Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:classic example? (Score 1) 522

by BalthCat (#49404641) Attached to: A Bechdel Test For Programmers?
Your mistake here is in assuming you're replying to someone who identifies all sex as objectifying. Chirs is responding to an AC who spoke of why they like sex in entirely selfish terms. "I like it, it is in my nature." AC chose not to, or neglected to, mention whether they enjoy giving pleasure to their partners, which would be a more altruistic (except in a very cynical sense) reason for liking sex. Chirs is just identifying this as potentially being a sign of objectification. If AC had said "A very important part to me is that the woman enjoys it too." then Chirs would have been unreasonable in saying what they did.

Comment: Re:Good grief... (Score 1) 681

by BalthCat (#49143275) Attached to: Bill Nye Disses "Regular" Software Writers' Science Knowledge
The issue here is that people are touchy about having their mediocrities pointed out, even when we have chosen to keep those things mediocre because we've focused on other things in our lives. It's not shameful to have a mediocre understanding of climate science when you're a computer programmer, or a businessperson. And it's not insulting for a professional to point out that most people in a particular industry are not proficient in a completely separate field. His statement is not controversial if you aren't self-conscious.

Comment: Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! (Score 1) 465

by BalthCat (#48608107) Attached to: Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site
The suggestion is that if everyone has a suitable income / level of wealth, there'll be no need for gentrification, and no need to run for the hills before you get bled dry in the home you've lived in for years. You're also aware that renters generally cannot sell their houses right? Jesus, are you not even trying to reason this out?

Comment: Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! (Score 1) 465

by BalthCat (#48608103) Attached to: Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site
lol You're ridiculous. WHY DIDN'T THE POOR FIX IT? IF THEY WANTED IT IMPROVED THEY'D HAVE SPENT WHAT LITTLE MONEY THEY HAD TO MAKE IT BETTER SO THAT GENTRIFICATION COULD DRIVE THEM OUT EVEN FASTER. My intention IS to convey yelling, Slashdot. Thanks though. I wonder how much I have to do to counter this obnoxious filter. Are we somehow under the impression that caps inherently make something less civil than say, gross disrespect? Can I call people names? Is that acceptable? I guess I haven't tried that enough.

Comment: Re:What real name policy? (Score 1) 280

by BalthCat (#48060549) Attached to: Facebook Apologizes To Drag Queens Over "Real Name" Rule
Uh, you do realize people can search for your private things using your real name, right? If your privacy settings aren't iron-clad, as well as everyone you're friends with, your private life leaks out. The point is that you have a right to identify yourself as you see fit, and sometimes the only way you can exercise your free speech (yes, I get it, private network) without great cost is by using a pseudonym. They have a right to ask people to use real names, but they *should not* because it is harmful to marginalized groups.