What You Can't Say 1999
dtolton writes "Paul Graham has an excellent article posted on the subject of things you can't say. His article explores what ideas are generally considered heresy, and whether or not those ideas might be true nonetheless. He also presents advice for handling heretical ideas. Considering that many of the ideas in technology in general and Open Source specifically are near heresy, it's well worth a read."
Things like... (Score:5, Interesting)
While I'm on the topic, its interesting that an entire moustache can be effectively banned around the world due to the actions of one man.
Unless you happen to be Robert Mugabe (anyone notice his chosen moustache style?).
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. Thanks to Napoleon, every time I wear my favorite hat [www.dhm.de] people point at me and laugh.
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah but that's only because the vast majority of all people are overseas.
Re:Things like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, well, um, this sort of reinforces my point. I voted for Gore (would've voted for McCain, but he didn't last long enough) and didn't think much of the 2000 election, but I don't think the election was "rigged" or that the Bush administration is a fascist clique. (Actually, most of the reports I've seen in mainstream publications have indicated that Bush probably would have won anyway - very narrowly, of course, and possibly still without a national majority - if a fair count was done.) Since I've lived here, I got to hear the same things about Clinton, coming from what Bob Dole called the "double-Y chromosome crowd." This ranting sounds just as dumb coming from Democrats or snotty Europeans.
Let's keep things in perspective; the USA has experienced many crises, but our system of government and our free and open society has proven resilient in the past, albeit with changes. There have been far worse threats to liberty and democracy in the past 225 years than Bush and Ashcroft, and scarred though we may be we've survived them all. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be constantly on the lookout for new threats like the Patriot Act or the illegal detentions, but I don't view these as heralding the end of American democracy. They're just another crisis we'll have to work out, without meddling from snotty EU bureaucrats.
We do NOT hate the people of the USA as a whole (but we do wish they'd learn a little logical and rhetorical skills so they can see through the lies and bluster of their glorious leaders)
This illustrates my point even better. You assume that the majority (okay, 49% or so, but even more voted for Republicans in 2002) voted for Bush because they're ignorant dolts easily wowed by a cowboy act. Most Democrats appear to believe this as well, hence the NASCAR/Wal-Mart allusion. In fact, a great deal of the people here really do support Bush's policies, and, more importantly, don't like snobby outsiders telling them what to think. I'm very sympathetic towars the latter view, especially after reading too much Chomsky and having too many run-ins with snobby Europeans and lefty Democrats, both of which tend to be just as insular and ignorant as the rubes they mock.
Frankly, we don't need advice from the Europeans on running a stable, pluralistic democracy.
Re:Things like... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Frankly, we don't need advice from the Europeans on running a stable, pluralistic democracy."
Actually since europe has been dealing with a large amount of the same issues as us for a much longer time it might be wise to shut the fuck up and listen. Most of europe has been plagued by terrorism for years, and one attack doesnt make the US or its gov't the authority on dealing with such things. this is proved by the sad fact that they passed laws to protect the people rather than taking action.
The rest of your post refers to euro's as snobby/snotty and lefties as dolts. Yet you seem to think that the average american has some sense of what bush has done in the past three years. (other than arrest Saddam bin-laden
We are moving our jobs and economy to a "Globilized" state, relying more on other countries to produce goods and provide services. This makes the Rich Richer and as such feeds the ultra-capitalist republican machine. Yet Bush ignores what the world wants has a whole and refuses to respect the authority of worldwide governing bodies. At the rate we are going how long will it be until foriegn countries and citizens refuse to work for american companies ? or buy american products ? what effect will that have on this country ?
Oh and i might also point out that never in the modern history of this country have we faced so much internal corruption and greed. Never has the gov't been forced to approve laws that help ailing industries, and stood idly by and watched hundreds of thousands of jobs sent overseas in the up coming industries, all while restricting the freedomds of the american people, going against the very nature of this country and its founding princaples.
"If they like him, I don't trust him"... (Score:5, Funny)
There, I've made my controversial post for this topic!
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Interesting)
Being European and leaning slightly to the left I'd like to see that page drawn up. And please don't be coy with details, I know my German history. Make sure to mark the counterparts of the Holocaust and the Gleichschaltung in bold so I won't miss them.
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Christianity isn't based on fact (other than the fact that the bible was written down). It's based on faith. Faith is the belief in something absent proof. If you think that fact is the basis of Christianity, then I think you misunderstand the teachings of Christ.
There's nothing wrong with faith, but presuming/demanding that someone with a different background than you accept your articles of faith is no less unreasonable than expecting you to accept theirs. This is part of the reason for the constitutional separation of church and state... too many of the founding fathers' forbears had been persecuted, prosecuted, exiled and even murdered because they had dared to disagree with the religious views of the then-current government leadership.
It's not that they hated religion -- quite to the contrary -- They just hated the idea of being forced to accept someone else's religion. They also hated the corruption that power-politics could inject into religious issues if the two were too closely bound.
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Things like... (Score:4, Funny)
His nickname was Vlad the impaler (Not sure about the spelling), that should tell you something
Jeroen
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest social fallouts of this era aren't going to be the direct result of the actions of suicide bombers and 'terrorists'. They're going to be the resul of the actions of those who are using the (relatively minor but spectacular) attacks as an excuse to squash civil and human rights in currently 'democratic' societies.
Technically: Terrorism is the use of terror to achieve ones's ends. In that context, the legislators who used the Sept. 11 bombings as an excuse to pass legislation what would have otherwise beeen tossed out as unconstitutional and un-democratic are as much terrorists as Bin Laden and friends.
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Things like... (Score:4, Informative)
So the facial fashion game was already on in that arena at the time. Weird times, to say the least.
Re:Things like... (Score:4, Funny)
When you're in a room of long-legged women wearing mini-skirts?
Re:Things like... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Things like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a good orator (or being convincing in some medium) is necessary for doing anything on a large scale. Of course Hitler was a fantastic orator. If he weren't, he couldn't have caused much trouble.
Attention Canadians: (Score:5, Funny)
Two-tier, user-fee health care is the way of the future.
There, I said it.
Forbidden thoughts (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps the best policy is to make it plain . . . (Score:5, Funny)
XML and OOP suck big, fat, hairy monkey balls.
There, how'd I do?
KFG
Re:Perhaps the best policy is to make it plain . . (Score:5, Funny)
Hypertrophic Testicular Disorder (HTD) [monkeyballs.org] is a condition affecting 14% of male monkey populations worldwide. The condition results in large, painfully swollen testicles, which onlookers often call "big fat hairy monkey balls". This condition impacts the monkey's ability to mate, or even to sleep and sit. Laughing at them doesn't help.
I hope everybody on slashdot thinks twice before using this "funny" phrase, and please consider making a donation [monkeyballs.org] if you can. Your money will go toward analgesics to reduce swelling and paying the often-expensive fees of "monkey shavers".
Warning: (Score:5, Funny)
This article has nothing to do with current technology sans a single 1 sentence reference to the DMCA.
Why a warning ? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is after-all a site for "stuff that matters". What the author is trying to express is that blind obedience to society norms is a bad thing. Effectively, he's saying "distrust Authority", an old maxim, but one that needs reiteration from time to time.
