaningfully tear down. Good effort.