Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 1) 107

You want their money? Gather up 1000 people, walk over to their house, and take it.

that's unjust and immoral

unless we live in a society where the rich are born that way and stay that way even if they are lazy, and the poor are born that way and stay that way even if they are hard working

then, indeed, people will revolt and rich people's houses will be ransacked. not because the people are unjust, but because society is unjust

the point is to AVOID that, because revolutions are horrible for everyone. and we avoid that by having a just society. which was the point of my post. and that's why you *should* care

not that you do care, as your post demonstrates. if you don't think we should live in meritocracy, good for you. but if you think we should just treat everyone like shit, not try to be fair in society, and revolts and mobbing rich people's houses is inevitable and unavoidable and we can't do anything about that, then, objectively speaking and not as a baseless insult, you are stupid and malicious

Comment: for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 3, Insightful) 107

the ideal is a meritocracy- if you work hard, you're rich. if you don't work, you're poor

that's the ideal

of course reality means we have rich kids who don't do shit and can't fail, or whose dad gets them a cushy do nothing job with his friends at the golf club

it also means there are poor people who are busting their asses at two full time jobs who will never get ahead, barely tread water, and are one accident or medical problem away from losing everything, due to depressed wages because of power imbalances, and an insane healthcare system. and poor people on assistance who don't work simply because the financial incentive is to stay not working: it pays more

so we do not live in a meritocracy

we should, of course. and we should try to model our society on that ideal

and one way we do that is we guarantee a baseline of medical care and education to everyone

but if being poor means your education will be pathetic, you'll stay poor. and if you're rich and are a loser flunkie who never tries in school but still gets ahead due to connections

we WANT to subsidize poor people's healthcare and education, so we can actually and honestly say "you're poor because you don't try." we can't say that with honesty today. if we don't actually have everyone STARTING on level ground. the ideal of meritocracy requires everyone to start at roughly the same spot. then, indeed, you can criticize people for being poor, and laud people for being rich. rather than our increasing classist reality in the usa of a shirnking middle class, a rich kid who cannot fail and does nothing, and a poor person who cannot succeed and works his ass off

in fact, the usa is not the world leader in social mobility, the ability of the poor to get ahead by hard work

that title goes to "gasp" nordic countries, evil "socialist" countries, where people are happier and richer than "capitalist" america, which really isn't capitalist in the meritocratic sense, but more like plutocratic rent-seeking, social darwinistic fuck-you-i-got-mine-die-in-the-street america

Comment: Re:Educational software (Score 1) 107

it's overheated technophilia

if their idea is for software to guide children's education rather than, you know, teachers, they are proposing subpar education

just copy finland

finnish education is amongst the best in the world and has a number of novel differences that beg inspection and perhaps adoption

and they don't automate education like a drone flightplan

Comment: Re:Those terrorist sucks (Score 1) 998

It's pretty obvious to all but the hopelessly deluded that this event had absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Not even those offering that justification actually believe it.

Group A believes something. Group B believes the contrary. Group A threatens to kill group B if they say the contrary. Group B says the contrary. It smells like free speech to me.


Comment: Re: i don't understand the premise of the post (Score 1) 246

why are you amazed and dismayed at people reacting to a threat?

why aren't you amazed and dismayed at the loser douchebag making the threat?

who needs to threaten people except a malicious person or a stupid and violent person?

most of it is empty, yes, until one asshole delivers. so you have to take it seriously as no one socially normal or well-intentioned makes violent threats

it is MEANT to cause fear

that's the actual problem genius!

that's how freedom is curtailed: by making you question your safety where you should feel secure

Comment: Re: i don't understand the premise of the post (Score 1) 246

franklin's quote is ridiculously overused because security of course is a necessary thing in this world. it of course can go to far, but what amazes me are internet tough guys who think all prudent responsible reaction to threats is hysterical overreaction. these same internet tough guys will be going "the police heard the threats, why didn't they do anything!" because such losers don't argue form the position of right or wrong or logical coherence, just empty criticism without any intelligence or integrity

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.