Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:But... (Score 1) 62

Now I want to write a library that determines if a given Internet comment is written by someone who is obviously butthurt about having lots of privilege but experiencing the reality that people with less privilege aren't entirely silent and therefore not 100% avoidable.

Comment Re:Github, a bastion for libtard SJWs (Score 1) 62

We will not act on complaints regarding

... responses to each below...

‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’

Good. Discrimination of race, sex or gender identity is each respective thing. Privileging the "default" group for each of those to create a "reverse" is inherently racist, sexist or transphobic (respectively). If you feel like you're being treated unfairly because you're white (racism), male (sexism) or born with the genitals that match your gender identity (uh... cisphobia), address those the same way a person of color, a woman, or a trans person would. If it turns out you are actually being treated unfairly, nothing about "we will not act on complaints regarding reverse-isms" precludes a reasonable outcome. It just precludes creating a special class of each just because you as a supposed victim happen to be in the dominant group in one of those dimensions.

Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”

Good. Fuck you if you disagree. Seriously. Unless you are actively enforcing a law and have good cause to be doing so, you have no right to expect another person to engage you at all. Even if you are enforcing a law, most of the law is in favor of people being able to refuse to speak. That this is even being questioned is fucking appalling. If someone says any of those things, walk away and calm the fuck down.

Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts

Addressed above. No one is actually required to explain anything to you, at all, ever. This is minutiae.

Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial

The above is instructive. If you don't feel respected, end the conversation. If you aren't honored in doing so, you have a valid complaint. End of discussion.

Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions

Here there may be a valid complaint, because it's limited. Criticizing anything should be acceptable, and it implicitly suggests that certain criticism is more protected than other. But while it's not comprehensive, it's certainly not objectionable in its limited scope. No action should be taken to prevent criticism; therefore, no action should be taken to prevent criticism of racism, sexism, transphobia, or any oppressive behavior or assumptions. That's just tautological.

Comment Re:Github, a bastion for libtard SJWs (Score 1) 62

The relative privilege of whiteness exceeds the relative privilege of maleness. The consequent relative advancement of white women exceeds that of other under-represented groups, and the relative culture of privilege of white women broadly undermines solidarity in broader advancement: the success profile of white women in business today more closely resembles that of white men than it does those of people of color, whether men or women; this alignment creates a set of incentives to prefer existing power structures over those which favor more equity for people who are represented or rewarded less.

Why is this hard to grasp? It literally requires understanding the word "relative".

Comment Re:Great Parents!! (Score 1) 307

If the former scenario is true, it suggests a sort of paradox wherein the advantage in intuition turns out to lead to choices that effectively negate the intuitive advantage. This is the hilarious kind of crap that gets fun to think about while you're stoned, but it would have no impact on the study results and thus has no bearing on science (apart from modern physics, where making up really interesting but untestable ideas to explain stuff is pretty much the state of the art).

If the latter scenario is true, the study results would likely be different, as the suggested deleterious effects of the drug would impact testing performance. But that isn't the case, is it?

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 55

I wasn't actually trying to be funny? I was trying to sincerely discuss the actual discussion that was actually happening around your comment, and I repeatedly asked why you weren't. But if personal attacks is your thing, don't let me stand in the way. I do actually have better things to do.

Comment Re:Could Amazon, Azure, others, ever be compromise (Score 1) 55

It helps to actually read the thing someone's replying to. Here's the whole thread up to your response, with my emphasis added:

Could public cloud providers be penetrated in such a way that all your data and activities belong to NSA, China, etc?

They probably already are. The reason you won't hear about it is because the people that break in to systems like that are very careful to go unnoticed. Hacking those systems is worth billions of dollars.

Tinfoil hat much

But to your inference, the intelligence community also sees monetary value in their interception and exploit programs, obviously, which is why they've invested in those programs. Bang for buck, investing in electronic intelligence almost certainly pays bigger dividends in aggregate than investing in human intelligence—at least that is what they must assume.

And with that said, if you were more preoccupied by the mention of China, and for some reason assuming corporate, rather than imperial, espionage... I'm even more at a loss at your accusation of paranoia.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.

Working...