Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:So What (Score 1) 312

I can only go with you as far as "safe from harm or unjust prosecution". Anything else (and the discussion was genetic passports for websites) seems unrealistic, to put it mildly.

> First, the birth of our country is built on a rejection of this social pecking order.

Not our. Yours perhaps. Mine was built on religious intolerance and xenophobia.

> Further, we as a nation have reaffirmed this basic principle of equality through ...

And reverted that also. The history of the USA is not one of a continuous progression to equality. When the constitution was written, slavery was common. The constitution and declaration of independence were not enough to reject that; an extra amendment was needed. So it's not as if equality as perceived today was present in spirit since 1787.

You mentioned overcoming natural order. You don't do that by claiming safe space. You do that by changing the nature of people, i.e. educating them. Claiming rights that are not grounded in common belief doesn't work: it's ordinary politics, and it can even backfire. SJW has let itself in with the post-modern sociology crowd, mixed up all terminology, and got itself in a state of permanent rage. That part of it antagonizes and makes it ridiculous. Be careful with that.

Comment Re:So What (Score 1) 312

You can't defend unlimited free speech. That would include someone shouting atrocities through a megaphone outside your bedroom window. I don't think you'd like that. Then you automatically get into reciprocity, responsibility, limits to freedom, what is worth of being protected, etc.

Comment Re:So What (Score -1) 312

> Are you going to tell them that they can't have freedom of speech?

First, I am not an advocate of 100% free speech. It's difficult to define, but hate speech can be forbidden, as far as I'm concerned, as well as other calls to harm others.

Second: they don't need a safe haven to have free speech, do they? They can stand in the middle of the town square and shout whatever they want under free speech. On the contrary, they only need some kind of barrier if they don't want their "speech" to be public or don't want to hear what others have to say.

Anyway, it would be a bad example, because only a minority of people with "white" DNA (what they are supposedly screening) is racist; the rest could enter and argue with them anyway.

Comment Re:So What (Score 4, Insightful) 312

> 3: Take your sexist, racist agenda and go the fuck away.

Well, indeed. What's the difference between "a safe space for women" and "a safe space for white supremacists"? And who in their right mind can think it's a good idea to have a DNA profile online? Even if set to private, it's begging to get hacked.

Comment Re:And as usual, Slashdot commenters miss the poin (Score 2) 280

> The point is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that the brains of females are any less capable of developing mathematical proficiency and talent

If you want to be literal: no, for that precise point there might be no hard evidence, but there is enough evidence that females don't actually develop it, and that's what counts. I might have all the talent to become the world's #1 short distance runner, but I am not.

It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. -- Woody Allen