Which is why we are shutting down HBO and replacing it with Teletoon.

The fact that children may be able to come across something you don't want them to see is not a reason that thing needs to be erased from existence.

I had heard that Americans were glued to their televisions but I had no idea it was a literal statement. Turn it off if you don't want to see it. You're a god damn adult.

There are all kinds of things that people might not want to read/see in the news. Obituaries of loved ones. Accounts of people that die in auto accidents or fires or other tragedies. I suppose we should simply get rid off all those as well?

Who gives a damn what the terrorists want? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. "Well the terrorists expected us to behave as a free and open society so I guess we better not do that". Come to think of it- that sounds pretty much exactly what the US is doing.

Better not let the people see caskets of dead soldiers coming home either. It's totally about respecting the feelings of loved ones and not about making sure Americans don't see the consequences of fighting in pointless wars.

The fact that you think you are qualified to deem what is and isn't "trash" pretty firmly puts you in the "Orwellian" camp. The fact that you have already made the jump from people being burned alive on camera to "online harassment" is proof enough that you won't see fit to stop censoring at graphic violent content.

I'm not the one trying to define "truth". You are saying "it is truth that this content is ungood and must be removed". I'm just saying that's not anyone's decision to make. And anyone that claims they are capable of judging what should and should not be censored should not be allowed anywhere near the "censor" button.

And bringing children up might make sense if people were saying we should interrupt the cartoon network with breaking news of somebody being burned alive.

If you start advocating censoring adult spaces because you don't want children to see content you are simply being disingenuous about your reasons. We cannot be expected to bring adult spaces and adult knowledge down to a level you deem acceptable for children. And if you don't think you can handle that content then you, presumably, have the maturity to avoid it.

If truth "damages your freedom" then you've got bigger problems. Graphic content can be disturbing to people but it certainly doesn't damage their freedom (whatever that means). There's a reason there is such a thing as a "graphic content warning".

You then go on to explain that, yes, you do think you are qualified to judge what truth the public can handle. That line of thinking is how every dictatorship gets its hold.

Fill in for your favourite pet problem. "Porn", "gay porn", "dissident material".

Is it just me or is it becoming terrifyingly common for people to be recommending basic fascist style totalitarianism to deal with anything that causes them slight discomfort?

Said every corrupt dictator ever. You somehow think you're qualified to judge what "truth" the public can handle?

An introvert will likely spend more time doing it though. I love computer science but enough of my time is spent in it that most of my spare time is dedicated to sports, partying, etc. Because of that I don't spend much time on personal projects that would normally be learning experiences.

So girls aren't good at computers is what you're saying?

You are saying that girls don't like computers because media tells them not to. But it's a red herring to state that the media tells boys not to like computers too because some boys are good at computers?

99.9% of programmers today aren't working under the hood. Knowing simple electronics and simple assembly languages doesn't get you far today. Great, you know MIPS but what exactly does that get you? Great, you can solder a capacitor but you're still not allowed to touch the electronics- we have EEs for that.

Different time. Would Woz be able to do the same thing and be successful in today's climate? No. But in today's climate he probably would have been using a personal computer since infancy.

So you think your anecdotes and screeds are different than those of others why?

If you want to talk about the expectations of capital S society (seriously society isn't a proper noun; capitalizing it makes you seem unhinged) on geeky men it is that the only way for a geeky man to redeem himself is through saving the damsel. If they don't do that they usually turn into villains (every super villain ever). Which is interesting considering this new influx of dweeby guys that think media has a huge effect on people trying desperately to save women that really aren't in danger.

You seem to fail to understand why people keep saying that. The only "evidence" you have of women not being able to choose computer science as a career path is that there are less of them choosing it.

"Women being predisposed to liking different things is fine but there's not enough of them liking this because they are being discouraged which is obvious because not enough of them like it."

Begging the question.

And you assert that it has to be because of advert material focused almost exclusively (weasel words) on male demographics? You have some kind of concrete proof the advertising material came before a change in demographics?

You can theorize on the effects of advertising all you want but you have no way to quantify or even study the advertisements of the time. The only concrete historical data of the two things you just listed is "when the home computer showed up on to the scene". Which is would make a much stronger data-point for why the ratio changed.

Why do people think that brains are all exactly the same? Of course there are genes for intelligence- that's what separates humans from chimps after all. That a complex combination and interaction of genes, upbringing and nutrition might play a part in intellect and interest is almost certainly true. The fact that there are things under the umbrella of "intellectual disability" pretty much proves that not all brains are the same. Look at X-linked intellectual disability and try to tell me that genetics ha no bearing on intelligence.

Is that "example" really what you call "proof"? We know that physical capabilities are genetic (as in how far a person can progress is limited by their genes) yet not all professional sports players are children of the previous generation's professional sports players.

Your example falls flat on upbringing alone. Not to mention that just because something is heritable does not mean it will be inherited.