Schilling has pretty terrible politics and turned out to be a bad businessman, but in this case I'm totally on board with him.
They problem may very well be sociopaths, but the victims tend to be women who step outside of their traditional roles.
The there are the stalking murders of Rebecca Schaeffer and Mia Zapata plus what happened with Sarah MacLachlan, so to pretend that it's simply "sociopaths" is a gross over-simplification.
Yes. People wouldn't be complaining about "playing the sex card."
They would be feminizing the guy, calling him a wimp or worse.
When there were only a few "geeky girls" around, they were a novelty, and there weren't enough of them to affect change in the workplace. I remember those days. We had lots of highly sexist/racist terms people would just throw around without thinking. Look up "BCH, RCH, and GCH" and the mnemonic for remembering resistor color that begins "Black boys" for example (I won't repeat them). Cheesecake calendars and centerfolds were also displayed prominently at desks. And the women there had to tolerate it. They had no choice if they wanted to stay.
But starting in the early 90's, women starting getting enough power to force companies to enact sexual harassment policies. The calendars disappeared and some topics of conversation became forbidden at work. And many men resented this.
So the trolls learned from this, and thus any woman who starts to be listened to in other male-dominated areas must be destroyed as soon as possible. This is what Kathy Sierra said in her posting. Because, by default, they are not deserving of the attention.
It's the same dynamic that has kept Rush Limbaugh on the radio for 30 years.
Wow. This is the first time I've seen "meta victim blaming" where you are blaming the people who call out statements like "Don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to get raped." as "victim blaming."
Is it at all possible in your world to blame the predators?
"People should be free to do what they want" is one of the stupidest beliefs in the world. Actions have consequences, and the thing that I "want* to do may be injurious to other people of even to humanity as a whole.
This is why I believe the libertarians typically go too far, especially how they refuse to take responsibility for how their actions adversely harm others, but I also don't want to be under the authoritarian heel either. So it's a balance.
Also, your use of "feminazi" really gives away the game about your true feelings on this issue. You don't really believe that feminists have any real political power, do you?
And of course they are all posting as "Anonymous Coward."
I think Slashdot ought to consider that some articles, especially those about anonymous internet trolls going open loop, might be set to not allow anonymous posting.
Considering the water issues the West is currently having, is it really a good idea to build this in the middle of a desert?
I need a license, registration, and insurance to drive a car.
Stoking fear? Right. One of the biggest fears is that the government will outlaw guns. Far-fetched, right? Tell you what. Hop in your time machine to five years ago. Go to Chicago and try to legally buy a gun. Guess what? For the average person five years ago, legally buying a gun was practically impossible. IT is not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you.
Thank you for proving my argument about the gun-proponents stoking fear. They've certainly got you in a tizzy.
As to the NRA quote, is there anything unfactual out there? Yes, we live in a very safe country. The odds of any bad violence happening to any one person out there is relatively small (of course, this varies GREATLY by zip code). But dangers are out there. How much danger is enough for you to carry a gun? Only YOU can decide that. However, it is up to you, and should not be up to a politician to tell you "no." Simply stated, if something bad DOES happen to you, how long would it take for you to call 911 and expect help to arrive? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Would that be fast enough?
You need some lessons on how to evaluate risk. The gun-proponents are big on the fallacy of "misleading vividness", and use this to stoke fear. It would be nice to have unbiased research, but thanks to Congress banning the CDC from researching gun violence in the mid-90s, we have no actual data.
For the record, I own guns (where I live, it would probably take 20 minutes for a sheriff to show up), but I do not carry one when I am away from home. But I have friends who do, and I respect their decision.
I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot. We are all human. We all make mistakes.
Obviously the bracelet will not stop the gun owner from suiciding with the gun. However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.
Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.
And you are damn right I have an agenda. I see the NRA and their ilk as stoking fear in the public in order to increase sales for the gun manufacturers (Glock, Beretta, etc.). Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.
Here's a quote from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the latest NRA convention:
We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you? We are on our own.
Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.
It a wonderful racket.
Veiled threats are veiled threats, regardless of which side makes them.
However, that article was simply a compilation of publicly available information. I could see how that could be interpreted as threatening (the argument about being a target for burglaries makes some sense), but it was done in a non-specific way.
Taking a picture or tweeting a cell-phone number is a much more personal, directed threat.
And it's real easy to throw around insults anonymously. I guess you're too much of a coward to even create a pseudonym to attach your posts to. But I find it's mostly the fearful cowards that feel they need the gun in the first place.
Assuming there's a battery indicator that will give you a decent amount of warning before it fails (say a month), if you have left your gun unused (not practicing using it) for that amount of time, you'll be incredibly lucky to use it properly in a crisis. You'll be more likely to have it taken from you and be killed by it.
How many people who buy guns for protection, who haven't been gun owners in the past, really know how to use them and are effective in defending themselves?
It's much more likely that they would end up getting killed with their own gun. Having or not having this lock will probably make little difference either way.
What it will go is reduce the number of accidental shootings, kids finding guns, etc. Even though you may not have kids living in your house, they might still be there visiting, and may even go searching for your gun, if they happen to hear that you have one.
I don't understand why the pro-gun people are so unwilling to accept any rationale for making guns even the tiniest bit more difficult to use, considering the thousands of gun deaths we have every year.