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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What a bunch of jerks (Score 1) 459

I'll keep this short and talk loudly in the hopes that instead of deflecting with tangents you actually address my point head on.

I OBJECT TO THEIR STATED GOAL OF ORGANISING A MASS MIGRATION OF A SINGLE IDEOLOGY WITH THE INTENT OF CHANGING THE STATES POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IN A DIRECTION THEY WANT.

Please note:...THEIR STATED GOAL OF....

Sorry if you find my post rude but the only other retort was to repeat my initial post in other words a third time (which this basically is, just in CAPS!!!!)

And to address you tangent, according to most polling data I can find around 7% of Americans are idiologically Libertarians with an additional 15% of the population "sympathetic". That's pretty fringe although I'll admit a bit more of the population then I thought.

Comment Re:What a bunch of jerks (Score 1) 459

Yes i know they're not taking it by force, i never suggested anything of the sort.

What I did say is that they are organising a mass migration of people with a fringe political ideology to a small state in an effort to skew its political views towards theirs. Their website literally says this, although without mentioning how fringe their movement is. The people of New Hampshire will now have a harder time voting down these fringe ideas because a bunch of fringers from out of state have moved in skewing the voting demographics.

This movement literally exists because only a fringe segment of the American public will subscribe to libertarianism so because they can't win by persuading others to their ideology they're trying to gather in mass at one spot and hoist it on everyone else who lives there.

Comment Re:What a bunch of jerks (Score 1) 459

An intentional demographic shift with the explicit objective of changing the political landscape towards a fringe ideology is not the same as natural drifts in population. Furthermore, I don't think that New Hamshire has ever been some sort of Libertarian promise land that has only recently been sullied by the impure like you seem to be trying to make it out to be.

Comment Re:What a bunch of jerks (Score 1) 459

You're correct of course! Libertarians will be freeing the good people of New Hamshire from their delusions that government should do things. Sure their state government is literally what they have made it there but if it's not libertarian then they are clearly deluded! Since the enlightened few libertarians cant convert anywhere near enough true believers where they live to make a difference (which clearly is not the fault of the ideology!) they must gather in mass in one spot there in New Hampshire to force their agenda down their throats for their own good

Comment Re:What a bunch of jerks (Score 1) 459

From their website

The Free State Project is solely an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

In other words, "We're moving here in mass to change the political landscape to what we think it should be". If most people in New Hampshire were already Libertarians then the state would already be Libertarian and wouldnt need this enlightened "transformation".

Comment What a bunch of jerks (Score 2) 459

Thank God I don't live in New Hampshire. I'd be pissed if a bunch of out of state yahoos whose political views are in an extreme minority in this country all moved to my state in an attempt to change the political spectrum to what they think is right for everyone.

Well guess what libertarians. Your political views are in the minority for a reason, most people want government to do more then the minimalist government you want. That's literally why this project exists to begin with!

Comment Re:You must be new here (Score 1) 1833

I agree with you in ideal but in practice I don't think it would be a good idea. Adding more negative mods would only encourage their abuse. I'm quite certain that a "Clearly And Definitely Flat Wrong And Probably Libel " mod would encourage people to downgrade based on ideology in regards to debates where that applies.

By the way, your account signature cracked me up.

Comment Re:You must be new here (Score 1) 1833

You initial point has merit as "factually wrong" would give modders an option to mod someone down after correct information has been posted. "Disagree with values" seems super vague and is basically just a disagree option which is to say, pointless without a backing argument provided by a post. I'm very weary though of adding any extra negative mods beyond flame and troll though as they risk stifling conversation. For instance, if a post explaining why another was factually wrong isnt made then the "factually wrong" mod is pointless as it's just a baseless claim without a justification.

In regards to your second point, any form of institutionalizing a negative score for disagree stifles debate. It only encourages any post that is a bit controversial to be down modded to oblivion. While a minority use Flamebait and Troll to do so, providing a legitimate downgrade option for disagreeing would only increase the frequency and thus result in less debate. Likewise, as stated before, a disagree with a zero score is pointless and disagreeing without explaining why is as such.

Comment Re:You must be new here (Score 1) 1833

You know i hear people complain of this rampant abuse but i rarely see it. Here I am with three posts disagreeing with me and I'm at +5 and the post I disagreed with is doing just fine as well. There's been a time or two where i suspect a post i've made has been down modded inappropriately but as far as I've seen it is hardly the epidemic I see a few people make it out to be. We would however, see an uptick in people modding people down because they disagree if you provided a legitmate option. We would be left with only the blandest, least controversial posts at a score of above 1.

As for a zero point disagree mod, please explain the point of doing a zero point "disagree"? If one disagrees with some one, what's the point of stating it without explaining why?Disagreeing with no justification is pointless.

Comment Re:You must be new here (Score 5, Insightful) 1833

I couldn't disagree more. A "disagree" mod that didn't affect a posts score would be pointless. What's the point of disagreeing if you can't post a contrary argument or idea?

As for if the "disagree" mod has a -1 value, down voting is in essence silencing a person as I imagine a lot of users don't browse at the 0 score level. A person shouldn't be silenced because you disagree with them. Meanwhile most would agree that relegating those who post Obama erotica or the like to a 0 score is fine as they're not contributing to the conversation in a positive way. Sure, some people miss use the tools Slashdot provides to drown out Trolls and Flamers as a means of stifling legitimate ideas or arguments but that doesnt mean we have to legitimize the process by giving it an actual mod title.

I doubt the modding system will ever be perfect but providing a "disagree" mod would only serve to stifle discussion and debate if it was scored and would be just pointless if it wasn't.

Slashdot Top Deals

If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.

Working...