I have to say that I identify closely with a lot of his ideas, nothing depresses me more than the continued conversion of people into "consumers" told what to "consume", when to do it, how much to do it, and presumably when to stop.
The only way out of the cycle is education - but not facts and figures, instead the freedom to think and postulate, debate and conclude. The sort of education that we (at least in the UK) tend to reserve for the 18+ year-olds who go to college.
We live in an ever-more complex society, with ever-more subtle distinction between right and wrong, between do and do-not. It is a crying shame that most are incapable of distinguishing those distinctions. The "system" has failed these people.
I wonder if we are indeed moving into the "Corporate state" governmental model (anyone who played 'elite' will know that these are the most stable of governments), which simply exist to exist. Life should be more
Simon.
The first 15 posts on this are things you cant say (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite example is why some African-Americans can & do use the term "nigger" to describe themselves without inpunity or shame, but if a white person does so, they can/will be fired and their lives ruined. Why is it a double standard, and it's a negative hateful word. Why do blacks in certain circles constantly use it?
(and there's no need to mod me down for *actually* saying things you cant say - if thats the case then /. is worthless.)
Re:The first 15 posts on this are things you cant (Score:5, Insightful)
* I refuse to put a disclaimer on this message. I feel that the continued use of that word by black culture is absolutely sickening. I am white.
Discrimination is discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as we have a topic dedicated to ranting, I'd like to say that if I could remove one phrase from the English language, it would be "reverse discrimination." Descrimination is discrimination. If you are a Japanese store owner who charges me more because I'm Korean, that's discrimination. If I am an African-American employer who won't hire you because you are white, that's discrimination.
"Reverse" discrimination would be not discriminating against someone.
Re:The first 15 posts on this are things you cant (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, no, that would be just plain old "discrimination." "Reverse discrimination" presumes that the people who are normally discriminated against are the ones doing the discriminating, i.e., that his black superior would be the one threatening to fire him. In the overwhelming majority of tech environments, this is not the case.
In any event, is there any substantiation whatsoever that this really happens, that blacks are traipsing around AT WORK using "nigger" to describe themselves while whites are cowering in fear of being fired for doing the same? Or are we just all going, "Umm-hmm, it happened to Eminem -- it must happen all the time!"
Re:The first 15 posts on this are things you cant (Score:5, Insightful)
Same reason your wife can say "I am so fat", but you get in trouble if you say "honey, you are fat". I don't see why that is so hard to understand why the difference.
Re:The first 15 posts on this are things you cant (Score:5, Informative)
Now about the only place slavery is still wide-spread is in a few locations that it's been going on for as far back as recorded history goes, being practiced by black muslims.
Hate to burst your bubble, but slavery was practiced by blacks on blacks, whites on blacks, whites on whites, blacks on whites, etc... by just about everyone for just about all of history until those "white Christians" finally put an end to it because of their moral beliefs informing their political decisions.
As for your rant on Native Americans, our people did plenty worse to each other for thousands of years before any Europeans showed up. It wasn't exactly a unique experience in history.
If you want a serious study of the issues, try reading a book like "Conquest and Cultures" by Thomas Sowell.
Re:The first 15 posts on this are things you cant (Score:5, Insightful)
You appear to be advocating not trusting moral beliefs that are effective in doing good.
What alternative do you propose, people not wanting to "save the world" as you put it? Ignoring helping or not helping others altogether? You aren't seriously suggesting that the British being the driving force in ending world-wide slavery is a bad thing, are you?
I prefer to think that if a group or individual does something good, like ending slavery world-wide, they should be complimented on that, not denigrated.
Since we're on the topic of unspeakable things, perhaps we're dealing now with the current U.S. school taboo of never praising anything done by white males?
"Never praising anything done by white males" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a white male. It rocks to be a white, straight, native-English-speaking male in America. I can wake up in the morning, just pull on whichever pant/shirt combination is handy in the closet, and go to work where no one ever talks trash about me having worn the same color for three days in a row, no one ever gets nervous around me for fear of saying some offensive remark about "my people", and no one ever is worried that I'm secretly stealing office supplies. I can walk around my neighborhood with minimal fear of personal violence, and if, God forbid, something did happen I can have complete confidence in rapid and reasonable response from our local police force. I never have to take a personal day for my religion's holidays; when my religion has a high feast or fast day, the markets close.
If my contribution is ever overlooked on something, I know it's because I didn't speak up loudly enough, or early enough. I know it's never my race. I can walk into any store I want to, look at items, handle those that are out, and security doesn't automatically start tailing me. When I walk into Philadelphia's diamond district, the assumption is that I'm looking for a anniversary present, not that I'm casing the joint.
When I look at the people in power - pretty much anywhere - I see, by and large, men who look like me, albeit usually older. When I pick up any high school or elementary school textbook, and look to see what historical figures they're studying, I see other white males. Sure, I may also see people who weren't white males, but let's face it - George Washington isn't getting written out of American history classrooms any time soon. I know that the child of Mung immigrants going to a public school half-way across the country is going to learn about a winter in 1777 in Valley Forge where some distant ancestor of mine died. My daughter, were she to attend a public school here, would be far from certain of learning of the great service that child's grandparents gave to this country.
White males have it good. Our position is not in any danger. We can stop shouting "help, help, I'm being oppressed" at every imagined slight. (remember when the standard joke was that radical feminists were thin-skinned?)
Political correctness is either dead or, as the trolls say, dying.
A quick list (Score:5, Insightful)
- Masturbatory habits ("Hey Chuck, what'd you do last night?" "Oh, I stayed home and surfed for porn - had two great orgasms!")
- Fetishes ("So Julie, what did you get for Christmas?" "Oh! A batman cape? I can't reach orgasm unless my lover is wearing one!")
- Adultery (although this might be legitimate)
Violence:- "Sure I hit my wife - when she deserves it!" (this is probably less of a taboo than it should be)
Religion:- In most of middle america, announcing that you're an atheist is pretty eyebrow-raising.
Language:- You can't say 'nigger', unless you're black.
- You can't usually use a racial slur at all unless you're either kidding or in a particular bigoted crowd.
You know, most taboos are only taboo in a particular circle you're in. For example, announcing that the War on Drugs is destroying this country would be applauded in one circle I travel in, and ignored or shrugged off in several others.Re:A quick list (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just the atheist. Announcing that you actually believe in a religion, whatever it may be as long as its not currently fashionable, can lead to a lot of eyebrow-raising too. The only "acceptable" choice right now seems to be to be an agnostic...
Re:A quick list (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, in Europe and the Americas (since the arrival of Europeans) there was this little 1500 period in the past 2 millenia where "Christian" was the correct answer when asked about anything religious. Maybe in intellectual circles agnostic is prefered (for decades at most), but I for one was ostracized as a child for not being Christian. Yes, I was born and raised in central Pennsylvania, but Christian was most definately the ONLY acceptable answer.
Likewise, there have been several happy periods refered to by the institution of various Inquisitions. These varied in "strictness" by time and location, however answering anything other than "Christian" to a Spanish Inquisitor was punishable by torture -- until you changed your mind or died. Many Muslems, Jews, and others perished in this way.
Yes, Christians had it hard for that first few hundred years, but after they got rolling it really wasn't an uphill battle.
