Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score 1) 191

OK, rewrite the first one as:

"Twitter employees read every one of the 250 million tweets per day that some shitcock somewhere whined about for some reason and agree with the content of them all."

Either/or fallacy -- and doesn't match Twitter's current policy. They claim to have rules, they're mostly secret and vague rules and won't explain when you break them, but will ban you outright when you cross them. But only if you don't have the right friends.

Disagree with a sociopath who happens to have the right politics? Ban.
Point out a con artist doing "good things" is lying and openly scamming people out of thousands? Ban.
Point out a troll who is harassing hundreds of people is a self admitted pedophile and child pornography producer? Ban.

Run the official PR campaign of a group of religious fundamentalists waging open war on non-theocratic civilization? ... *Crickets*

Comment Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score 4, Interesting) 191

One of these is true:

1) Twitter employees read every one of the 500 million tweets per day that get posted and agree with the content of them all.

2) You're making accusations despite having both a complete lack of evidence and a complete lack of understanding of the subject.

BZZT. That's a 10 yard penalty for a False Dilemma fallacy. Try again.

3) People have reported the offending content and Twitter left it up in the name of free speech -- while punishing people who disagree with fake feminist con artists like Zoe Quin or Brianna Wu, because "freeze peach" is so 1990s.

Comment Re:Nice! (Score 1) 492

Deadnaming is when you use someone's birth name when they have legally changed it. It's usually used in the context of transgendered people who have transitioned and legally changed their names, although idiotic coddled children on Social Media also use it to mean "you called me my old alias I'm not DarkRavenBloodyAngel anymore I'm PreciousPrincessPatriarchySmasher now, get it right!"

But yeah, actually deadnaming a real transgendered person is kinda a hateful dickish thing to do, but like all things these social justice warriors latch on to that one little bit of socially unacceptable behavior (deadnaming a transgendered person) and embrace and extend it for their own use (deadnaming a transgendered person becomes "using an unapproved name that can change at any time for anyone, anywhere"). They also try to dishonestly conflate deadnaming with doxing or outing people as transgender, which are not the same thing, at all.

There's also the fact that the people deadnaming her are in arguments with Sarah Nyberg, and the normal rules of decorum don't necessarily apply. For example, is it hateful to call Sarah Nyberg as her deadname if you're doing so not to be bigoted, but because it pisses her off and you're arguing with her?

And if there is a magical list of things that are just off limits to say, how come it's only the one side that get to add to that ever growing list? How come I can't say "ok, attacking someone based on (them being on the autistic spectrum / a person's race (even if it's white) / their having social anxiety / etc) isn't ok" and get it taken seriously, but the other side gets their constantly changing list enforced by Twitter / Facebook / Tumblr / etc?

But yeah, to put it a more succinct way: Sarah Nyberg is a disgusting, vile racist pedophile, and that's bad enough. Trying to conflate her gender dysphoria as just as bad as that or what have you is probably going too far. But she's a vile piece of shit who spends her day trolling on the Internet, so maybe she reaps what she sows?

Comment Re:Nice! (Score 4, Insightful) 492

if you cant post your "dissenting opinion" without "threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease", then you have some issues you need to work on.

Ok, lets talk about what they claim, and how this will go down in reality. Because Twitter has a really bad track record of saying one thing and enforcing another.

For example. There is a delightful young transwoman named Sarah Nyberg who has been harassing gamers on twitter for months now. (But that's ok, because harassing neuroatypical white males is socially acceptable. Especially if they're overweight and straight, too.)

Sarah Nyberg is a pedophile. She openly admits this. She also openly admits that she took photos of her 8 year old niece in her underwear and shared them online. She openly admits that doing so gave her an erection.

She admits all of this, but that it was ok because some people were rude to her and that's somehow worse.

TALKING about this, due to Sarah Nyberg being part of the SJW clique, results in you being mass-reported by a botnet and your account auto-locked by Twitter's algorithms until you delete the "harassing" posts.

The people doing this openly brag about doing this. Twitter does not care.

