"Regurgitate?" I'm the author of it, you fool. It is a parody of this wingnut idiocy — and, I dare say, a far classier than the original for it uses no namecalling to get its point across.
As so often happens, an Illiberal fails to recognize his own... Yep, somebody here is "mentally handicapped".
Sitting causes hypertension, standing — thrombophlebitis. Whatever you do to a human being, he stubbornly crawls towards cemetery.
— Mikhail Zhvanetsky
Rural economies cannot support the nice houses, cars, jobs, shopping malls, and priviledge they see, and they feel left behind.
These same people also feel very intimidated by things they don't understand, and they don't understand much.
Thank you very much for this example of condescension. The way you dismiss over half the country — without, as is usual your kind, any attempts at citations — is really telling. Telling about you... At least, your erzats-deity managed to get some compassion into his condescension — you lack even that.
Me? I would take a country pumpkin over your kind of snobbish "I know, what's better for everybody else" asshole any day of the week. And twice on Shabbat.
It's a symbol of the red state/blue state divide. That's why you're sticking up for it, after all.
Oh, yes, a Ukrainian immigrant living in New Jersey is sticking for Confederate flag, because "he is left behind in a rural State". I've seen people making worse guesses than you just made — with all the aplomb customary to the above-mentioned snobbish assholes — but they are very rare indeed.
But, at least, even you admit, the flag is not "about slavery". I suppose, that's progress.
Because we know Alex Jones
- Q: What do Illiberals have other than ad hominem?
- A: Nothing.
Please, don't hate.
There are no such people in America too. Zero... Even the deranged killer of Charleston never said anything about restoring slavery.
The flag is dear to some people's hearts because it is a battle flag of their ancestors... I do not share the sentiment for this particular flag, but I understand it. And you better understand it too — for the healing to begin.
Even if those perceptions are wrong?
Yes, even if people hold a wrong opinion about you, you still can not force them to change it.
The reason it might be a good idea to allow these to expire from search engines
There is no difference in principle between forcing a search engine to remove a record, and forcing a human being to undergo a memory-erasing procedure. Any and all arguments for the latter will also apply for the former.
Previously, this sort of offense would only be known to you if you personally knew someone who knew the individual.
Or if you paid somebody to dig up dirt on whoever. What used to be available to the rich, is now more egalitarian. Congratulations...
On this 4th of July, the day when Americans flock to their grills and smokers
That's it? Seriously? Rather depressing...
We don't know exactly what this guy did.
It does not matter. One does not — or, rather, should not — have a right to forcibly alter other people's memories or perception of himself. If the courts can force Google to erase the records, will they not be able to force the victim erase her memories as soon as the procedures are perfected? For the Greater Good[TM]?
The non-existent "Right To Be Forgotten" recently invented by our progressive European friends strikes again.
And what it means is, as soon as the technologies for altering human memories are perfected, the same "right" will be enforced on humans. In TFA's example, that molested girl herself retains her memory of the crime — and the criminal. Will some future court-decision not order her to undergo a memory-wiping procedure to help the man rehabilitate himself?
Need not be a crime — your ex-wife may demand, you subject yourself to such memory-cleansing wiping out the good times you once shared as part of a divorce settlement. And employees leaving a company or a government organization may be required to surrender their memories of trade secrets or even of ever working there...
Well, we've been told for decades already, that one has a right to a "safety net" even if other people must be robbed at gun-point (via the IRS) to pay for it. For fewer decades we've been told, one has a right to enter into a business transaction in a place of "public accommodation" — even if it happens against the other party's ("bigoted") will. Though everybody has (and should always have had) a right to engage in consensual sex with anybody else, a right to be considered "married" by people holding a different ("parochial") opinion on what the concept means was recently established instead.
This "Right To Be Forgotten" will not be far behind. Troll my elbow, it is coming.
He just sounds like someone doing a job, not someone in love with it.
True. But, at least, he's been doing it without the interruption of pregnancy, child-birth and nursing.
You know, the burden, which the parochial and sexist Mother Nature so unfairly places only on women.
Why maintain your own network of mirrors, when you can use the multitudes of people that have already downloaded from you? Just run a few seeds here and there and you will need neither the redundancy (99.9....9% uptime), nor the bandwidth requirements of a traditional file-server.
May have to add torrent support to fetch(1), but that is doable...
It's not my fault you lack reading comprehension. I recommend finishing grade school.
Whenever there is a disagreement, the Burden of Proof is on one side or another.
By demanding "Prove it", you tried to place it on me. I explained, why it ought to be on Iran and its apologists instead. I'm willing to give you a brief course on grade-school level logic right here. Just ask (politely).
Between who and who?
Algorithms aren't racist
This debacle confirms, that people, who claim Blacks may look like gorillas, aren't necessarily racist either.
And for that revelation, Google will take a l-o-o-o-t of heat...