Re:A quick list (Score:5, Interesting)
The outcome? I got arrested by the police, had to explain everything (she admitted to assaulting me with a hammer, and causing my injuries, for the reason I stated above.) and in the end, I was charged with assault and sentanced to a 6 month suspended sentence, while she got off with nothing at all, but was allowed to take out a restraining order against me. While I was in hospital, she ripped off my bank account to the tune of just over 3000, and again the police did nothing (she had requested my pin number and had picked it up from my house a few nights before while she had keys and I was away on business. Wasnt until after this that I noticed my card was missing from my wallet).
In defense of -ist and -ic (Score:5, Interesting)
That's pretty vague, so how about an example. If someone says, "Girls are bad at math", it can mean a lot of different things. One of the meanings might be, "Girls tend to do worse on math tests than boys of the same age," which if the age in question is high school, as opposed to elementary school or junior high, would be true. And yet, I can hear the cries, even though it's true, it gets labeled as sexist!
Well, there's a good reason for that. If what our hypothetical speaker really meant to say was, "Girls in high school perform worse on math tests that boys in high school," then why didn't he say that? The main difference in the two sentences, or in the general approach behind the sentences, is twofold: the implications of the sentence; and the assumptions behind it.
Those things need to be addressed, and it's not enough to say, "That's not true!" as the author of this article would have it. Because the sentence *is* true, but at least one implication -- that girls are naturally worse at math than boys, and there's nothing to be done about that -- is *exactly* the kind of idea that the author wants to avoid! It's pervasive, it's hard to get rid of, in most places in this country, people believe it implicitly. But it's also hard to talk about the general phenomenon without bringing up the concept of sexism.
So be careful of just rejecting x-ism and y-ic. They exist because they can be useful tools for uncovering the exact "fashions" which the author claims they hide.
Re:In defense of -ist and -ic (Score:4, Insightful)
Criticize Isreal - anti-semtic
Criticize Blacks - racist
Criticize Women - misogynist
US - Un-American
I'm sure you know others.
Even when a person belongs to one of these groups, folks who do not agree with his/her/its opinion will get labeled as such.
Sadly, universities have the least free speech.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want detailed specifics check out the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [thefire.org].
Brian Ellenberger
Re:Um, no.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two good examples. First, casually mention anything that counters the current tenets of environmentalism. Dispute the data supported global warming. Or suggest that it isn't caused by human activity. Or that electric cars cause as much pollution as gasoline cars. But first make sure you're wearing asbestos underwear! The creed of environmentalism CANNOT be questioned. It's heretical to do so. It's not because anything else is a "poorly-supported fringe opinion", because there are plenty of scientists and climatologists that offer support to contrarian views. It's merely a difference in interpreting the data, or using different models. Much of environmentalism still rests on untested and inviolate premises. Question these and your career as a university researcher is finished.
Second example. Mention that you hold a conservative view on an issue. Any issue. It doesn't matter if you are liberal on every other issue. Just this one will get your branded as a racist or reactionary. I'm not talking about extremist conservatism. Mainstream conservatism is equally despised. Suggest that capital gains taxes should be lowered, as an example, and see how fast you're ostracized.Go to Berkeley and argue against rent control if you really want to see how intolerant the capital of tolerance really is. Sidenote: I'm not claiming that modern universities are "liberal" though. They're something else entirely.
politically correct (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish... (Score:5, Funny)
would
let me
decide
how wide
the page
should be.
I hate
skinny
columns.
A nod to Larry Elder... (Score:5, Interesting)
To summarize his points:
* Blacks are More Racist than Whites
* White Condescension is as Real as Black Racism
* The Media Bias: It's Real, It's Widespread, It's Destructive
* The Glass Ceiling: Full of Holes
* America's Greatest Problem: Illegitimacy
* The Big Lie: Our Health Care Crisis
* The Welfare State: Helping Us to Death
* Republican v. Democrat: Maybe a Dime's worth of Difference, One's for Big Government, One's for Bigger
* Vietnam II: The War on Drugs, and We're Losing that One Too
* Gun Control Advocates: Good Guys with Blood on Their Hands
Ah, the power of heresy! (Score:5, Interesting)
We exist purely as vehicles for our genes; our consciousness, our imaginations, our creations: all these are simply manifestations of our genetically-implanted instincts for survival. We believe we exist because it makes us better replicators. There is no other reason for existence, no god, no destiny, no karma. Our lives are neither random nor controlled: choice is an illusion, but so is fate. We simply operate, like the very intelligent automatons we are. Our minds are exquisitely adapted to solving large and complex problems, the bulk of which come from our intraspecies competition with each other. Our societies are hives, built through the collaboration of thousands and millions of minds. As a species we are genetically so similar, due to near-extinction around 50,000 years ago, that we are practically clones. All our notions of "ethnicity" and "color" are as meaningful as separating people by hair patterns or toe size. Our species is incredibly successful mainly because we have managed to turn our technological prowess onto ourselves, creating a feedback loop that has not stopped since we invented fire and freed our jaws to shrink and make space for a larger brain. Finally, although we all feel unique, we are in fact designed as team players, male and female, young and old adopting clear and comfortable roles that are so inate they are universal in all human cultures. Men solve technical problems, women organize social networks. Young men learn and work, young women dance and like to look pretty. Old women gossip and old men accumulate power."
These truths, though self0evident, are heresy because they seem to imply (wrongly) that life has no meaning and personal endeavour has no value. Au contraire, life is filled with meaning, and personal endeavour all that makes it possible.
Just because you understand fluid mechanics does not mean you cannot enjoy surfing a great wave.
OK, flame me now...
Nudity harms children (Score:5, Interesting)
What is worse than holding unpopular opinions is the reaction many people have to them. We jump all over those that hold opinions in the margins of society, however right or wrong they might be, and never seek to learn the reasons they hold such opinions or if there is any truth in them.
Humanity has come a long way, but as a society we seem as unreceptive to new ideas as ever.
Re:Nudity harms children (Score:5, Interesting)
IE, if children touch their privates and experience pleasure, that is legal, natural and acceptable, but if another person touches their privates and evokes the same pleasure, that is illegal, perverse and bad. It is interesting to note that a large portion of the population would even consider the first statement about children touching themselves to be "evil".
I think this topic qualifies as the best example of modern heresy.
Re:Nudity harms children (Score:4, Insightful)
In many countries you have to be 21 to drink, well above the age of consent. Why is this? I'm old enough to own a gun or decide who is president but not have a beer? Someone who can drink at age 16 in Germany visits the US and is arrested for doing the same thing.
What's my point? Consent often has little to do with issues of harm or law. It's probably true that there is a greater good served by shielding children from nudity and sex. But what if someone believed or tried to show otherwise? The point of the linked article and the point I was trying to illustrate is that nobody investigates the specifics of the greater good because challenging it is a modern heresy. If children were actually worse off, nobody would know because those making that thesis or investigating it would be labeled "pervert" or "deviant" instead of "mistaken" or "erroneous".
- JoeShmoe
.
Re:Nudity harms children (Score:5, Funny)
No no no. Nudity does not harm children. No credible psychologist or behavioral expert or what have you believes this. Babies suck on titties for christ's sake, and it's completely natural. To a certain extent, though, wearing clothes is pretty much required to fit in with society, kinda like potty training.
