The more recent changes aren't anywhere near as bad as people think.

Drew's failure to reign in moderator agendas is what's so bad, and it is clearly never going to get better there. He's encouraging it and thinks he's on the side of right and justice with making rules about it being fine to say "i hope you die in a fire" but HORRIBLE and BANWORTHY to say "rape rape". If you're cool with that kind of twisted, identity-based morality, maybe Fark is still the site for you.

This, so much this. The problem started with mod Genevieve Marie and all her trolling alts, targeting anyone reasonably well-spoken that she didn't consider to exemplify sufficiently feminist opinions. If you look at my username, you'll probably be able to figure out which Farker I was. Drew circled the wagons instead of fixing his shit. Now we have a forum torn between "anything goes" humor when it targets certain groups and safe spaces with eggshells on the floor for other groups. Who is who? Never fear, the dear leaders will decide for you.

There's no attempt to make Fark more PC. I think what happened is the rest of the Internet moved -far- past us on the anything-goes relative scale.

Really, Drew? You're playing the "fair and balanced" game with us? Anyone can look at Fark.com headlines or comments from 2006 as compared to today and see that Fark simply lost its edge. I'm not a huge fan of rape jokes, either, but I'm less a fan of sacred cows. Remember when Fark didn't have those?

There's no way the politicians will change the law so they can no longer get paid ... it's simply too lucrative.

Lucrative like Enron. Only in the very short term.

So let me go back to how.

To bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

It's a new feature of Beta intended to line the owners' pockets.

We'll see how that works in Ferguson, MO, next month.

It might work out differently if those who thought like you do did more than "wait and see". Democracy demands the active participation of its members in order to function correctly.

talking to people I don't even know.

Just my two cents, but it seems to me that this part is probably the more effective strategy in this case. I think activists call this, "building awareness".

I have told you to fix the flaws in your system. Your response to my suggestion is to point out that your system is flawed?

While it is in many ways (far) less than ideal, there is an easier answer: vigilantism.

Sure, that's an answer in the same way that death is a cure for cancer, I suppose. It may be 100% effective but the cost is a bit high.

One man can solve his "justice" problems by himself

That might make a great intro to a movie trailer, but it's a really poor foundation to base a humongous society on.

But this case is black and white, so cheerleading is appropriate.

Is it, then? McCarthy probably found a real communist or two.

How about instead of blanket statements we look at individual cases and cheer or scold based on merit?

This guy got lucky. He wasn't good, he was fortunate. That's not merit.

This is all free speech.

The product may be speech, but you can't claim to know that the means with which it was acquired was mere speech.

Don't get all hand-wringy about dad's good speech

Dad's speech isn't good. It's emotionally satisfying but a stupid action that makes him vulnerable to predators and dangerous to innocents all at once.

This is the same inability to make obvious value judgments

Don't get all moralistic defending stupid behavior. This was stupid behavior.

Ahh well y'see that's where the "living in a democracy" part comes in handy!

And what happens when the police departments show complete disinterest to your problem?

Change the system. Sorry there isn't an easier answer, but that's the price of living in a democracy.

If someone hurts my feelings online I'll try to get revenge online.

I've just shown you the cliff at the end of the road you're traveling. If you choose to proceed despite this, there isn't much more that I can say. Via con Dios.

I'll rest my case here, I think...

because someone might get framed for murder, we can't go after real murderers

That's not my argument at all. I'm saying that we should have professionals to do things like that.

The knowledge of nuclear weapons will fade with time when governments break up and people will worry with survival.

That's a very thin limb upon which to base so much.