Hilariously, I got called a member of the KKK/misogynist and also someone who gets all their news from Daily Kos in response to the same posting.

1) I couldn't care less what race/gender Malkin is. She has simply been demonstrably wrong time and time again (for example, the Jamil Hussein controversy, where Malkin claimed without evidence that this person, who the AP was using as the source for several stories in Irag, simply did not exist) and some of here demagoguery has put people in real physical danger.

2) She has been a contributor to VDARE, a site that uses a lot of white supremacist rhetoric and supports descredited ideas, like that there is scientific evidence that supports idea that some races are mentally inferior to others.

Michelle Malkin has the credibility of a ... a .. um .. a "crapweasel."

Why can't an actual journalist have written this?

Schilling has pretty terrible politics and turned out to be a bad businessman, but in this case I'm totally on board with him.

They problem may very well be sociopaths, but the victims tend to be women who step outside of their traditional roles.

The there are the stalking murders of Rebecca Schaeffer and Mia Zapata plus what happened with Sarah MacLachlan, so to pretend that it's simply "sociopaths" is a gross over-simplification.

Yes. People wouldn't be complaining about "playing the sex card."

They would be feminizing the guy, calling him a wimp or worse.

When there were only a few "geeky girls" around, they were a novelty, and there weren't enough of them to affect change in the workplace. I remember those days. We had lots of highly sexist/racist terms people would just throw around without thinking. Look up "BCH, RCH, and GCH" and the mnemonic for remembering resistor color that begins "Black boys" for example (I won't repeat them). Cheesecake calendars and centerfolds were also displayed prominently at desks. And the women there had to tolerate it. They had no choice if they wanted to stay.

But starting in the early 90's, women starting getting enough power to force companies to enact sexual harassment policies. The calendars disappeared and some topics of conversation became forbidden at work. And many men resented this.

So the trolls learned from this, and thus any woman who starts to be listened to in other male-dominated areas must be destroyed as soon as possible. This is what Kathy Sierra said in her posting. Because, by default, they are not deserving of the attention.

It's the same dynamic that has kept Rush Limbaugh on the radio for 30 years.

Wow. This is the first time I've seen "meta victim blaming" where you are blaming the people who call out statements like "Don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to get raped." as "victim blaming."

Is it at all possible in your world to blame the predators?

"People should be free to do what they want" is one of the stupidest beliefs in the world. Actions have consequences, and the thing that I "want* to do may be injurious to other people of even to humanity as a whole.

This is why I believe the libertarians typically go too far, especially how they refuse to take responsibility for how their actions adversely harm others, but I also don't want to be under the authoritarian heel either. So it's a balance.

Also, your use of "feminazi" really gives away the game about your true feelings on this issue. You don't really believe that feminists have any real political power, do you?

Try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

And of course they are all posting as "Anonymous Coward."

I think Slashdot ought to consider that some articles, especially those about anonymous internet trolls going open loop, might be set to not allow anonymous posting.

Considering the water issues the West is currently having, is it really a good idea to build this in the middle of a desert?

I need a license, registration, and insurance to drive a car.

Thank you for proving my argument about the gun-proponents stoking fear. They've certainly got you in a tizzy.

You need some lessons on how to evaluate risk. The gun-proponents are big on the fallacy of "misleading vividness", and use this to stoke fear. It would be nice to have unbiased research, but thanks to Congress banning the CDC from researching gun violence in the mid-90s, we have no actual data.

I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot. We are all human. We all make mistakes.

Obviously the bracelet will not stop the gun owner from suiciding with the gun. However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.

Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.

And you are damn right I have an agenda. I see the NRA and their ilk as stoking fear in the public in order to increase sales for the gun manufacturers (Glock, Beretta, etc.). Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.

Here's a quote from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the latest NRA convention:

http://home.nra.org/pdf/waynel...

Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.

It a wonderful racket.

Veiled threats are veiled threats, regardless of which side makes them.

However, that article was simply a compilation of publicly available information. I could see how that could be interpreted as threatening (the argument about being a target for burglaries makes some sense), but it was done in a non-specific way.

Taking a picture or tweeting a cell-phone number is a much more personal, directed threat.

And it's real easy to throw around insults anonymously. I guess you're too much of a coward to even create a pseudonym to attach your posts to. But I find it's mostly the fearful cowards that feel they need the gun in the first place.