The reason that nudity is kept off of TV is because in our culture, we use sex to sell. If nudity were less taboo, and the things that naked people did became less taboo, these ads would lose their punch.
The other thing that sells is fear; fear actually creates consumer want -- as in, we're all going to die so I'll go ahead and get into unsurmountable debt if it means I get to enjoy life while I can.
Breast cancer is the wet dream of Madison Avenue; it's got both sex and fear all rolled up into one (well, two) little packages. Look how many breast cancer specials there are during sweeps (when the networks compete for highest viewer count.)
Seriously, watch the news. The stories are there to make you afraid or to tittilate (sp?). The prodcuts advertised during the news provide the means for security and companionship. It's basic psychology, discovered around a hundred years ago and perfected during/after WWII, when all those propaganda big brains went to work for advertising agencies.
Shaving and deodorant ads are my personal favorite. I'm a big fan on crotch shots too; they turn up in the strangest places, like that one super bowl ad from 2000 that had a 14-year old girl walking over the camera wearing khaki shorts. The ad was for a financial services company.
Things you can't say (Score:4, Funny)
I'm a big fan on crotch shots
: )
Re:Nudity harms children (Score:5, Insightful)
Not nudity - sexuality. And the reasons are part moral choice but mostly practical. Children are inquisitive and will copy much of what they see. However, they are children, not miniature adults. Morally, they do not yet possess emotional complexity of the kind required to handle sex. Practically, they are unable to handle the consequences of being pregnant by twelve.
I have kids, and it's an amazing learning experience. Forget programming, debugging humans is where it's at. From your post I am guessing that you aren't yet in this situation - please correct me if I'm wrong. However, I humbly suggest to you that the kind of lessons you learn after having kids are only available through experience. The me of three years ago knew far less about reasoning such as the kind you're describing than the me of today does.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Nudity harms children (Score:4, Interesting)
While you're right that pregnant 12-year-olds are bad, the sight of nudity (or even sexual behavior) doesn't seem to result in more underage pregnancies. Look at the pregnancy numbers for Europe vs. the (much more prudish) USA. The societies that expose their kids to more information about sex appear to have lower teen pregnancies rates.
Re:Nudity harms children (Score:5, Insightful)
If sexuality in front of children (as opposed to "with" or "to" children) were as harmful as you suggest, none of us would be here today to debate it. Humans were having sex millenia before it was considered unacceptable to do it in front of children, much like other mammals.
Besides, there are other, potentially more deadly things that we do in front of children that we don't want them to imitate too closely, like cooking. We survive as a species not by making sure there are no children around to see us cooking, but by making sure that the children learn things like "don't touch a hot stove."
"Practically, they are unable to handle the consequences of being pregnant by twelve."
Only after the Industrial Revolution. Or we would be the only species emotionally incapable of handling parenthood despite being capable biologically. Most psychologists seem to believe that the current gap we see between biological and emotional maturity is because survival now requires at least a high school education in order to hold down a job and such.
Besides, this is the Twenty-First Century; you can have sex without getting pregnant and vice versa (unless you pay too much attention to John Paul II). If three-year-olds are capable of understanding "don't touch a hot stove," a child old enough to have reached sexual maturity should be capable of understanding "use a condom."
In my personal (anecdotal) experience, it seems that the children from whom sexuality is hidden from the longest are the ones most likely to be a parent at an early age. I'm sure everybody here has heard stories of children growing up in strictly asexual households only to get (somebody) pregnant in their freshman year at an out-of-state college.
Is it harmful to children, or is it simply embarassing to the adults?
Re:Nudity harms children (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true, I didn't address that. And this is something I entirely agree with you on - I can't understand the attitude either. Whilst I'm not a person who believes that showing violence on-screen necessarily leads to more violence in the real world, I am a person who believes that showing violence on-screen can desensitise you to real-world violence.
For example, I now regularly see corpses on the news. This was previously considered beyond the pale, and I agree with the previous attitude. A corpse is a shocking thing, but now I can expect to see many in a month at the very least, and I can expect to view them from the comfort and detachment of my own living room. Has the shock gone? Yes, to a large extent it has.
Cheers,
Ian
Can say Vs. Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", as Voltaire may have said - and equally, just because it has been said, doesn't mean anyone has to listen. That includes listening to the conspiracy-theorists who will no doubt be having a field-day here all evening...
-Chris
My favorite heresy... (Score:5, Informative)
AIDS is currently defined as presence of HIV antibodies (not live virus necessarily) plus any ONE of about 30 other illnesses, from low t-cell counts to pneumonia to kaposi's sarcoma. So through a miracle of circular reasoning, yes, HIV causes AIDS - but only because that's the definition.
Scientists who dispute that HIV causes all AIDS illnesses (pointing out that HIV, if responsible, acts differently than any other virus known to man in about a dozen ways) and postulate other hypotheses - for instance, that drug usage, including the chemotherapy drugs like AZT used for AIDS treatment, causes the immunodeficiencies, are barred from conferences and their papers are blacklisted.
On children and swearing (Score:5, Insightful)
Implication: he doesn't yet have kids.
"...and they're all trying not to use words like "fuck" and "shit" within baby's hearing, lest baby start using these words too. But these words are part of the language, and adults use them all the time. So parents are giving their kids an inaccurate idea of the language by not using them. Why do they do this? Because they don't think it's fitting that kids should use the whole language. We like children to seem innocent. [7]"
Nonsense. There's a saying I know from a film, don't know if it has any other derivation, "rules are for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of the wise". In this context, the children are (figuratively) the 'fools' - they haven't yet gained enough wisdom to know the implications of what they're saying. If they have, well then they're old enough to use the words. If they haven't...they're still the children being referred to.
I have two children, one just months but the other coming up to her second birthday and with her use of language exploding all over the place. She doesn't yet know enough to check herself, has little conception of context - if she starting using swear words now honestly, would I have done that kid a favour? At some point in her life she's going to start swearing, but at two? No. She'll do so when she learns about them, at first way too much and then later with a bit more understanding of context. And that's why the parents are self-censoring themselves - to help their children, not to molly-coddle them from reality.
Cheers,
Ian
Alcohol (Score:5, Interesting)
My family is from Wisconsin. If we had wine with a meal, I would be given a glass. I can remember attending many picnics with family and relatives in local parks. There was always a keg or two of beer, along with the sausages, hamburgers and other food. Many of the kids would drink a half-cup or cup of beer, although most preferred soda.
What would happen if I tried that today, in another part of the United States? Let's see.
- Alcohol in a public park.
- Drinking in public.
- Giving alcohol to minors.
I'd probably end up in jail and see the kids put in foster care. I've also noticed the large number of "public service" ads on television that portray alcohol consumption, especially by children, as stupid and evil.Re:Alcohol (Score:5, Insightful)
A little drink for a young teen at a family meal == teaching good drinking habits.
Keeping all alchahol away until 21 == making it more desireable than it should be, with habits formed at underage unsupervised parties.
No matter how obvious this is, it still gets people upset.
Two things you can't say (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, "black people are better dancers than white people". Yes, there will always be some pedant showing an example of a given white person who is a better dancer than a given white person, but that does not affect the usefulness of the generalisation.
Another example: next major internation sporting event, compare the relative representation of the various races in the finals of the 100m sprint. Now do it again in the swimming.
