Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 649

by squiggleslash (#47712491) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I wrote my bullet points because I really couldn't believe you wrote what you just did. If I'm interpreting your response correctly, you either are embarassed by what you wrote and are trying to walk it back in a way that doesn't admit you made the mistake at all, or you're trolling. You certainly haven't attempted to clarify how my interpretation is incorrect.

You said: "every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response". This is ludicrous hyperbole, an attempt to foster moral panic.

No, it's a reasonable depiction of the current environment. You, thus far, have claimed it isn't because (1) you claimed only Valenti was getting the threats, and then, when it became clear that wasn't true, that (2) it was only "feminists" who were getting them (and somehow implied this isn't a problem then.)

I'm leaning towards the "I'm being trolled" hypothesis when it comes to your commentary. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but at this point I'd like you to start by:

- Agreeing that it's not just Valenti getting the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That NOTHING Valenti has said justifies the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That it is actually misrepresenting someone to post a picture of them wearing what's obviously a joke T-shirt and imply that it isn't a joke, rather than address directly what they've written.
- That the subset of threats of physical and sexual violence I've pointed you at directly were unjustified
- That Feminists do NOT deserve threats of physical and sexual violence.

Once you say, explcitly, the above, I'll respond. But based upon how you've commented thus far, I'm not interpreting it as anything other than how I've described, and I'm concerned you're not arguing in good faith.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 649

by squiggleslash (#47711885) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'll bullet point what I'm reading and you can tell me what I'm misunderstanding from your post, if anything:

- The women receiving rape threats are, in your view, Feminists, and so it's not an issue. You don't explain why it's OK if Feminists receive rape threats.
- Michele Malkin has never retweeted numerous death and rape threats despite widespread coverage when it happened. (She's probably a Feminist too, amirite?)
- Valenti has made a career of demonising men, as can be evidenced by one joke T-shirt, which is totally not misrepresenting her views because she wore it in public and even showed a picture of it online which nobody ever does with a joke shirt.
- You bringing up male suicides in response to someone complaining they're seeing more PCism because women online keep getting rape threats is not deflection. Me pointing out that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is.


Here's the truth, which you appear to be completely unable to comprehend:

1. No, Valenti does not hate men, nor has she made a career of demonizing them. I've actually read some of Valenti's stuff, and while she says a lot of nonsense, most of the idiots complaining about misandry are the ones who respond to "Wouldn't it be nice if men didn't ${badthing} women" with "Not all men ${badthing}" despite the fact the sentence was never "It's terrible that ALL MEN ${badthing} women, it should stop!"
2. No, Valenti is not the only one getting rape threats.
3. Sorry to bring up Valenti again, as this issue has nothing to do with her save for her being one of the numerous victims, but asking about the existence of subsidized tampons should not result in you receiving threats of physical and sexual violence, including rape.
4. Thinking it would be nice to have Jane Austin on a banknote does not mean you deserve to be threatened with physical and sexual violence, including rape. Jane Austin is fucking awful, but that is a disproportionate response. BTW, that wasn't Valenti. Valenti is not the receipient of all or most of the rape threats.
5. Even hating liberals should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence.
6. Politely asking men not to hit on women in public spaces like cons should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence. In fact. Rebecca's request was an entirely reasonable one regardless of your views on women.
7. Actually, pretty much no action should result in you getting those threats. None. Not even over-reacting to men making sexist jokes behind you in a way that gets both one of them and yourself fired.

Comment: Re:Just let the investigations complete (Score 1) 3

by squiggleslash (#47711591) Attached to: What they want you to think

That is interesting, and it'd be interesting to see a version of events that explains both the injury and the eyewitnesses apparently not noticing anything that would explain it. The only thing that springs to mind is that reportedly Wilson opened his car door in such a way that it hit or came close to Brown, whereupon it slammed back (either pushed by Brown or bouncing off him) into Wilson.

Still, that's a lot of damage for a door "bouncing".

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 649

by squiggleslash (#47711089) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Can I suggest that you actually follow the discussion rather than picking whatever the latest thing you heard and thinking that's what everyone's talking about?

No, it"s not just about Valenti. And no, lots of women, prominent and otherwise, are finding that when they post anything mildly controversial, they get rape threats.

