Assuming the label is accurately applied. We do love to whip it out around here at the drop of a hat.

Ironically, having read War and Peace myself, I wouldn't say it's an overly good example of feminist literature as most of the female characters IIRC are mostly concerned about their husbands.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of TV these days is too dark for me to watch much of in a single sitting.

Pulp fiction that is aware of its pulpiness isn't the problem; fiction that is unaware of its pulpiness and the reasons for it is the proposed problem.

But if you outlaw all of them you'll never see the rest.

I have zero tolerance for people who propose zero tolerance reactions to things

Sounds like in practice all the victim has to say is "I took it seriously" no matter how obviously it wasn't serious in order to win in court. Partially because of "tough on crime" but hey.

Hmm...upon further reflection, please ignore all my jaw-flapping (in this thread ;). I've argued myself around in a circle and I can't even make up my mind what my original point was.

Sorry to waste your time and braincells :P

Er, when I say "A and B overlap" I mean that you can't tell for certain whether they're being serious or making a joke. Being both at the same time is rather difficult.

You could have dropped half that comment and just put this as the first sentence. And I find it funny how much you use the word "clearly" when we're talking greyscale.

...doesn't mean that they won't try to *find out* where you live. So whoop--it could happen! Therefore that one's credible.

Considering how notoriously hard it is to tell on the Internet whether someone is being serious, I would only exclude those threats that are physically impossible (your Cardassian example). In which case it's possible to end up with 90% of threats received being "credible." Maybe not likely, though? It is Internet trolls we're talking about here, but SWATing is a thing, too.

I'm not finding extracting an objective definition from this circular definition as "clearly" easy as you claim. Saying A = everything !B doesn't work when A and B overlap, because you can argue that B = everything !A and now we have an incompatible center of the Venn diagram which is both A, therefore !B, and B, therefore !A, which was kind of my point (in retrospect ;)

I wasn't sidestepping anything. If the OP had said "and on blogs" as I already stated I would have said, "Okay, let's take a look at those." They didn't.

Well I guess we know why she got a lot of data on people being horrible, then :)

The link in the summary to her website isn't YouTube. This is somebody I've never even heard of before, and there are no links anywhere in the summary to YouTube. Ergo my first thought is not "the best place to look for information about this person is YouTube," which seems to be what you're criticizing me for. The hell?

A lot of sites these days upload their videos on YouTube and then embed them in their actual sites, which I guess is your logic?

If "willingly blinding myself" to YouTube is wrong, I don't want to be right. I don't need to read 13-year-olds endlessly parroting lines from the video, calling each other homos, and getting in pissing matches to enrich my life.

Technically Mozilla has its own license on Firefox which required that change. The Mozilla Public License is described as "hybrid BSD and GPL."

If the repackaging just involved slapping a skin and a couple extensions onto it but no code modification, I don't see why it would be a problem. Didn't IceWeasel involve recompiling or something?

Well, the parent didn't say that. I'd give blogs a shot; YouTube, not so much. Appealing to YouTube comments for "evidence" of anything other than the general low quality of Internet commentary is a hail Mary.

You quite neatly sidestepped my argument right into the path of an oncoming train.

Assuming the stereotype is negative to begin with. How many contortions do we need to go through to make "Asians are good at math" into a stereotype that hurts people?

A) The stereotype may in practice make it harder for them to go into other fields.
B) The stereotype may disadvantage other groups.

I would say that stereotypes exist to make communicating easier, but I suppose it sounds dumb to claim that my ease of use trumps discrimination. It's about what meanings we attribute to the words more than the words themselves. I don't feel that "Jap" or "homo" should have any negative connotations since they're simply shortenings of the official term (how much less offensive can you possibly get?) but since we're all a bunch of hateful twats, they are anyway.

P.S: Yeah, you said "in fiction" so this whole post is a bit offtopic.

"Virtual" anything means there's at least one layer of abstraction between the thing and anything the layperson would consider remotely close to the hardware. "Machine" would imply something that is inversely quite close to the hardware. To my ears, it sounds like saying "pure hybrid"...you can't be both at the same time.

Maybe I'm mixing up (virtual (machine language)) and ((virtual machine) language). From the perspective of the Java/.NET compiler it conceptually resembles machine language but it sure doesn't from the perspective of the actual hardware. I can see how Java being in a VM to begin with presents a similar model to running assembly on the actual machine but comparing the two in terms of efficiency and overhead is laughable. I was signalling my cognitive dissonance of conflating Java and assembly so directly.

Don't mind me; I'm just twitching over here and fighting down the urge to vomit.

I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a "credible" vs. non-credible death threat. Specific details?

"I'm going to murder you at your house, 123 Broadway Avenue, Littletown, Missouri 22817 at 9:17am on August 31, 2014, using a sawed-off 22-gauge shotgun loaded with..."