So here's a question you can't ask: why is it valid to segregate the 100m sprint into "male" and "female", but not into "african" and "chinese"? In one scenario, we are acknowleding that men tend to be physically stronger than women (even though you can find counterexamples), and in the other we are not.
People are different. Genders are different. Races are different. Short people can't reach the top shelf. Fat people can't fit in airline seats. Some genders can't reverse park. Generalities sometimes have a degree of truth. Let's get over it.
Re:Two things you can't say (Score:5, Interesting)
it's obvious there are some pretty fundamental differences between the genders
This highlights one of my pet peeves: use of the word "gender" when "sex" is clearly called for. "Gender" refers to roles; "sex" refers to biology. It appears that it's taboo to use the word "sex" even when that's exactly what you mean to say!
Re:Two things you can't say (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to pretend that men and women are equal...
Patently untrue. People love talking about the differences between genders. The best selling Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus series of books, published at the height of so-called political correctness (1993 [amazon.com], 1996 [amazon.com], 1997 [amazon.com] & 1999 [amazon.com]) are just one example. For more examples, visit cocktail parties, dinner tables, and talkshows around the nation: sexual difference is one of our culture's favorite topics for discussion. There is also a whole branch of feminism called "Difference feminism" precisely because it focuses on how men and women are different.
Perhaps a better question would be why attacks on sexism are so often labelled "feminist" or "political" (both modern synonyms for "heretical", in my book) or misrepresented as outrageous claims of absolute "equality" (which only serves to cloud the real issue of equal rights).
You have to avoid commenting on any difference between the races, even though it's obvious that some races tend to be better at some things than others (maybe it's ok to say that), and ergo unavoidably some races are worse at some things than others (and it's not okay to say that).
The 1992 flick titled White Men Can't Jump [amazon.com] would suggest racial difference isn't as off-limits as you suggest.
However, I would agree that talking about race is something of a tabboo, but only among white people. This tabboo, however, is clearly not because people of color somehow police white people (the white people I know, myself included, police themselves when in all-white company). More likely, it has to do with the discomfort many whites feel mentioning race at all. Perhaps this is because for centuries whites talked openly from a standpoint of racial supremacy, and now that we've (hopefully) realized that this history is shameful, we're uncomfortable bringing up race at all.
Re:Two things you can't say (Score:4, Insightful)
So here's a question you can't ask: why is it valid to segregate the 100m sprint into "male" and "female", but not into "african" and "chinese"?
You're mixing up four different things. First you talk about "races". But "black" isn't a race. Black is a skin colour. If you look at black people they come in a variety of shapes and sizes. I'm not just talking about individual differences. I'm talking about genetic group differences that differentiate pygmies from bushmen of the kalahari. Africans are people who come from the continent of African (including white ones). Chinese people come from the country of China (including the 55 "minority ethnic people" like the Mongols and Tibetans).
Four different things.
Saying that "black people" dance well would indicate some correspondance between melanin and rhythm. That doesn't make much sense. It seems more likely that the black people you know of come from a small set of cultures where they are trained to dance well. I wonder if blacks living in strict Muslim cultures are similarly skilled.
Talking about race is okay but first you have to define it. The problem is that people tend to use definitions that have no basis in science or history, only in their anecdotal experience.
Re:Two things you can't say (Score:4, Funny)
The reason there is that we prefer not to have all our jets crashing once every 28 days.
Windows sucks! (Score:4, Funny)
Fact vs. Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Oddly enough, the less realistic a truth is, the more likely a person is to get upset at someone who is contradicting it. Look at anybody in history who has been burned, fired, hanged, or crucified for stating a truth, and you'll see what I mean.
While you're at it, you might notice that attempting to repeal laws which support certain popular truths is tantamount to breaking those laws in most people's eyes. Gives you something to chew on, eh?
Brilliant!!!11 (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I guess this is my last slashdot post.
America had it coming... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ditto for anyone who suggests that a woman wearing a outfit and walks alone at night is asking for trouble.
There's a difference between 'had it coming', 'asking for trouble' and actually 'deserving it'. But any time someone suggests the former two, everyone seems to think the latter is implied.
Even if you try and explain the difference between 'asking for trouble' and 'deserving it', the person will most likely put their hands over their ears and chant "it's a womans right to go anywhere she pleases at any time of the day wearing whatever she wants without fear of attack" over and over again, without listening.
For some people, it's almost like anything coming even close to threatening someone's idea of a taboo causes a brick wall to close over their mind, and out comes the pre-programmed response.
I'm not Toto, and this isn't Kansas. (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the '80s, there was a company known as "Sir Unicorn Enterprises". They created a game called "Dreamquest" (which later morphed into the LRPS [incentre.net] Live Role-Playing System). It was based on a D&D type scenario, where you had different character classes with different abilities etc. However it was done live-action and on a commercial scale... For my first game there were about 75 'players' (paying customers) and a dozen, or two, actors (game creatures).
One of the base rules of the game was "If you're out of your tent, you're in character".
Other than the limitations and powers of your character class, there was very little limitation to your character. You got to make up their personality, their costume, their history -- Even the history of how they got to Samiltan (the country in which the game was played). As an extreme, there was one guy on my first quest who was dressed in a (civilian) paratrooper's outfit. His story was that he was on a jump, went through this weird glowing portal thing, and next thing he knew he was fighting dragons.... Character class: Fighter (of course -- completely non-magical).
The venue of my first quest was a country club.. We had one small section of the country club building (basically a large room) and the edges of the property leading down into the river valley. On the Friday night, we were given very explicit instructions to not go beyond the end of the one room, because there was a wedding going on, and we were NOT to go beyond there. Disturbing the 'mundanes' (non-players) could get us booted out.
In game parlance, The world ends there.
Of course the country club didn't warn the wedding party about our presence (why should they? They knew that we wouldn't go past the "end of the world").
And of course, a couple of wedding party members wandered into the game space.
I'm thinking that the first thing that they learned was not to go past "the end of the world".
But they wanted to go home, so they started talking to people, and hearing stories -- stories from past dreamquests and the present one... stories of magic, demons dragons and an impending doom if "the unnamed one" could not be stopped.
At first, they were highly skeptical (of course), but they didn't really care, they just wanted to get home -- unfortunately, nobody could tell them about how to get home -- of course, nobody could, since it made sense that anybody who got home probably {w,c}ouldn't come (willingly) back from a mundane (non-magical) world. Nonetheless, it was possible (but not guaranteed) that a powerful enough wizard might be able to get them home. One thing that they had going for them, though, was that recent events in this corner of Samiltan had resulted in the gathering of some of the most powerful wizards known (and probably the cause of their own troubles). Thus, if anyplace had hope of getting them home, it was likely to be here. About the only thing that they learned for sure, however, was that they should not go past the end of the world... People were adamant about that -- beyond there lay death.
From what I can tell, they were in the game area for at least an hour... maybe two. Word was going around the players that a couple of characters (possibly actors) were playing guests from the wedding, and trying to get people to break character.
but we knew better, right?
Nobody would break character for them. The guy in the parachute outfit probably clinched it for them... If they could expect a straight answer out of anybody, it would be h
My peers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell yes!