Twitter can post all the fluff pieces about how this is going to combat trolls and harassers they want. People who have been the victim of this passive agressive "crybullying" know that the authoritarian nutjobs involved claim any disagreement with their socio-political views is "harassment" or "Cyberviolence" and that Twitter apparently agrees with them.

Comment Nice! (Score 5, Interesting) 492

Oh, wow, so no more "Kill All Men" hashtag or "I Drink Male Tears" images? Because those are pretty damned hateful, even though it's apparently socially acceptable to hate men in a way that it's not for women...

(Whisper, Whisper)

Oh, that's still ok? Huh. Well, at least, no more "Men are the source of all school shootings in the world" type posts, right? Because that's a bigoted, ignorant, statement that ignores...

(Whisper, Whisper)

Huh. Well, ok, then at least they're going to block ISIS accounts and the people perpetuating the fake "Max Temkin is a Rapist" hate-crime posts, right? Because the former is a ltieral terrorist organization and the latter is a discredited hoax that people are using to try and destroy someone whose only crime is he's young, male, and heterosexu... 0000%#N$! NO CARRIER

You have been blocked for Thoughtcrime against the Party, please delete your posts to be allowed back in.

All this is going to do is give the psychotic misandric and racist losers (the so called "Social Justice Warriors," the left-wing authoritarian hate-mob that has infested the Liberals in the US) an in so they can continue to use bots to mass-report dissenting opinions and get them banned. They're already doing so, this just codifies it as official Twitter policy.

Comment Re:Licence versus Freedom (Score 1) 214

One would think that would make the front page, but nope. Went into submission limbo.

It made the front page, you didn't pay attention. Try to do better next time.

Wrong. It didn't make the front page. Someone's attempt to shoehorn it into an interview on being a woman in tech made the front page, with ESR's post mentioned as a weird random aside -- a month after the fact.

ESR's claims were the story.

Instead, Slashdot went for an interview with someone about what they felt about that story.

Because remember, when the founder of Linux and arguably one of the most important figures in Open Source is apparently the target of a misandric hate-hob attempting to frame him for attempted rape, accusations of which are brought forth by one of the other most important figures in Open Source, the important thing to do is not report on that, and instead ask someone what they think about it instead.

Lets also not forget that Sarah Sharp, one of the people on the board of the Feminist group apparently attempting to frame Linus, was the one who had a very public (and very faked) fainting couch moment when Linus apparently blocked their attempts to frame him by never being alone, claiming he was mean on the LKML and being mean on a mailing list is the same as physical violence. At which point it stops being just "Oh look ESR is crazy" and more "Oh look, there's an organized effort to drive Linus off the project."

You didn't pay attention. Try to do better next time.

Comment Re:Licence versus Freedom (Score 1) 214

Remember that time when Torvalds joked about Greg Kroah-Hartman being a huge dude and some crazy harpy absolutely flew off the handle with a rude reply screeching about Torvalds making violent threats, and media pushing that exact narrative even though it was obviously false? Yeah, no attempts at character assasination there, no sir.

That harpy is Sarah Sharp. She's on the board of the Feminist organization who was apparently trying to frame Linus.

http://adainitiative.org/2014/...

Comment Re:Licence versus Freedom (Score 2) 214

You think that's bad? ESR apparently has evidence that a Feminist organization is attempting to frame Linus Torvalds and other open source leaders for sexual assault, presumably to force them out of the community / push some form of gender/diversity quota on Kernel Development. (This all occurred around the same time they started pushing to get those god awful totalitarian Codes of Conduct on various groups and websites.)

One would think that would make the front page, but nope. Went into submission limbo.

Submission + - ESR: Radical Feminists Are Attempting to Frame Linus, Others for Sexual Assault (ibiblio.org)

_KiTA_ writes: Open Source Pioneer Eric S. Raymond has revealed explosive allegations on his blog, claiming that he has a source with evidence that the Ada Initiative, a tech initiative designed to support women in open source, has been attempting to frame Linus Torvalds and other high profile members of the Linux and Open Source community for sexual assault. Linus has been noted for never being alone at conferences as of late, apparently this is a defensive move due to repeated attempts to "scalp" him — getting him alone and then immediately pushing a fake claim of sexual harassment or assault to either have him arrested or pulled off Linux development.

