That sounds like a crap Hollywood movie.
Then it's pure weasel words, meant to maintain an illusion.
> You can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, AND you may face various charges for doing so. But no law prohibits you from doing so.
That's rather contradictory.
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.
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.
Why do you implicitly accuse men? If you believe that, you need your head looked after.
White supremacists fortunately aren't a majority. Women, on the other hand, are. Isolation on basis of DNA does not seem proper to me.
You are one of the things that is wrong in this world: your thoughtless, fundamentalist attitude is the cause of a lot of misery.
Says the anti-semite: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
> 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.
I am most definitely not racist nor sexist.
> Youhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/15/07/22/0146236/genetic-access-control-code-uses-23andme-dna-data-for-internet-racism# need to be purged from our society of tolerance and peace.
And what the fuck does that mean?
> 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.
> 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.
> Comments like these are usually from people with zero real life experience.
Well, I've had my experience with Perl, and it did not please me. I'm not even referring to the antics of parameter passing or obscure syntax use. No, Perl couldn't even get a simple while ( && ) right. Being able to combine conditions is not an idiotic requirement, it is Compositionality 101. It is the basis of logic, and it permeates natural language. That's what Wall's background as a linguist amounts to. He just wants to create some vaguely interesting language, not a solid one from an engineering point of view.
> Perl has CPAN, the likes of which don't exist in Python.
Some people would argue otherwise. But if the size of the library matters, you should program in Java.
Interesting. If you liked the OP, this is a must-read.