I moved to the San Fransisco bay area slightly over five years ago. To this day I am extremely cautious about expressing most of my political and religious opinions. I learned that the hard way the first week I was here. It's not that this area is liberal or anything like that, it's because most people here are so damned intolerant of anything that even remotely associated with conservatives, Republicans (even liberal Republicans) or Christians (even liberal Democrat Christians).
I had a friend who no longer talks with me because she found out I'm a libertarian. In my forty years of life, this was a first to me, that someone would base their friendships on political affiliations. It boggles my mind.
I go to parties and someone says "we should round up everyone who voted for Bush and have them all shot." Several others nod their heads in agreement. Others may disagree with the penalty, but agree with the general sentiment. No one disagrees with the underlying premise that voting for Bush was akin to committing a crime. At a group of friends, two got into a spat over something as inconsequential as what temperature to set the thermostat. One left in a huff, and the other said "What a control freak! I bet she's a Republican!"
Do I dare let on that I'm not a member of the Democrat or Green parties? Will I be consigned to social ostracism if people find out I don't consider Bush to be Evil Incarnate?
A friend came over and expressed surprise at seeing my Bible out on the table. Why should he be surprised? It's the best selling book in all of history. It sold more copies last year than did The Lord of the Rings. Why should it be surprising that I own a Bible?
Yesterday while sitting around with some friends and drinking coffee, one of them sees a newspaper article about Mel Gibson and his new movie about Christ. "Oooh, I hate him," a friend said. "He's so... so... so damned conservative!" That was the worst epithet he could think of. "Conservative." Then he launched into a tirade about how Christians are homophobes.
Do I dare let on that I'm a Christian? If I were a poor hispanic who couldn't speak English, I could get away with being a Catholic. But I'm a middle class caucasian. Will people automatically assume all sorts of wrong things about me if they know I'm part of that 80% of people in the US who believe in God?
When you see a machine of wildly spinning metal gears, you know better than to stick your hand in. You know you'll like a finger or two. Likewise, when one sees a major metropolitan region where people go about spouting hatred for anyone of differing beliefs, you know better than to offer your opinion. It's just not safe.
Slashdot Heresies (Score:4, Funny)
Bill Gates is not a bad person. He is down to earth, a geek at heart- a humanitarian and philanthipist who believes that the money he earns should be used in service to humanity.
The MPAA is just trying to protect the copyrighted works of the companies it represents.
Maybe there really is some of proprietary Sco code in Linux. And you know, revealing it before Sco has its date in court would not be fair to the litigants.
no... wait that last one just went too far... I recant.
Re:Proud to be a Heretic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since your uid is about half of mine, I guess I can't call you a n00b. However, this is pretty much the opposite of my experience with Slashdot.
There are all kinds of sacred cows here, that you criticize at your peril: the effectiveness of Linux, the evil of copyright in general and the recording industry in particular; the lack of merit to SCO's lawsuit
Outside commentators (such as those from Forbes) have referred to Slashdot and like sites as "echo chambers", where the same ideas bounce around ad infinitum. For example, just look at any article critical of Linux and you will see that every response is basically the same, and that high moderation is given to anything that restores the proper groupthink. I wonder if this is because a certain type of person is attracted to Slashdot, or if Slashdot transforms people's opinions? Perhaps a little of both.
I think this is one of the ironies of internet communication -- in an environment which supposedly promotes universal communication, people only seem to communicate in enclaves of like minds, reinforcing each other's narrow world views.
Heresy and Slashdot (was Proud to be a Heretic!) (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also interesting to note that when I Meta Moderate (every couple of days), I find lots of anti-BSD or anti-Linux posts moderated as Flamebait. Being the heretic that I am, I always categorize such moderations as incorrect. In doing so, I've pretty much figured out that many of my opinions about copyright (WRT music) and software development (OOP and XP) are considered ignorant and uninformed.
IMHO, it would benefit many of us to spend more time in the company of people we disagree with, and not so much time just finding people to reinforce our already-formed opinions. I've feared for some time that one of the worst things about the Internet is that it allows someone whose ideas are dangerous to find others of like mind, and decide "I'm normal, because there are others out there like me who believe in gouging other people's eyes out for complaining about Joe Lieberman." It's OK for someone like that to feel the societal pressure that says "YOU ARE A WEIRDO."
Tim
Re:Proud to be a Heretic! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, if you consider being flamed/modded down "peril", you really ought to get out more.
Now, I don't know what you're talking about. In every story, I see a wide range of opinions, usually modded up based on merit. I've seen plenty of +5 pro-Microsoft posts that simply made good points.
Re:Proud to be a Heretic! (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright isn't evil. Copyright is an important guarantor of a creator's rights. The whole Linux thing wouldn't be possible without copyright protection. A few
Nevertheless, the current copyright system is too heavily biased towards creators, at the expense of the public and the public domain, and the situation is only getting worse with the recent copyright extension and the DMCA.
It appears obvious to me that the SCO lawsuit is utterly without merit. Obviously, everyone else here thinks so as well (probably even you). Now, there are a few reasons that such a consensus would emerge. The proponents of the SCO suit are being silenced, moderated to oblivion, or otherwise rendered incapable of presenting their side of the argument. Another is that nobody is interested in defending SCO on this forum, where Linux zealotry renders us all incapable of seeing the truth. Finally, SCO supporters may simply not have any reasonable arguments in their defense.
I've also seen a small minority of posts that coherently criticize Linux as a desktop platform, and I don't have to browse at -1 to find them. So while there is a herd mentality here on
Re:Proud to be a Heretic! (Score:5, Interesting)
The monopoly position of media companies enables them to foist unfair contracts on creators. Similarly, levies on blank recoridng media and the criminilization of tools prevents creators from using new technology to bypass the monopolies. Copyright extensions maintain the profits of copyright holders, while actively harming creators by (like software patents) increasing the chance that they will be sued for an accidental violation.
Re:Proud to be a Heretic! (Score:5, Insightful)
My uid is 1/10th his, and I'll call him a n00b.
You're absolutely right. Slashdot is a bastion defense for a wide array of sacred cows, many of which you mention, and slashdot is largely an echo chamber where people can go to pat themselves on the back for thinking they are smart.
This article by Paul Graham says this at one point, "Ask anyone, and they'll say the same thing: they're pretty open-minded, though they draw the line at things that are really wrong. "
The interesting thing about group think is that any slightly differing opinion is "really wrong", and therefore not worth listening to or properly rebutting. It's a fascinating world, where people pat themselves on the back for being open minded and adopting a new fashion, but at the same time ignore or deflect any criticism of their position.
Graham talks about this as he goes on to say, "But when people are bad at open-mindedness they don't know it. In fact they tend to think the opposite."
It's an interesting article, and I definately agree with your last sentence...
"I think this is one of the ironies of internet communication -- in an environment which supposedly promotes universal communication, people only seem to communicate in enclaves of like minds, reinforcing each other's narrow world views."
I follow a number of political websites in addition to tech, and I'm finding the internet is really doing more to polarize society than anything else. It's allowing people who might otherwise be exposed to various opinions within their communities, to find like minded people on the internet and commiserate.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Sometimes it's a good thing. One just has to remember to keep it in perspective.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Proud to be a Heretic! (Score:4, Interesting)
Unpopular opinions are moderated away as trolls or flamebait. Low Karma users don't get modpoints, and neither ( I think ) do those who have spent long periods plumbing the Karma abyss such as myself, even if they subsequently acquire truly rocking Karma.
