It's not a troll. You might not agree with everything people say. Your optional response is more speech. That's life, man. Deal with it. That's not a troll, that's explicit fact. My method of conveying it is not polite because I don't see a need to be.

My"sally" was pointing out what you said was wrong. While my definition wasn't perfect either, it was worth pointing out that it was incorrect. Sorry your feelings are so precious that nobody can dare point out that you're wrong. Oh well, we'll have to chalk that up to problems other than free speech....I have no polite or friendly term to call it, but I assure you all of them are negative.

You might want to read popehat's article today, because it sums up a lot of the feminism stuff that you posted wrongly.

That's simple free speech. Feminism has the same common goal it always has, and people having differing opinions is simply what makes that up. You get a spectrum, not a single viewpoint unless it is a single person view. Feminism is not a 1 person movement, ergo. The only response to speech is speech, and criticizing other people's speech tends to open you up to the same.

This is like criticizing that two people who are are both declared $view, whether that is pro feminism or democrat or geek, are wrong because their opinions disagree, simply because they both still support something - such as equality, or freedom, or being anti-gaming corruption.

You couldn't be more wrong in your understanding because you basically created a strawman and pointed to it. I suggest you read as below.

http://www.popehat.com/2014/10...

Wha?

Wrong.

Cite:

https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

Among the healthy and mature, there's no right "not to be offended"; not for men, and not for women. There is 100% equality here.

That is not the equality which feminism is about. Being able to be offended is free speech and has nothing to do with feminism at all. In fact, being offended may be completely false or completely legitimate and none of that is relevant to anything

There is no part of "right" here, and is 100% wrong. You don't combat counterfeit items by destroying them, that doesn't do anything. You build a better product and accept that counterfeit exists because you aren't serving some part of the market. Serve that part, or deal with that the market has routed around your shortcomings via counterfeits.

Feminist blogger? What does that even mean? You're defining something in a way that cannot possibly be correct, because you imply feminist bloggers are women. Your entire concept of "feminist blogger" is wrong. First: There are men who also push for women to have equal rights too.
Second: you've got it backwards. Most of the SJW's are men who say that they're being oppressed by "feminists", or women who push for equality.

Feminism becomes obsolete when women and men are treated equally and with equal privilege, something you very clearly do not understand.

Why pay for TV when you can download the shows you care about?

TV is so terrible at catering to people who only want to pay for what they want to see, so you may as well get it when you want how you want - because they refuse to provide that.

Which is why they went from above the federal minimum of 3 seconds, to exactly the federal minimum and thus below said minimu. This has happened repeatedly.

Look at the existing franchise laws and how they are being used. It's not really a question that bribes are occurring, it's what lobbying is by it's very definition.

Absolutely. You know why? Efficient taxation should result in more tax money coming in. If they can't do so, that's a fault of putting out inefficient taxes.

You know how everything you said is 100% false?

When the captain says "brace for impact", if someone is deaf and on their phones? How much of a difference is it going to make? Zero. Now apply the same to people who can hear, and guess what? Same impact.

Be reasonable. It may have been *sys.

This requires people to install the app. That's a failure right there on many levels.
Not only that, but it cannot tell if you are the driver or the passenger. That's failure #2.

Then you get to the fact that this could stop you from making emergency calls. That's questionable and teeters in the "is this even legal?" quesiton range.

It is not just the implementation - the very concept of "if vehicle is moving you cannot use your phone" will ALWAYS be wrong whether it can figure out you are a passenger or not, if the decision is implemented via software.

It should be the District attorney that is disabled (or never quoted ever again). She is an idiot, because software like the interlock concept doesn't exist on a phone.

Part of the problem is user education and part of it is that an attorney who has no understanding of technology who simply wants to create more business via litigation.

Who the fuck is Kathleen Rice and why should any of us give a shit? Answer: we shouldn't.

Of course an employer can do what they want which includes busywork, but that doesn't mean the employer isn't a complete failure when it comes to defining the scope of a job position. Most employers are too lazy to do this well.

Any employer who can't accept that you won't be busy every second of the day is not an employer worth working for in any country in the world.