Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The new Hitlers (Score 1) 562

by stdarg (#46722135) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

Assuming you meant "not serving" or whatever.. yeah why not? How big of an impact do you think it would have?

I don't think anybody would deny that anti-discrimination laws are an affront to personal freedom. The issue is balancing personal freedom against societal good. If we got rid of the laws and suddenly everybody stopped serving blacks, that would be bad for society. There was a time when many businesses would refuse to serve blacks. But today, if more like 4% (hypothetically) of businesses stop serving blacks, then who cares? That's nothing.

It's a lot like anti-terrorism laws. If they are actually stopping terrorist attacks often, then most people are okay with the government invading privacy and stuff like that. If terrorism dies down significantly, then suddenly people will say "Hey wait a minute, why are you reading all of our email, it's not accomplishing anything anymore?"

Comment: Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score 1) 562

by stdarg (#46722121) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

Yes, anti-feminism is a mainstream movement, e.g.

Anti-semitism in Europe is not mainstream but it is growing. Note that I said resurgence, not "it is mainstream." It's largely to do with Europe's growing Muslim population.

As for segregation not making a comeback in the US, you must be joking. Well, I live in the South so perhaps there is more media coverage here than wherever you are. Every other story about education is tied to segregation. School vouchers = segregation. Charter schools = segregation. Neighborhood schools = segregation. Test score stats based on race = evidence of segregation.

Legalized slavery would be the prison work system. You know, the prison system, which is disproportionately black and Latino? Google "prison slavery" if you've never heard this argument.

If you honestly don't think I have a point I have to wonder why you bothered responding. Are you trying to feel superior or something? It's a really silly thing to say during a discussion.

Comment: Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score 1) 562

by stdarg (#46722095) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

Which is fine - as long as you realise those with the controversial views (who are free to act upon those views) are allowed to be challenged/boycotted for holding those views.

The problem is that your position is unfair because it treats people differently. "Bigots" are okay to discriminate against, even including forcing them to resign. But do you support the other party's right to discriminate against gays? To make anybody who publicly reveals their pro-gay feelings resign? Somehow I doubt it.

He wasn't just calling gay people inferior, he was trying to deny them the same rights straight people have.

People vote to take things away and deny things to people all the time. How many poor people vote to raise taxes on the rich?

Or do you think Rosa Parks should have given up her seat, in order to respect the bus company's freedom of expression?

No, not freedom of expression, but yes in principle I think discrimination is a person's choice and they have the right to do so. Now if it's a city bus, then no, I don't think the government has that right. The government should be fair and there should be equality before the law, but that should not extend to every individual. If I can discriminate in marriage (that's still ok right??), why can't I discriminate in who I hire or fire, i.e. picking the person I'm going to potentially spend as much time with as my wife?

Frankly, the large-scale problems with racism and discrimination are from a different time. I've never seen or experienced them and I don't think we need the same set of laws now for today's population as we did 60 years ago. Now, anti-discrimination laws are more harmful to freedom on principle than any help they provide.

Comment: Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score 1) 562

by stdarg (#46672011) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

You're rationalizing and it sounds really silly. Of course it's a similar situation, and the difference you point out is irrelevant. The whole thing is an example of how people (pretty much everyone) are willing to be tolerant to people they like and intolerant to people they don't like. Kind of like how gay rights activists like to point out that anti-gay Christians seem awfully willing to overlook sins like not "keeping the Sabbath day holy" but getting really angry about gays, which isn't even in the 10 commandments.

I mean... honestly.. do you believe what you're saying?

Comment: Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score 1) 562

by stdarg (#46671989) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

His private views about whether gays should be allowed freedom of association aren't so much a problem as the very real judgement and respect issues reflected in his actions.

If you actually believe in people's rights to have private views that are not acceptable to some, then you have to accept that they will take action based on those views. That's the whole point of having views and protecting people's non-mainstream opinions right?

I mean your rationale would be like saying "Yeah I totally support gay people having gay beliefs as long as they never act gay." Do you REALLY support people's right to be privately gay if they are never allowed to act gay??

Comment: Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score 1) 562

by stdarg (#46671949) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

It must be terrible being bigots on the wrong side of history.

The pendulum always keeps swinging.. it may be unimaginable to you, but social trends can change in a generation and what you think is bigoted today may be back in the mainstream tomorrow.

As examples, look at the counter-feminism movement here, the resurgence of anti-semitism in Europe, the increasing religious radicalization in Africa (both Muslim and Christian). Even stuff unrelated to bigotry... look at Russia annexing Crimea. Who would have thought they'd do that in this day and age with the exact same rationale as Hitler? It's pretty wild.

I think right here in America we're going to have de-facto segregated schools again within a generation. The people who insisted on forced busing and quotas will be the ones looking like bigots.

Comment: Re:And yet they supported Obama (Score 2) 562

by stdarg (#46671881) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

that someone can take various socially questionable if not outright bigoted positions, and that no business superior, investor or the like should have any right to mitigate the harm you may cause.

Isn't that what gay activists wanted for a long time? The right to not be fired just because your employers found out you held beliefs and practices they disapproved of, especially if it wasn't affecting your job?

Comment: Re:The new Hitlers (Score 2) 562

by stdarg (#46671619) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

You can refuse to do business with a class of people who are not "protected" under discrimination law. But you cannot refuse to do business with people who ARE protected. Wasn't there just a lawsuit recently about a wedding cake designer who LOST a court case about refusing to make a cake for a gay couple?

You call it "economic pressure" when a group you support is wielding the boycott.. but it's illegal discrimination when a group you don't like is wielding the boycott.