Hence, the cycle perpetuates itself. 'Proper' opinion is indirectly rewared with the ability to silence dissenters ( which should make your skin crawl ), and people tired of having their opinions reduced to inaudibility by down moderation ( particularly cute is the unparryable 'overrated' on comments that have never been moderated up - is the implication that the commentator does not deserve to have a voice? ) will also go elsewhere. With some justification. I don't think it's any great mystery why this happens. In fact, I think it's by design, although perhaps the design is to promote harmonious interaction as opposed to a thought monoculture.
Slashdot is what slashdot is, and people behave the same way online as they do off. Cliques will form, certain ideas will be branded as heretical, others will be held up as the shining truth. I guess that's just the way it goes. My advice is to not take the internet so seriously, and look at it as a kid would look at playground full of interesting rides, things to do, bugs to find under leaves etc. It causes a lot less stress that way.
YLFIRe:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Interesting)
1) I haven't seen too much evidence of israeli involvement, but I think there are lots of interesting things one could say both about this and in comparison of israel v. iraq in their handling of UN resolutions. Since the US administration's stance seems to be 'israel good, other middle eastern places bad' this could be called heresy in the states, but probably not in other places...
2) I wholeheartedly agree with this, the war on drugs has done nothing to combat the evils of addiction, and the human cost of the 'war' has been terrible
3) I disagree with this, but I'd still like to hear your arguments (if you or any other slashdotters present actually want to make that argument)
One thing I find interesting in the article is the test near the beginning: "Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?"
I'd say that I don't, but that's probably more a result of how I define my peers than the acceptability of my ideas. Some of my opinions might not be shared by my peers, but they would be more likely to debate my points than declare me a heretic...
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Insightful)
About feminism:
Feminism was once needed, back in a time when 50% of the population's potential was stiffled from birth, being a woman meant that you couldn't do many things simply because you were a woman, and not because you actually couldn't do them. No woman doctors, no woman mathematicians, etc.
That was bad, feminism fought that, and that was good.
But since feminism reached its goals (enjoy that voting and education girls), feminism has stagnated and has decayed into nothing more than a form of sexism.
Now feminist dogma is that men are evil, that every "macho" characteristic are bad. And it both enforces unrealistic feminisation of men and masculinisation of women.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Insightful)
There are all kinds of things wrong with the way the modern feminist movement has approached the problem of gender inequality. But the notion that the feminist movement achieved its goals is, at best, fantasy.
Yes, women have the right to vote, and I don't know of any evidence that they are unable to use it, though the still terribly few number of women in the political arena suggests we still have a long way to go there. Yes, women are no longer barred from most educational institutions, but in spite of massive evidence showing that test like the SAT and ACT are biased against women (as well as minorities and the poor), they are still used by most colleges to determine admittance. Years ago, when I was an undergrad, a not-too-suprising article in the Daily Bruin noted that GRE scores were a lousy predictor of performance in grad school, especially for women vs. men. Women with the same GRE scores could be expected to get significantly higher grades.
Furthermore, all that education (which is really only beginning to actually balance out, and is doing so fastest among minorities), isn't really repairing the disparities in employment and pay. When you control for experience and education, women still only earn 81% [cnn.com] of what men earn.
There are a lot of explanations for this. Most common is that women are more likely to take lower-paying jobs that offer more flexibility, so that they can be available for child-care duties. However, men with children don't seem to experience a similar pay disparity, so this indicates a disparity in how child-care duties are distributed in households. It's still the case in most US states that, if a couple divorces, the mother generally gets the lion's share of custody of the kids. (My cousin in Arkansas raised his three kids singlehandedly *and* paid court-mandated child support to his ex-wife, because a mother who was a prescription drug addict wasn't, in the court's opinion, less fit to care for the kids than their father.)
But the fact that, as a society, we assume that women take care of the children affects women who aren't in this situation. My husband and I are having our first child in July. Since I'll (theoretically) be getting a master's degree in June, I can probably make more than he currently makes. So, after a few months to recover, I'll start looking for a job and, assuming I find one, he will quit his job to be a full-time dad. However, I'm already carefully considering how I'm going to handle my job-seeking, because if an employer knows that I just had a baby it will probably hurt my chances of getting hired, no matter how illegal that is. It's also very difficult to prove.
Then there are just general societal notions about what women can and can't do, as well as what they do and don't want to do. Women who are into computers and technology find this all the time. I had a classmate in my graduate program start "testing" me when I said that I was a computer geek. (He starts off with "Well, then, if I want to get a new Pentium 4 computer..." to which I responded "Why a Pentium? Why not AMD instead?" I tried to engage him in a conversation on what uses might indicate one over the other, and the issue of motherboard chipsets to support each processor, but he quickly changed the subject.)
Frankly, I'm angry with the feminist movement for getting rid of the compensations that we had without *first* fixing the problems we have. Why did men always pay for dates? Because they generally make more money. (It was always my policy to pay if I made more, and let him pay if he made more, and alternate if it was about the same.) Why did men open doors for women? Well, that's harder to answer, but maybe because women are more likely to be loaded down with kids and their accoutrements.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an excerpt from The New York Times article dated 2001-09-22 I referred to:
As for The Washington Post story about Odigo, that paper has since taken it down [washingtonpost.com]. Here however is the story as reported by Haaretz [haaretzdaily.com]. And here is a Google search [google.com] that lists all the hundreds if not thousands of web sites that have copied the Post story for posterity, perhaps this link [antiwar.com] is the best... it also goes into the allegations about the Israeli spy ring, allegations which are largely confirmed by the Jewish publication Forward [forward.com].
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Insightful)
This goes back to one of my old arguments about probable and possible. You're not doing the filtering to deselect the probable out of the possible grouping.
And it's not like I'm a big fan of Ariel Sharon or the neocons controlling the White House either. I think there was a horrible failure of analyzing intelligence leading up to 9/11, the focus wasn't in the right place. I said it back then, that the Bush administration, despite warnings from the CIA, was more focused on the least probable risk(rogue nations with ICBMs) versus the most likely risk.(someone sending a bomb via FedEx or some other common every day thing, like an airplane)
So my views are already semi-favorable to your cause, and I still doubt your claims without more solid evidence.
Hell, there's stronger evidence that the Bush family planned the Reagan assassination than what you have linking Israel to 9/11, and I don't believe that was anything other than a coincidence.
Re:I would like to say (Score:4, Funny)
No, but there's a book called "Gor" you might enjoy.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Interesting)
Got a link to the Washington Post story?
Also, arguing that only one Israeli died indicates that Israel warned "its citizens" (and, therefore had a hand in the attack) is pretty ridiculous.
The fact that 5 Israeli's were reportedly seen 'high fiving' also indicates nothing.
You're grounds are, so far, that the Washington Post (supposedly) claimed an Israeli company was warned in advance of the attacks.
Evidence that Al-Qaeda were involved includes Osama Bin Laden saying that they did, as well as more evidence (trail of funds, trailing the hijackers, etc).
Forgive me while I still consider your post flamebait.
Manta
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Interesting)
First, the Odigo employees who were "warned" were in Israel. The warning was non-specific, and didn't mention the WTC. This could be no more serious than an e-mail warning of a kidney theft ring.
