From an objective setting, all opinions are equal, though truth (objective truth) may be closer represented by one side or another. But, since we're all subjective beings,

If we're all subjective beings, isn't that evidence that there is no such thing as an "objective opinion"? And since we're not all equal (except perhaps in the eyes of some mythical God or some mythical government), then why would you think our opinions are equal?

Everyone is welcome to their opinion

No. A young gamer who believes all women secretly want to be raped is not welcome to his opinion. Or if he is, it's not by anyone who doesn't hold the same aberrant viewpoint. "Welcome" indicates some element of respect. Not all opinions are worthy of respect.

and in a case like this, probably everyone is right (in their own mind).

What your suggesting is that there is no right and wrong. That someone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old thinks he is right in his own mind does not mean that his opinion has to be welcome in a classroom or among a group of biologists.

This notion of "there is no right, there is no wrong and there are two sides to every story" is very silly. It's something that certain people say because they think it sounds smart and worldly, but is actually very dumb. It doesn't matter what they think is right in their mind. Nobody else is required to respect their opinion in any way.

It has been tried. A dating site was made where only women could initiate contact. The result? It went nowhere because women wouldn't initiate contact in almost any case. Men couldn't women wouldn't, so it didn't go anywhere.

The thing is not only do we have a cultural bias that men are supposed to initiate relationships, but the person who initiates puts their emotions on the line, sets themselves up for rejection. Women do not wish to do that by and large, and do not need to since men are very willing to initiate so they just don't.

Unless we are able to change that, such a site will go nowhere. The vast majority of women will just be unwilling to initiate a relationship and thus the site will wither and die.

Nope. I find none of that stuff helps. All I do is:

1) Run a good AV scanner (NOD32) as a last line of defense to make sure I don't get malware.

2) Uninstall shit when I don't need it.

3) Have normal maintenance shit like have trim run on the drives at regular intervals and such.

Create an account that appears to be LGBT. Play some games. Record the reactions.

Create an account that appears to be Jewish. Play some games. Record the reactions.

Create an account that appears to be Muslim. Play some games. Record the reactions..

I really don't want to ask what such an account name would look like.

And, if someone did come up with a handle or avatar that somehow indicated that they were a black gay jew, there would be approximately zero chance that they were actually a black gay jew. The notion that a gay man is going to join an online game and create a character named, "ButtsexLover69" is mainly projection on the part of the straight gaming bros.

I don't know how you choose your gaming handle, but I generally don't make it indicative of my race, religion or sexual orientation. The main problem seems to occur when a woman is foolish enough to use a woman's name.

Plus, we have plenty of examples of men using female characters in online games getting treated very badly. You can find many such stories in the gaming press.

No thank you. I generally don't click pastebin links from ACs.

Ah, so the second one then. Not the all mercy, all the time, hippie St. Francis who likes birds and animals more than people, but the hard taskmaster who rebuilt the Church.

So all any 17-year-old - or 12-year-old - can get any his bank in trouble by walking up an ATM machine and *fill-in-the-blank*??? NOT.

I seriously doubt the bank would be prosecuted unless they didn't call the police as soon as they were aware that they had under-aged porn on their security cameras.

Oh, and if your reply is "the cops would arrest the 17 year old" yes, they probably would, so substitute "kid still in single digits living in a state where kids that young can't be prosecuted even in juvenile court" (I'm pretty sure the feds don't charge kids in single digits).

I'm not sure exactly what we're giving up by maintaining minimum specs. Is there some rule by which raising the minimum specs improves performance on more powerful machines? Or that lower minimum specs means the OS won't run as well on the latest hardware?

I can run Ubuntu on an old 486. Does that mean it can't scale up to my i7, or that it's somehow less powerful than if they set a higher minimum?

Or is this a reaction to the fact that on the rare occasions that Mac OS has major update they always raise the minimum specs? Maybe the fact that Microsoft doesn't sell the system AND the OS together means they don't have an incentive to get us to dump our hardware when it gets to be four years old.

You drive 400 miles, each way, 3 times a week? I'm presuming you're a trucker or something similar and not a masochist.

FTFY

The degree to which the SJW crowd has to resort to increasingly-inflammatory headlines and articles gives me a lot of hope, because it indicates that the collective unconscious of the Internet really does have a funcitoning immune response that can limit the damaged caused by that particularly nasty virus.

Now if only the Internet had a functioning immune response to misogyny, bullying, sick rape fantasies and adolescent jerkoffs whose hobby is making other people's lives miserable.

But thank goodness we've stopped feminism in its tracks, huh?

People should have the right to record their own lives, subject to not infringing on the privacy and other rights of other people.

The right of adults to share the recordings of their lives even if those recordings were made when they were minors and even if they were made by others without the legal consent of the now-adult participant with other adults who wish to view such recordings should generally fall under free speech protection.

That said, there is an argument to be made that under certain circumstances such as a staged rape scene or a scene that involved animals, if the subject of a pornographic photo appears to be a pre-teen or younger minor, regardless of the actual age of the participant, it might be considered legally obscene even if the same photo would not be considered obscene if the participant appeared to be an adult, even if the participant was in fact a minor.

There is also a strong argument that the wide dissemination of such material is bad for society, and as such it may be in the state's interest to prohibit anyone other than the person depicted in the image from making any money off of it and to prohibit the dissemination of such images to minors.

Ha, so I dropped the terror word.

Bro mentality. You wonder how they figured out how to use a game controller.

That is what you would call your opinion. You're as welcome to it as those you disagree with.

I'm not sure what that little bon mot of moral equivalence is supposed to mean in this context. Do you have any reason to believe the person to whom you're responding doesn't realize that his opinion is his opinion? Or that he's welcome to it?

The fact is that not all opinions are equal or welcome. If your opinion is that women are to be treated like dirt in any online interaction, your opinion is pretty well fucked. And unfortunately, it only takes a handful of these to poison all online interactions between anyone, anywhere. There are a lot of people out here who have decided just to leave all multiplayer online games alone because so many gamers just don't know how to behave. It's absolutely reasonable to expect a commercial entity to make sure such interactions are kept safe for its customers. Women should be able to believe that they can go play a game without some greasy little pimply fucker to hassle her because she's female. Or anyone, for any reason.

This notion, that seems to be the subtext of your comment is that, "Hey it's free speech and I can be as big an asshole as I want and you can't do shit" is simply not true. If you're in a restaurant having a nice meal and some drunk frat boy comes over and starts pissing on your shoe, you have the right to ask the management to 86 them. In fact, if you take into consideration the fact that most of the other patrons would also like to have a nice quiet meal without anyone pissing on their shoes, you have the responsibility to go to the management and ask them to throw the guy out. Even if the guy isn't pissing on anyone's shoes, but is standing up make loud, rude comments to every female restaurant customer, he does not have any "right to free speech" in that situation.

So no, not all opinions are welcome if your opinion happens to be that all women deserve to be abused. Or that anyone deserves to be abused.

It was less than 2 years ago that the Linux kernel dropped official support for the 80386 chip in the "current" kernel. It's successor, the 80486, has been around since 1989.

Several versions of the Linux kernel that still support the 386 are still officially supported. See http://www.kernel.org/ for details.