Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Sad (Score 1) 209

We actually have lots of choices. The problem is that we allow ourselves to be convinced that our only choices are those that are sanctioned by the 2 dominant parties.

Our voter turnout is usually not even 50% in years when there is no presidential election.

If anything the part of our system that is broken is the part we've had since the beginning (the electoral process). This process basically condemns us to a 2-party system, along with giving us fringe general election candidates who were chosen by (usually the extreme) 5% of each party, and removing the importance of voting in all states except swing states.

I think this has more of a detrimental effect on our elections than money, because it breeds apathy.

Democracy isn't enough.

Comment Re:Political lightweight (Score 1) 209

I agree, but at the same time it does open it up to wider participation (not always a good thing, but still...).

I am not sure this is actually better.

Sometimes there are no good solutions, only solutions that aren't as bad as the alternatives. Perhaps this problem falls into that category.

I think everything else being equal, I'd prefer that the people buying our elections be forced to waste more money to do so.

Comment Re:Political lightweight (Score 3, Insightful) 209

Maybe, but I don't think anyone spent $500 million to win an election in the 60's or 70's or 80's.

They didn't need to spend that much back then to win an election.

Yes, I agree, there has always been money in politics, but it seems have reached epic (and unhealthy) proportions.

What I am saying is that it has always been the case that money buys elections. Given that, how much should an election cost? Is it better if the election is cheap or expensive? "Taking the money of of politics" doesn't change the fact that the election is for sale, it just makes the election cheaper and more random.

Comment Re:Political lightweight (Score 2) 209

There was always money in politics. I don't even think it's that much worse now. It's just visible rather than hidden.

The real problem is that we clamor for getting money out of politics, despite the real problem being the fact that our electorate is gullible enough to actually fall for the ridiculous 30 second evil music black and white opponent style ads.

Maybe we should be clamoring for an electorate that isn't dumb. Unfortunately this is something that dumb people rarely clamor for.

If we take money out of our current system, what we will be left with dumb people voting for the same bad candidates but with less money.

Assuming that people will magically vote for the right things if we take money out of politics is about as foolish as assuming they will vote for the right things even with lots of money in politics.

Comment Re:Sincerely, good luck (Score 1) 688

I said if I personally witnessed him being a white supremacist. If I actually saw him randomly physically attacking a black or jewish person because they were black or jewish. That's policing actions, not thoughts.

Being a white supremacist just means you think white people are superior in some way just by virtue of being white. You don't actually need to attack anyone to be a white supremacist.

But if it were known that Eich was a white supremacist, I think this would affect his ability as a leader, not because of anything he did, but because his subordinates might doubt that they are being treated fairly.

Then that should have been left up to his employees, not a twitter mob of people that don't know him who were told he was a bigot because of a political donation.

He resigned. And it wasn't a political donation (to a political party), it was a donation to create a law that would outlaw gay marriage. What I am saying is that this is as bigoted as donating money for a law to outlaw interracial marriage.

That's essentially what I said I'm doing, but when there's a "PC culture" component to the claim I look extra careful at it along with who's making it and what their motives are. A lot of the time it's someone making fluff from nothing and putting words into people's mouths in an effort to frame them for something.

Sure look extra carefully. But the fact that some people had overreactions to Eich's donation (i.e. threats, etc), doesn't make his actions any more defensible.

I don't speak for everyone, but I know if I worked there, I would not feel confident in the leadership of a manager if I knew that's what he/she believed. I think this is a problem specific to managers. I don't have a problem working alongside a bigoted engineer as long as he keeps his bigotted ideas to himself at work.

Comment Re:Sincerely, good luck (Score 1) 688

So first off, I wouldn't believe it. After the shit I've seen pulled over the last year most of what the media says is bull, made up, taken out of context, half truths, hyperbole, unfounded accusations. I'd have to witness Eich, in context, being a white supremacists, then yes I would support removing him.

I'm not saying Eich was a white supremacist. This is a hypothetical example.

However, all reports from employees stated Eich was respectful to them and he did encourage diversity. He had one anti-gay marriage view that he donated some money to support, but didn't discriminate against people based on that view.

It is also possible for racist people and white supremacists to be respectful. I question the ability of a white supremacist to be non-discriminatory, just as I question a straight marriage supremacist to be non-discriminatory, but I think it's possible for both to divorce their actions from their beliefs.

That donation was dug up and whipped into a social media storm that resulted in articles parroting rumors and slander to the point he and his family was being threatened with physical violence by people who were justifying it because he was a bigot.

Obviously it's not good that he and his family was threatened, regardless of how those people justified it.

This is thought policing at it's finest.

It's not thought policing. It's not illegal to be against gay marriage. It's not illegal to be a white supremacist. But even you said you'd support removing Eich for being a white supremacist. Is this not thought policing by your criteria?

A couple years ago I was pretty much on the bandwagon for politically correct culture, but now I see it's a tool people are using to ensure facts and opinions that disagree with them, what they see as "popular opinion", get shutdown.

While there certainly is a political correctness angle to this, there is more to it than that. I personally don't give a shit about political correctness. But Eich was the CTO of a private organization, who had bigoted views. As a Manager of a diverse group of people, I don't think he could be an effective leader without the respect of his subordinates. Furthermore, her wasn't removed by the internet, or even by his own company, he resigned.

. What's worse is the people that employ these types of shaming and mobbing tactics are the WORST hypocrites, as long as you agree with them they don't even care that your a self admitted pedophile, but they're extremely quick to accuse others of it based on guilt by association using fabricated evidence.

This is what happens when you divide everything into 2 sides. If someone from side A does something bad, it doesn't make side B automatically right.

So unfortunately my stance now is, if someone's making waves about a politically correct, gender, race and/or "diversity" issue THEY are probably the ones in the wrong and look very carefully at their claims, who they're accusing, what their motivations might be and what they're proposing as a solution before falling in with them.

Why not just evaluate every claim based on merit regardless of whether it's a "diversity" issue?

Comment Re:sad (Score 1) 328

If you are someone who believes they could make a successful presidential run, but doesn't, they are making the choice between "make a choice between a thousand of soldiers die or a hundred civilians die" and "let some woefully incompetent person make that decision". Apparently people are much more comfortable with the latter decision. I would hope that more people realize that inaction is actually also an action that has consequences.

You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.