Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:LOL (Score 3, Informative) 119

Two wrongs don't make a right. The goal is not to argue that Democrat is worse than Republican (or vise versa). If you're still arguing who is the lesser of two evils you have fallen for the ruse. Be smarter than that. Both parties are bad, neither party will help / improve things / save us. The only options are 3rd party or, more likely over time, some flavor of revolution. Citizens United all but guaranteed that simple voting won't be the answer.

Comment: Re:Thanks middle class! (Score 2) 200

by liquid_schwartz (#48612883) Attached to: NASA's $349 Million Empty Tower
The reality is that both posts are correct. The 1% cheats the system and should be dealt with as well as welfare dead beats that drain the system. The sooner we get past arguing which is worse and instead try and be rid of both parasites the better off we'll be. The middle class is getting a raw deal from both the 1% and the non-working poor.

Comment: Re:Idea (Score 1) 244

I'm not sure that's true. I've known too many people who were content doing absolutely nothing. They tend to be the disability types, always long on excuses and short on anything useful. Making people work for their wages makes sense. That's why I support a universal bonus income for people who work (coupled with a minimum wage to make sure that the bonus doesn't become a new way for the 0.1% to screw over the rest of us). The other half of making work people work is always having something for them to do. That's why I support the notion of work centers where people can show up and work is always available. It's the answer to the situation of telling someone to get a job when jobs aren't available.

Comment: Re:Idea (Score 1) 244

The solution is to give extra income to people who work (as in physically show up). If you are unemployed there should be labor centers where you have to show up to get your check and that keep you busy for the day. I get that we can't have them competing with private enterprise as that would be unfair but until no charity needs volunteers, until no old folks in retirement homes are lonely, until all litter is picked up, we can keep these people busy and pay them. I'd suggest funding it with a tax on imports, with a bias against low income countries like China. This would stimulate domestic demand by putting money in the 99% instead of the 1% and it would not create a culture of laziness. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Comment: Re:What an asshole (Score 1) 305

by liquid_schwartz (#48068659) Attached to: The Single Vigilante Behind Facebook's 'Real Name' Crackdown
In truth the LGBT community has more members engaging in this style of conduct than any other group I'm aware of. The most appropriate example is that they sued to get the Prop 8 donor list then started harassing all the people on it. Talk about chilling political speech. Citations are extremely numerous and easily found if you google "harassing people prop 8".

I'm in favor of people letting others have opposing views without punishment, which is the only way to have a free society. Allowing others to have ideas and opinions you don't agree with is no different than protecting speech you don't agree with.

Comment: Re:gtfo (Score 3, Insightful) 724

by liquid_schwartz (#48048461) Attached to: Intel Drops Gamasutra Sponsorship Over Controversial Editorials

Yes, I am for free speech as well, but all speech has consequences.

Sad but true in some cases. The problem with not tolerating speech that you don't agree with is that it keeps a rational discussion from happening. Need an example, try this:

[Person A] We should discuss the problems of massive numbers of undocumented people crossing the borders. Possible downsides include non-vaccinated people, economic costs, crimes committed by said people, etc.

[Person B] You are obviously racist. Why do you hate hispanics, they just want opportunity.

If Person A is white then maybe they'll add comments about white privilege. Not a single point Person A said was considered, just a blanket dismissal as racist. That's the problem with "hate speech" either by government or by the "PC crowd". Not addressing reality carries more severe consequences than offending overly sensitive people who get offended by just about anything and everything.

Whom the gods would destroy, they first teach BASIC.