Based on what? I could say that you see it because the government is a bastion of political correctness where people are chosen based on quotas rather than on experience, and the statement would have the same validity.

Problem is, privilege is stereotyped. White males are assumed to be privileged, women and other races are assumed to be victims. Ask 10 slashdotters if white male hiring managers would use race and sex in their ratings of resumes, or if women and non whites would use race and sex in their ratings of resumes, and I'll bet they'll rate the white male highest in using those discriminators.

The reality is that identity politics is building this bias into the culture and legal system under the guise of fighting it everywhere. We are supposed to default to the assumption that white males are privileged and everyone else is not, when it is everyone else who is privileged by the system so long as they lack whiteness and/or maleness.

ugh.. V=IR is handled in highschool these days, in physics.

1. No, he doesn't.
2. You argue from popularity (all those liberals must be right).
3. Insights are obvious once you have them.
4. It doesn't require a completely unbiased take on the world to have a correct insight on one specific aspect. Hell, it doesn't even matter if you have unfounded biases about the subject in question. What matters in context is whether you're correct in that one instance.

In this case, he is. Left wing politics is just as backstabby and self serving as neo-right politics. I find it laughable that the left wing organizations most well known for 'civil rights' are only defending the needs and whims of some, granting them de facto privilege over the rest. This applies across race, sex, orientation, and any other front these activists can cobble together (eg: anita sarkeesian, sarah sharp, rebecca watson, etc). If they were honorable, their actions would match their rhetoric about equal rights for everyone.

Well, idiots tend to argue with fallacies like argument from popularity as you've done here. Like you said, though, the world is not binary. People don't have to accept ads if they dont' want to look at them but still want to view sites because there is software out there that allows this. The internet is not cable tv, thankfully.

Not my concern what they do. They don't have a right to run their bullshit javascript on my computer.

Where's the -1 fallacious appeal mod?

Whatever, it's true regardless who says it. Someone has to decide to take drugs. No one is cramming them down his throat.

Yeah, that's if they aren't picked off by some 3rd world country rabble during one of those corporate sponsored wars he talked about. Seems like a dumb waste of intelligence to me.

We should ban water too. After all, water allows people to live, giving them the opportunity to ingest sugar! it's a gateway gateway gateway substance!

not if it's well water. Of course, it might suffer contamination from run off/dumping.

Nice concern troll.

Linus is quite lenient compared to the leadership at microsoft or apple. The latter are more interested in appearance than they are in technical excellence because appearance is all that matters when appealing to their non-tech customers. The problems lie where these products must be maintained by technical people for the non technical customer who is usually their boss.

If you can make a good case for your position/code, linus will listen to you.. If you're full of shit or crying like a bitch because he wont' accept shitty code, then he'll tear you apart. At apple or microsoft, you can be fired for losing a political battle even when being correct. I'd rather work for linus.

The only way to cajole passive aggressives into taking action is to shame them publicly. That's why they whine like little babies and play the victim role. Unfortunately, passive aggressive dynamics run so much of society nowadays that they've been codified into law as 'rights', and the bluntness/truth that contradicts them, 'hate crimes.'

A well placed 'Fuck you!' can save years and years of mountainous, expensive political tugs of war.

brand focused companies are brand focused because they charge too much for mediocre products. It takes effort to maintain smoke and mirrors and it's easy to blow them away with a few facts.

Bose is long know for litigating everything, including valid criticisms of its products. You shouldn't feel sympathy for them. If beats really had violated any patents, it would've been sued ages ago. They're both garbage.