More seriously, the behavior of the alleged Israeli spies was odd, to say the least, to anyone who has ever had any contact with real members of Israeli intelligence agencies. I've seen such people who would duck for cover at the sight of someone pulling out a camera in a public place. I can't imagine spies who would dance conspiciously on top of a van. I would have to conclude that they were just ordinary idiots (they're plentiful in Israel, just as they are everywhere else), rather than spies.
The rest of the evidence against them is even less convincing. They had box cutters in their van - they worked as movers, a common occupation for young Israelis staying in the US illegally. One of them had two passports - he was a German citizen. The FBI held them for a long period of time - well, the FBI had their hands full around that time, don't you think? They held a lot of innocent people longer than they normally would.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Insightful)
You can say anything you want to. But you should be prepared to back it up. Carl Sagan once said something like "Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof". If you could reference specific repudable works (not just general things), we might believe you. Ignoring facts is one thing. But if you have quite a bit of stuff, and nothing to back it up, there isn't any reason why we should believe you. It's not simply pointing and yelling "heresy", it's saying "you have a claim that most people would ignore and laugh at, but if you can show us some proof, we'll look at it" Also, just becuase you think you have proof, it doesn't mean we'll believe it.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Informative)
To go even further with this, 35% of all people arrested on drug charges are black (US Department of Justice). Roughly 53% of all people tried for drug charges are black, and 70% of all time served for drug charges is served by blacks (US Department of Correctional Statistics).
Please check the facts before you try to push your truths on others.
*why* you can't say things (Score:4, Insightful)
> *IS NOT NORMAL*
> *your weird way*
> *crackpot parents*
> *offensive to me*
ah but there's a world of a difference between a crackpot yelling at the world and thoughtful discussion of serious topics. All it takes is a few cranks arguing this way and everyone that follows looses their credibility!
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:4, Insightful)
"Blacks are more racist than whites." I'd say they're about equal. As often as I hear an African-American complain about racism and discrimination I hear complaints from white people about "those damn n-(you fill in the rest)" and "reverse racism" and "favoritism."
"Homosexuality is not normal." I may personally agree that it's a sin, etc., but that's neither here nor there. If you don't want to be a homosexual, don't screw other men. If you do, go do so.
"Kids are best parented by a mom and a dad" (spelling corrected for your convenience)- I've known plenty of people who have been raised by homosexual parents who have turned out just fine. I've known a buttload of kids raised by people with views similar to yours (and some similar to mine) who have grown up to be drug-abusers, malingerers, rapists, and now President of the United States. Quite honestly, as long as the parents love the child, I couldn't give a crap about what gender the parents have.
"Tolerance means tolerate." A good point. Just because I respect your right to be an asshole and would defend you vigorously against any attempt to jail you or ban you doesn't mean I have to think you're right.
"Prayer in schools is harmless." No, it isn't. I don't want to be told by "God-fearing Americans" how to worship, and I *don't* want my kids to have to violate one of the most central tenets of Jesus' teachings by praying in public. Being told to pray, or even blindly accepting it, is an insult to them and an insult to my right not to have government touch my religion. You want your kids to pray in school, send them to a private school and leave the rest of us be.
"The Democratic party hates blacks." Where you get off on this fantasy is completely lost on me. It would be equally stupid to say that the Republicans are also inherently racist. Insensitive, cold, anti-American and corruptors of Christianity, sure. But, except for a few bungholes, not racist.
"Black is not a racial slur." It can be, depending on the circumstances. Too bad you think African-American is offensive; I'm very sorry for you. As another poster has pointed out, African modifies American. Trying to enforce "African-American" is stupid, but so is suggesting that "African-American" is "anti-American" or whatever the heck you're trying to get at.
"Read 'The New Thought Police.'" Read it. Full of crap. Next?
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of (Score:5, Insightful)
2) I know a lot of people who are openly outspoken against the war on drugs, including myself. But genocide has a very specific meaning: The eradication of a selected group of people. Who is this group of people the war on drugs is intended to wipe out, and how is it being accomplished?
3) If Rush Limbaugh is saying it, and 20 million Americans are nodding their heads in unison, it's not really unsayable, is it?
Unpopular opinions aren't the same as heresies. Dig deeper. You have to have others.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Grammar Nazis (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A Troll Manifesto? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Insightful)
Equally stupid are those that think that because they "think outside the box" that they are automatically correct.
Paul Graham is emphasizing the need to be open-minded, but he is ignoring the need to be "active-minded". If your "outside the box" idea have failed the test, they need to be rejected.
Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, none of the things that 'Bob Robertson' said are heresies anymore - they're all neo-conservative dogma.
'Mark' wasn't trying to censor him, he was just saying, pretty much flat-out, that 'Bob' was wrong. Which is pretty much what Paul Graham is saying - if you're just calling something incorrect, that's fine. It's when you start inventing labels for it (like, for instance, neo-conservative... ;) ) and using just the labels, and not addressing why or what is wrong, that you have left the path of wisdom.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not forget that charitable shelters, giving poor people food, etc... are all done by private individuals and groups as well.
Those of us who oppose the "government" kind of welfare (AKA, forced redistribution of wealth) are generally very much in favor of the free (as in freedom) alternative of private welfare. It's not only a better system (as in more effective in helping people), but it has other moral benefits to the participants as well.
Speaking of what you can't say (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:WAS JESUS A GAY NIGGER? YES HE WAS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't the whole point here to discuss what is un-discussable? Did the moderator actually read the article? Or even the post topic?
Perhaps it is stated in offensive terms, but it puts forth a reasonable proposition, and one that can't be known to be untrue by secular means of truth seeking. In fact there is considerable evidence in a secular sense the it is true.
I had expected better from the Slashdot crowd in general, and especially the moderators.
Hopefully this will be meta-moderated unfair.
This article is about fear, and how to deal with this fear and discuss important ideas in light of pillorying that come from their discussion. I rarely use the word "nigger," I have no need to use it, but now I feel I must use it to dis-empower it. Nigger, nigger, nigger.
I've noted that western media have labeled Osama Bin Laden a monster not only for orchestrating 9-11 but for having more than one wife, one of whom was something like 13 at the time of marriage. Multiple wives and age of consent are social constructs and say nothing about their actual true moral content. But because we believe killing thousands of people is immoral, we can strengthen our belief the other two practices are evil as well.
The Nazis believed in eugenics. Therefor any discussion of forced sterilization of mentally retarded people is evil and Nazi like.
I do not believe in the tenants of NAMBLA, but sadly its existence squashes any discussion of what the real age of consent should be. Fear of PC backlash requires that I say I don't know what the age of consent should be, that I am not for lower it, just that it should be possible to discuss the issue. Ideally it would be based on some testable mental maturity of a minor wishing to enter adulthood. For the majority of Americans this might end up being 30, but for some percentage it would almost certainly be below 18.
I live in a college town. When The Bell Curve came out (dealing with race IQ differences), I found none of the college book stores actually carried this title.
There is a more open debate on drugs, but what about prostitution? Why are either illegal? They may have negative impacts on society, but this not how the debate is couched, it is always couched in moral terms. Why is paying people to have sex while you video tape them legal, but not for you to pay directly for sex?
Well that's enough anti-PC ideas for one post, hopefully someone will add a lot more to this thread.