That's not a free market at all.

Comment: Re:Helpful links for intelligence community devs (Score 1) 275

by stdarg (#46632253) Attached to: TSA Missed Boston Bomber Because His Name Was Misspelled In a Database

They have pretty damned good reasons to be upset. Even I have sympathy for them.

The problem with that logic is everybody has pretty damned good reasons to be upset. If you have sympathy for Muslim terrorists then surely you sympathize with people who commit hate crimes against Muslims. After all, think of their world-view, wherein for their whole lives they've seen acts of terrorism against their countries in the name of the Muslim religion.

What exactly do you think a 15-25 year old from Afghanistan has for a world view.

The 15-25 year old Muslims living in 3rd world countries like you're talking about don't have the means or motivation to attack the West. Many of these 3rd world terrorists are bought and paid for as young children and brainwashed to be used as weapons. If you want to read something heart wrenching, look into the stories of the Mumbai attackers from a few years ago. These guys, who genuinely deserve pity (though they still need to be put down.. they are thoroughly broken and cannot be fixed), are not well liked by Muslims unless they carry out their attacks on non-Muslim targets (e.g. India, Kashmir, Southern Nigeria, etc). There is very little support among Muslims for terrorists attacking other Muslims. They are not at all the same as the terrorists in the polls I mentioned, which were about Muslim terrorists attacking the West. I guess you have not heard about these polls.

The Western Muslim terrorists are pretty much the opposite of what you appear to think. They are often university students or graduates. They often have engineering degrees. They often come from wealth and well-connected families.

Do you honestly have sympathy/empathy for, say, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the Underwear Bomber), who was the son of the "former Chairman of First Bank of Nigeria and former Nigerian Federal Commissioner for Economic Development" described as "one of the richest men in Africa" ? What is it about his situation that evokes sympathy in you?

Or more to the point of the article, look at the Tsarnaev brothers. They came here as refugees and were welcomed, given a new life. The younger brother was a student in a US university. He was a citizen. The older brother married an American girl who converted to Islam on his behalf.

I mean... you must be insane to think these guys were somehow forced into terrorism by the unfairness of the world. They were given opportunities on a silver platter. Even their own uncle called them losers and said they brought shame to their family and community. But YOU have sympathy for them? Why?

Comment: Re:What society really needs to do (Score 2) 518

by stdarg (#46630987) Attached to: Department of Transportation Makes Rear View Cameras Mandatory

Okay so you claim whites have "far more opportunity" to own cars. And yet, according to this study in Scotland: "The Scottish Government (2012) reports that Indian, Pakistani and Chinese households are the ethnic groups most likely to have access to a car."

But according to the stats in OP's link, white applicants in Scottish cities have far higher pass rates than Chinese and Asian/Asian British (mostly Pakistani and Indian) applicants.

So... basically you are making stuff up, you think it sounds good, you do no research to confirm your guess, and you state it authoritatively. And then your "out" is to accuse others of being hellbent on backing up their racism, which is merely a ploy to excuse your own incompetence. Yeah, if the other guy is an evil racist, then of course you're not going to waste your time doing research and vetting your hypotheses... who would waste their time on a racist...

Of course, you're wrong about pretty much everything you said, so there's that...

Comment: Re:More mandated bugging devices (Score 1) 518

by stdarg (#46630407) Attached to: Department of Transportation Makes Rear View Cameras Mandatory

But that is NOT what this is. People back up over OTHER PEOPLE. So, at least in principle, this seems like a legitimate area for government regulation.

Since almost everything we do involves other people, there are very few protective regulations that would be illegitimate by that principle. But a nanny-state isn't just when regulations transgress into illegitimate areas, it's when they're "overprotective" (which is subjective).

A regulation affecting 15 million people per year to save 13 people per year is overprotective to me. Though I wonder where that number came from... is it 13 people in the first year (and accelerating as more cars are sold), or 13 people per year assuming all cars have been replaced? The latter seems like a real low-ball estimate considering there are 210 deaths per year currently.

Comment: Re:I don't know about you guys... (Score 1) 29

Nope. But I know how to read, do you?

Besides Assad's allegations, some of Erdoan's followers have also called him a caliph. In 2013, Atlgan Bayar, an advisor to the pro-government news station A Haber, wrote that he recognized Erdoan as the caliph of the Muslim world and expressed his allegiance to him. In one of her recent tweets, Beyhan Demirci, a writer and follower of Erdoan, also wrote that Erdoan is the caliph and the shadow of God on Earth. Some of his followers have gone even further and said things like, “Since Erdoan is the caliph, he has the right to use money earned through corruption for his political goals.”

Comment: Re:Helpful links for intelligence community devs (Score 1) 275

by stdarg (#46608343) Attached to: TSA Missed Boston Bomber Because His Name Was Misspelled In a Database

If you are the security guard at a Pfizer animal testing facility, you probably wouldn't look twice at the 2 Muslim guys who recently got hired, but the hippy-looking chick with the angry boyfriend? Yeah you're following them on the security cameras.

Profiling. It makes sense. It actually makes more sense the more specific the target you're looking for. Your error is lumping all terrorists in as one group, which is silly. The terrorists who attack tax buildings are completely different from the terrorists who want complete independence for Puerto Rico and still different from the terrorists who want to impose sharia law everywhere... etc.

Each of those groups is easy to profile. Lumping them all together serves no purpose except to cloud the issue. Are you doing that on purpose?

"Just Say No." - Nancy Reagan "No." - Ronald Reagan