Possibily related to October's Linux Kernel Dev Sarah Sharp Quits, Citing 'Brutal' Communications Style story on how feminist Sarah Sharp took words out of context to try and suggest Linus and Greg were being aggressive monsters on the Kernel Mailing List — something she equates with physical violence on her blog.

Sarah Sharp is a member of the Ada Initiative's Advisory Board, the group that is apparently behind the attempt to frame Linus, among others, for sexual misconduct.

Comment Re:Or perhaps... (Score 1) 618

why would GamerGate harass a convention right after fighting for the right to speak at it?

That's just what happened, though. A rabble of angry, anti-SJW folks who failed reading comprehension couldn't abide the existence of a panel that they perceived as pro-SJW.

Really? I'd love to see your evidence of this. Please feel free to link it.

Comment Re:Or perhaps... (Score 1, Insightful) 618

Yeah man, it's just about ethics in game journalism.

Except if you read about what actually happened... (A hard concept for someone trapped in tribal politics, but hear me out.)

The GamerGaters got permission to have a panel in response to all this talk about them supposedly being some sort of cross between Hitler and the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons. So right there, that wrecks this "GamerGate harassed the panel into oblivion" -- why would GamerGate harass a convention right after fighting for the right to speak at it?

Also, You'll note that's what's always missing in these discussions -- anything from the POV of the "other side." We're just supposed to accept as fact that GamerGate are evil right wing MRAs that are dedicated to harassing innocent women online and keeping gaming "pure."

We're definitely not supposed to ask for evidence of this supposed harassment or actually ask the GamerGaters what their take on all this is or ask any of the dozens of POC or Women in GamerGate for their view on things (or even acknowledge they exist).

Nope, some con artists pretending to be victimized feminists like Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian said GamerGate is bad and by god, our entire critical thinking processes shut down the second that happens -- to the point that they're requesting that the UN force the US to censor the entire internet to prevent people from making fun of them when they say or do something stupid.

Listen and Believe.

In reality we've seen this happen at multiple GamerGate meetups, including the one the Society of Professional Journalists was putting on -- if GamerGate is being allowed to speak, these psychotic faux social justice sociopaths call in bomb threats, harass the venue, try to blackmail people into silencing them, et cetera. The one thing that can get one of these lazy entitled pink haired twits to actually get off of Twitter and Tumblr and DO something is seeing GamerGate possibly be allowed to speak someplace.

So here's the question that you should be asking if you still have your critical reasoning skills: Why?

If GamerGate is some sort of reactionary far right hate mob then why not let them speak and prove that they're some kind of group of monsters? Why call in up to 10 bomb threats at a single venue just to silence them? Is the mere fact that some supposed trollish conservative neckbeard dudebros speaking THAT dangerous to society at large? These Social Justice troll types don't go around threatening the Westboro guys with bomb threats, or try to get the GOP convention shut down for "regressive anti-trans opinions," so it's obviously not about Social Justice.

Could it possibly be that the reason they don't want GamerGate to speak is that the bullshit story they keep feeding people -- that GamerGate is supposedly a group of white male nerds who hate women -- has absolutely nothing to do with reality? That there's an incredible amount of money to be made in being a professional victim (read: con artist) but that relies on you making absolutely certain the boogieman you have helped create remains some sort of amorphous source of dread and is never, ever allowed to defend themselves?

Comment Re:Hmmmm (Score 1) 928

Randy Harper's blacklist, [leagueforgamers.com] an list of white men, gamers, nerds, conservatives, KFC,... and other people Randy Harper and her radical feminist friends consider too "problematic"

How do I get on this wonderful list?

1. Be on Twitter.
2. Disagree with a Radical Third Wave Victim Feminist on any topic. Suggesting that women should get jobs based on their merits and not receive special treatment for having a vagina is an easy way, following a conservative news site's twitter or Totalbiscuit's (an extremely influential Youtube reviewer with a few million subscribers; he made the mistake of mocking Otherkin once) twitter is another. Or just say something that Randi "You made your bed now get fucked in it" Harper doesn't like, for example "I would need to see some evidence of that claim."

Slashdot Top Deals

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...