Police routinely abuse laws as shields to prevent people from recording public police behavior they'd rather no one know about. It's pretty obvious that officers are being trained to respond this way. Most agents from three letter agencies pull this shit now too.

Sorry, my hardware is my hardware.. remote bricking is just ripe for abuse. I'd rather retain control over it and accept the slight risk of it being stolen than have it remote bricked by power tripping assholes.

Generalizations like this don't justify forcing people to conform, which many here advocate. There are plenty of anecdotes showing how many of the most successful people were loners, or at least, did their best work while alone. The cultural noise floor in cities is way too high. As far as farm work goes, modern 'careers' are becoming so toxic with the expected hours/week load, unhealthy sedentary configurations, and passive aggressive social laws/dynamics, that rural work on the farm is starting to become more attractive. To me, this is a sign that we're doing it very very wrong, and cities amplify these effects.

All music is made by humans, 'live' or recorded, whether they're plucking strings, blowing air through reeds and metal pipes, singing, or using a computer to generate waveforms. To me, 'live' music is usually distracting and, most of the time, badly played and/or the acoustics are terrible.

No they're not. Cities are blights that pump out tons of carbon, pollution, and heat. The population density pollutes and contaminates the environment around it far more rapidly than nature can recover. The 'chain store hell' is basically a city scape without the sky scrapers. I don't see how anyone could like either. The real issue here is population density, not population configuration.

There's plenty of idiocy in cities. I realize so-called 'progressives' love the sardine can lifestyle (and think everyone should), and think that only white, straight people can be bigots, but reality doesn't work that way. There's also the flipside to bigots: the prideful fools who think they should be celebrated and catered to by society because of some arbitrary attribute. There are tons more of those living in cities per capita it seems. Perhaps you're one of those idiots then? See? I can stereotype too. I guess we have something in common after all.

This trend of labeling those who want their space as 'anti-social' reeks of the same intolerance they claim is so horrible. Keep your lifestyle away from me, thanks, and don't expect me to pay for it.

Well why not? The commu...err I mean 'humanists' have already shown up with theirs. People who call themselves 'humanists' usually mean 'marxist humanism', and they support culturally marxist views.

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

You know what should be illegal? Forcing others to live the way you expect.

How about just building these things out in the deserts?

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.