Comment Re:Why speed only a little? (Score 1) 475
It also lacks the self and situational awareness of humans.
It also lacks the self and situational awareness of humans.
10Mph is still an arbitrary assumption, just like legal limit. Correct speed varies far too much for such a static definition. There was an article (with video) on slashdot awhile back that explained how their heuristics work, and it said the whole stack was basically built from prefabricated scenarios, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Actually, in free countries, people should be free to like or dislike whoever they want for any reason they want, and form their associations accordingly. The reason gays, feminists and other left wing activists get so much shit is because their 'tolerance' only goes in one direction. They want to dictate what others can do to/say about them, but they want it no holds barred when they're the ones spewing vitriol. Get a gay person fired because he's gay? Instant condemnation and legal action. Get a brand new CEO fired for donating private funds to an anti gay marriage effort years before? That's apparently a-OK. So much for tolerance, right?
Those LGBT activists use the same flawed reasoning for their positions as SPLC does for race issues. They're all a part of the same political spectrum. They argue from perpetual victimhood to justify privilege for themselves or their target demographic at everyone else's expense, be it finances or liberty. If they just wanted the freedom to marry, they'd lobby to get the state out of marriage altogether, but it's obvious they would rather use the state to force organizations who don't agree with their lifestyle to conform.
Who are you to say what is moral for someone else? Reality check: no one is required to like you.
and you are deliberately misrepresenting pragmatic reality. When society systematically punishes people for having/expressing politically incorrect views, it is force. The mozilla case is a perfect example. These stupid site conduct codes are another.
Why are race, sex, and preference special? Those traits come with stereotypes and generalizations for a reason, just like any other collection of attributes. The reason is that there is truth in those stereotypes. Why should someone be forced into 'liking' any of these anyway? Live and let live. The only time it becomes a problem is when the state mandates specific attitudes/biases/privilege towards people with specific traits.
Except that they're not banning 'hate'. They're banning criticism. This argument fails the moment they toss the civil critics out with the trolls. Many of these 'victims of hate' willfully trollbait and then recast their troll collection as a random selection from the target community in order to 'prove' their 'persecuted' status. I'll bet a lot of them do it for clicks, but I'm sure some do it for attention, or out of spite.
The way you associate your particular brand of politics with 'civility' is ad hominem against those who have a different brand. It doesn't make or counter any arguments.
When dealing with 'systemic barrages' of criticism, it's important to pick through it for valid arguments to ensure your position is as solid as you want to believe. If not, you need to reevaluate and change your position accordingly. The rest of it can be safely tossed. These policies at fark (and other sites) are purposely designed to keep it ALL out for the sake of some group's feelings. That isn't good for anyone.
Except that under the guise of 'universal tolerance', politicians have built a system that requires more 'tolerance' for certain castes than others. This kind of hypocrisy adds fuel to the fire for people like him. Want him to go away? Fix the broken legal code.
just as leftists are the ones with the rank hypocrisy and arrogance to suggest that feminism promotes equality of any sort, that deficit spending helps the middle class and poor, and that heavy taxation solves inequity.
I say get rid of both parties. I want my rights and freedoms preserved.
From the viewpoint of traditional religious conservative culture, they do. He is arguing from a pro liberty position.
In the mozilla case, it was the CEO who was discriminated against by a few gay employees because of his politics, possibly due to religious convictions. They used the lobbied pro-gay culture bias to stick it to him and won. There's no justice in that.
Perhaps the reason it's 'gotten really bad' is because there is validity in the arguments being made? Perhaps people are getting sick of the hypocrisies surrounding affirmative action and feminism in particular?
People are not obligated to like you. People are also not obligated to agree with you. In free countries, they're also allowed to express these positions. Usually it is the one demanding censorship of the opposing side who has the most logical flaws to hide.
Except that, in the mozilla case, it was a couple of gay employees who couldn't tolerate the presence of the new CEO who donated private funds to an anti gay marriage effort. Gays are human, too, thus they can be just as intolerant as any other human.
Might doesn't make right..or wrong, in this case. If free speech is respected, then the only way one side has more power is by the strength of the argument made.
It depends on how the asker defines manners. The problem here is that manners between men and women are traditionally tied to chivalry. Feminism came along under the guise of equality, which granted women's suffrage and other things, but did nothing to discourage chattel privilege. Part of that privilege was expecting men to be deferential to women's feelings, even in the face of reality, which, in modern culture, boils down to 'ye shalt not question the feminine imperative.' Thus, we now have a bunch of people who don't get that equality and chivalry are mutually exclusive. The political left has inherited the majority of the reverence for that chattel privilege and the neo right inherited the 'man up' part, basically saying that it's men's duty to prop up feminism.
You might have a valid point if sites weren't lumping valid, yet 'polite' critics in with the rest.
Actually, MRAs are a relatively new societal response to the blight on freedom that is feminist politics. It's not just a fad. You do get the part about the reshaping and closing of internet culture, though. It's been oozing from a lot of orifices, recently and it's unfortunate.
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.