Finally, even if your attempt to misrepresent one columnist using a zero-context photo had legitimacy and didn't misrepresent her, it wouldn't support rape threats against her.

Michele Malkin regularly gets rape threats against her. The woman routinely lies, and smears those who disagree with her. She's a horrible, horrible, person. Whatever Valenti has said pales in comparison. And Malkin she doesn't deserve rape and violence threats either.

And nobody's committed suicide, NOBODY, because they felt they were unable to issue a rape threat against an uppity woman who they disagreed with, so why bring it up?

Comment: Re:Oh god so what? (Score 1) 174

by TheRaven64 (#47710949) Attached to: C++14 Is Set In Stone
Clang has some builtins that allow you to get the carry bit, so you can cheaply write code that branches on carry. We (mostly CERT, I helped a bit) had a proposal for inclusion in C11 that would have added qualifiers on integers explicitly defining their overflow behaviour as trapping or wrapping, along with a model that let this be implemented cheaply (e.g. allowing a set of side-effect-free code to propagate temporary results and only trap if one of them along the way overflowed). Sadly, it didn't make it into the standard.

Comment: Re:Big Data (Score 1) 134

by squiggleslash (#47710909) Attached to: Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem

You're supposing that the DRM is there merely to appease Hollywood. Ever consider the possibility that Hastings might not want their customers downloading movies for watching two years after their subscriptions have expired?

As for offline viewing (something others are mentioning in response as a thing-you-can't-do-because-DRM), Amazon has that. Rhapsody too (albeit for music.) The files are DRM'd too. Netflix can implement offline viewing with the DRM being used to restrict the timeframe used to view the files. Hollywood is probably the reason they don't, but not because of the insistence on DRM.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 649

by squiggleslash (#47710893) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Hm. So either allow females full control over every aspect of the shared male/female environment or support sending death and rape threats to random women who speak their mind?

I don't think anyone anywhere mainstream is making you make that choice. Rather the idea of the story is that prejudice has little or no place in rational discourse, and that includes blatant misogyny and sexism. Why? Because it isn't rational, and because it leads to horror.

FWIW, I find myself, as I get older, having less and less respect for women as a group (as individuals, of course, everyone deserves to be treated on their own merits), but even as I veer towards misogyny myself, I find it completely ridiculous that we should continue to tolerate a situation where members of one gender - the other being more or less free to say anything - is targeted for frightening abuse up to and including rape and death threats whenever said women speaks their mind on anything remotely controversial, and frequently on topics that shouldn't be controversial at all.

We are not Iran. Hell, Iran is not Iran.

It's fine to say Jane Austin sucks and shouldn't be on a banknote. It adds nothing to the debate, however, to say women shouldn't be on banknotes, and tt's not OK to post rape threats against Caroline Criado-Perez.

Comment: Re:comment (Score 1) 56

by maroberts (#47709791) Attached to: Modular Hive Homes Win Mars Base Design Competition

Its a bit difficult to say because of the complex nature of the car business, but European sourced cars are generally better than US models due to the realisation that corners are something to be enjoyed.

In Jaguar (yes I know its owned by Tata), Rolls Royce, BMW and Mercedes we have cars that everyone aspires to own, and that's before I get into mentioning Porsche, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Bugatti etc.

On the US side, you have one car manufacturer that is widely admired - Tesla.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 649

by squiggleslash (#47706167) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

As a human being, yes, I agree he should do.

But in terms of being "CEO material", my concern is exclusively limited to the idiotic way he handled himself when it become public knowledge he'd funded a specific organization that was running an anti-gay smear campaign.

Ultimately if we're going to limit who gets to run companies purely by whether they're nice people or not, we're going to be stuck with a very short list.

At the same time, accusing anyone with concerns about his donation of running a smear campaign and being unreasonable shows a lack of an ability to deal with people, to deal with conflicting viewpoints. Indeed, Eich's behavior, to be brutally frank, suggests he'd have acted as a thuggish CEO, intolerant of those around him who have the temerity to criticize his actions, and unwilling to engage with them. That isn't just disqualification for a CEO position at a conventional private company, but anethema for one so prominent in Open Source, a movement that is built around cooperation and mutual respect.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken