Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47712491) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I wrote my bullet points because I really couldn't believe you wrote what you just did. If I'm interpreting your response correctly, you either are embarassed by what you wrote and are trying to walk it back in a way that doesn't admit you made the mistake at all, or you're trolling. You certainly haven't attempted to clarify how my interpretation is incorrect.

You said: "every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response". This is ludicrous hyperbole, an attempt to foster moral panic.

No, it's a reasonable depiction of the current environment. You, thus far, have claimed it isn't because (1) you claimed only Valenti was getting the threats, and then, when it became clear that wasn't true, that (2) it was only "feminists" who were getting them (and somehow implied this isn't a problem then.)

I'm leaning towards the "I'm being trolled" hypothesis when it comes to your commentary. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but at this point I'd like you to start by:

- Agreeing that it's not just Valenti getting the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That NOTHING Valenti has said justifies the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That it is actually misrepresenting someone to post a picture of them wearing what's obviously a joke T-shirt and imply that it isn't a joke, rather than address directly what they've written.
- That the subset of threats of physical and sexual violence I've pointed you at directly were unjustified
- That Feminists do NOT deserve threats of physical and sexual violence.

Once you say, explcitly, the above, I'll respond. But based upon how you've commented thus far, I'm not interpreting it as anything other than how I've described, and I'm concerned you're not arguing in good faith.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47711885) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'll bullet point what I'm reading and you can tell me what I'm misunderstanding from your post, if anything:

- The women receiving rape threats are, in your view, Feminists, and so it's not an issue. You don't explain why it's OK if Feminists receive rape threats.
- Michele Malkin has never retweeted numerous death and rape threats despite widespread coverage when it happened. (She's probably a Feminist too, amirite?)
- Valenti has made a career of demonising men, as can be evidenced by one joke T-shirt, which is totally not misrepresenting her views because she wore it in public and even showed a picture of it online which nobody ever does with a joke shirt.
- You bringing up male suicides in response to someone complaining they're seeing more PCism because women online keep getting rape threats is not deflection. Me pointing out that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is.


Here's the truth, which you appear to be completely unable to comprehend:

1. No, Valenti does not hate men, nor has she made a career of demonizing them. I've actually read some of Valenti's stuff, and while she says a lot of nonsense, most of the idiots complaining about misandry are the ones who respond to "Wouldn't it be nice if men didn't ${badthing} women" with "Not all men ${badthing}" despite the fact the sentence was never "It's terrible that ALL MEN ${badthing} women, it should stop!"
2. No, Valenti is not the only one getting rape threats.
3. Sorry to bring up Valenti again, as this issue has nothing to do with her save for her being one of the numerous victims, but asking about the existence of subsidized tampons should not result in you receiving threats of physical and sexual violence, including rape.
4. Thinking it would be nice to have Jane Austin on a banknote does not mean you deserve to be threatened with physical and sexual violence, including rape. Jane Austin is fucking awful, but that is a disproportionate response. BTW, that wasn't Valenti. Valenti is not the receipient of all or most of the rape threats.
5. Even hating liberals should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence.
6. Politely asking men not to hit on women in public spaces like cons should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence. In fact. Rebecca's request was an entirely reasonable one regardless of your views on women.
7. Actually, pretty much no action should result in you getting those threats. None. Not even over-reacting to men making sexist jokes behind you in a way that gets both one of them and yourself fired.

Comment: Re:Just let the investigations complete (Score 1) 4

by squiggleslash (#47711591) Attached to: What they want you to think

That is interesting, and it'd be interesting to see a version of events that explains both the injury and the eyewitnesses apparently not noticing anything that would explain it. The only thing that springs to mind is that reportedly Wilson opened his car door in such a way that it hit or came close to Brown, whereupon it slammed back (either pushed by Brown or bouncing off him) into Wilson.

Still, that's a lot of damage for a door "bouncing".

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47711089) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Can I suggest that you actually follow the discussion rather than picking whatever the latest thing you heard and thinking that's what everyone's talking about?

No, it"s not just about Valenti. And no, lots of women, prominent and otherwise, are finding that when they post anything mildly controversial, they get rape threats.

Finally, even if your attempt to misrepresent one columnist using a zero-context photo had legitimacy and didn't misrepresent her, it wouldn't support rape threats against her.

Michele Malkin regularly gets rape threats against her. The woman routinely lies, and smears those who disagree with her. She's a horrible, horrible, person. Whatever Valenti has said pales in comparison. And Malkin she doesn't deserve rape and violence threats either.

And nobody's committed suicide, NOBODY, because they felt they were unable to issue a rape threat against an uppity woman who they disagreed with, so why bring it up?

Comment: Re:Big Data (Score 1) 159

by squiggleslash (#47710909) Attached to: Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem

You're supposing that the DRM is there merely to appease Hollywood. Ever consider the possibility that Hastings might not want their customers downloading movies for watching two years after their subscriptions have expired?

As for offline viewing (something others are mentioning in response as a thing-you-can't-do-because-DRM), Amazon has that. Rhapsody too (albeit for music.) The files are DRM'd too. Netflix can implement offline viewing with the DRM being used to restrict the timeframe used to view the files. Hollywood is probably the reason they don't, but not because of the insistence on DRM.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47710893) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Hm. So either allow females full control over every aspect of the shared male/female environment or support sending death and rape threats to random women who speak their mind?

I don't think anyone anywhere mainstream is making you make that choice. Rather the idea of the story is that prejudice has little or no place in rational discourse, and that includes blatant misogyny and sexism. Why? Because it isn't rational, and because it leads to horror.

FWIW, I find myself, as I get older, having less and less respect for women as a group (as individuals, of course, everyone deserves to be treated on their own merits), but even as I veer towards misogyny myself, I find it completely ridiculous that we should continue to tolerate a situation where members of one gender - the other being more or less free to say anything - is targeted for frightening abuse up to and including rape and death threats whenever said women speaks their mind on anything remotely controversial, and frequently on topics that shouldn't be controversial at all.

We are not Iran. Hell, Iran is not Iran.

It's fine to say Jane Austin sucks and shouldn't be on a banknote. It adds nothing to the debate, however, to say women shouldn't be on banknotes, and tt's not OK to post rape threats against Caroline Criado-Perez.

Comment: Re:Ready in 30 years (Score 5, Interesting) 272

by Rei (#47708629) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

You're arguing against Tokamak fusion. But what about, say, HiPER? Looks to me to be a much more comercializeable approach, yet it's still "mainstream" fusion, just a slight variant on inertial confinement ala NIF to make it much smaller / cheaper / easier to have a high repeat rate (smaller compression pulse + heating pulse rather than a NIF-style super-massive compression pulse). The only really unstudied physics aspect is how the heating pulse will interact with the highly compressed matter; NIF and pals have pretty much worked out the details of how laser compression works out. Beyond this, pretty much everything else is just engineering challenges for commercialization, such as high repeat rate lasers, high-rate hohlraum injection and targeting, etc.

I've often thought (different topic) about how one can get half or more of fusion's advantages via fission if you change the game around a bit. Fusion is promoted on being passively safe (it's very hard to keep the reaction *going*, it really wants to stop at all times), it leads to abundant fuel supplies, and there's little radioactive waste (no long-term waste). But what about subcritical fission reactors? Aka, a natural uranium or thorium fuel target being bombarded with a spallation neutron source. Without the spallation neutrons, there's just not enough neutrons for the reaction, so the second the beam gets shut off, the reactor shuts down, regardless of what else is going on. It'd be a fast reactor, aka a breeder, aka, your available fuel supplies increase by orders of magnitude. And your long-term waste would be much, much less in a well-designed reactor. Spallation neutron sources have long been proposed as a way to eliminate long-lived nuclear waste by transmuting it into shorter-lived elements.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47706167) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

As a human being, yes, I agree he should do.

But in terms of being "CEO material", my concern is exclusively limited to the idiotic way he handled himself when it become public knowledge he'd funded a specific organization that was running an anti-gay smear campaign.

Ultimately if we're going to limit who gets to run companies purely by whether they're nice people or not, we're going to be stuck with a very short list.

At the same time, accusing anyone with concerns about his donation of running a smear campaign and being unreasonable shows a lack of an ability to deal with people, to deal with conflicting viewpoints. Indeed, Eich's behavior, to be brutally frank, suggests he'd have acted as a thuggish CEO, intolerant of those around him who have the temerity to criticize his actions, and unwilling to engage with them. That isn't just disqualification for a CEO position at a conventional private company, but anethema for one so prominent in Open Source, a movement that is built around cooperation and mutual respect.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47703779) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Can you come up with some actual examples of individual men being the target of violent threats on Twitter etc because he posts a mildly controversial opinion? (And I think we can agree that suggesting a famous woman be on a dollar bill, or that tampons be subsidized, counts as mildly controversial.)

FWIW incidentally I don't recall any copyright campaigns that aluded to rape, nor any that were aimed exclusively at male offenderes.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47703719) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I challenged you to prove me wrong, and it appears you've failed on that score. Sorry, but I'm not interested in discussing an issue with a troll who is arguing in bad faith.

I'm pretty sure everyone else can see the difference between firing someone for their political views, and opposing someone being put in a senior leadership position because they handle a controversy badly.

So how, exactly, are you not simply opposed to his politics when you say his only recourse was to change his politics?

When you stop beating your wife, I'll let you know the answer to that one ;-)

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47703679) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I think I was "concerned" and I didn't feel "insulted",

Well obviously, because you didn't actually hear what he had to say when he accused you of "are not providing a reasoned argument (and) labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society."

I would call that an insult. I'm assuming, of course, you really are saying in good faith you were concerned at the time and expressed that concern. I'm also assuming, of course, that you were expressing concern and not actually being unreasonable ;-)

If you can't work with or for people who hold political or religious beliefs you disagree with, you have a problem with professionalism.

Quite. Which brings us to why Eich was a bad fit to be a leader of an organization of people whose dissenting opinions he couldn't respect.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47703587) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

No, not really. Men don't generally get hundreds of these level of threats on Twitter et al when they make mildly (or even full on) controversial statements. Propose putting Einstein on a dollar bill, or that men's razors should be free or subsidized, and see if you get anything remotely close to what happens if you're female and suggest or mention female dollar bill characters or subsidized tampons.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 682

by squiggleslash (#47703223) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

No, because that doesn't make any sense given the problem with Eich was not his donation but the way he handled the revelations, insulting anyone that expressed a concern that Eich might not be a potentially inclusive leader.

And FWIW, though it's not relevent, the organization that Eich donated to was homophobic. You might similarly argue that being against interracial marriage is not racist, but whether you do or not, if a specific organization is running ads making claims about blacks and how dangerous they are, if you choose to express your opposition to interracial marriage by donating to that organization, you are donating to a racist organization.

But like I've said three times now today alone, whether Eich is anti-gay, pro-gay, whatever, doesn't matter. What matters is that rather than addressing concerns that he might be non-inclusive, he insulted those who were concerned. That's fine if you want to be churning out code from your basement. It's not OK if you want to lead people.

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller