There are two primary genders that correlate to biological male and female reproductive functions. They correlate but due to variation and differences in individual development these two genders are not always congruent with male and female genitalia. The one that is female we call a woman, the one that is male we call a man. In rare cases there are females with male gender identity and presentation. And also there are males with female gender identity and presentation. The social construct of how we treat these two different roles as humans is the respective gender's expected roles. A woman is the defined and expected role of a person who identifies as a woman within society. Regardless of the roles, genitals or biological role of a human in reproduction we should strive to judge everyone fairly.

Why is this marked Insightful? So if a person is wearing a dress should we reduce their STEM grades by -20%? Shouldn't we want equal reward for equal work? Isn't it natural to give credit based on the merit of a person rather than their genitals or whether or not they're wearing a dress? Furthermore, do you really think trans people are doing that because it's a choice? The conditions and suffering transgender people go through must surely exceed any rational choice. It is rarely a case where gender transition is the easy and obvious path for a person with gender dysphoria. Gender is not something that someone can simply choose and this is why transgender people suffer so much and go through so much pain to conform their bodies and world to their gender identity.

To change the direction of even a single industry would be a great achievement for any individual. But to change the direction of multiple industries? Thatâ(TM)s so rare as to defy belief. If this was written into a book you would think it was fiction. And of course he didnâ(TM)t personally invent the EV or space travel or internet commerce. That criticism is so misguided. The history of Tesla is well-known; Musk invested in an existing EV company and then ousted the founders. But what this criticism misses is that Musk saw the potential to change the world whereas the founders only saw an expensive toy for the rich. And not only did Musk have a vision to change the world he also managed to convince 1000s of engineers, designers, mechanics, to get behind his vision and implement it. Elon also sold the idea to the public and arguably thatâ(TM)s an even more impressive achievement. That is the rare quality that Elon Musk has which makes him so influential; the ability to lead. Itâ(TM)s so rare a quality that I can think of only a handful of people like him; Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs. These people also strode into existing industries, kicked over the tables, declared the status quo to be bunk and showed them the future. Watching the reaction of the car industry go from denial to acceptance has been so goddamn sweet. Especially on slashdot where most of the denizens are programmers or engineers, its easy to forget that your work means nothing if nobody uses it. The ability to see a vision for the future, bring several disciplines together to achieve that vision, give them direction and funding, and keep pushing until the vision is realised, too many people underestimate how difficult that is, how insanely rare that is, and how important it is to recognise and celebrate the few individuals who are capable of doing it.

At least as much if not more has been said about that by government officials

But I am not a government official and you accused me of holding that position, when in the very post you were replying to I had clearly stated the exact opposite position. As I said before, you are dishonest and you argue in bad faith.

I don't think there has been coercion of that sort.

Well thats because you are deaf dumb and blind. In this thread I have posted links to actual documented on record cases of government coercion. But you "dont think" and that is obvious in everything you have written

Not even a little bit.

Yes, very much so. Fascist governments start by taking over the newspapers and censoring any opinions that arent aligned with the government. I think the best example from recent history is from Serbia. If you dont know the details now is a good time to learn.

No one is talking about the government banning speech,

As I pointed out above, the government is coercing these tech-giants to de-platform and censor on the governments behalf. Recall that Zuckerberg was firmly on the side of zero censorship. Then the senate hauled his ass into congress, reminded him that section 230 could be revoked at a moments notice, and suddenly Zuckerberg is singing a different tune. And thats just one example. You would have to be deaf dumb and blind to not see the obvious coercion.

although your side of this stupid and dangerous dispute is certainly urging that the government compel speech,

I have already stated my opinion on Facebook censoring people. They can. They simply shouldnt. Nothing was said about the government compelling them to allow speech. The exact opposite in fact; the government is coercing them to censor. You are dishonest and arguing in bad faith.

Coward.

Idiot.

That guy who keeps trying to evade slashdots spam filters so he can spam every thread with ascii art swastikas is definitely having his opinion censored.

But if he posted his swastikas to a swastika appreciation thread on a swastika friendly forum, thats not spam so surely that would be ok under your rules. Apparently not because those sites keep getting censored too. Their web-hosting, their dns, their payment processors, all revoked, censored for having the wrong ideas. And although we can all agree that swastika posters are assholes, and their ideas are not just wrong but also repulsive, the problem is the censorship doesnt end there. People are being censored and deplatformed today for having the wrong opinions about far less extreme topics.

I assume I have a standing invitation to voice my opinion in your bedroom with a bullhorn at two in the morning then?

Somebody sharing the wrong opinion in a forum I dont read with people I dont know, is nothing at all like you in my bedroom with a bullhorn. The former is somebody being wrong - what they say. The latter is harassment - how they say it. The former is on-topic discussion in a public forum. The latter is unwanted intrusion into a private space. The former is legally protected speech that the government cant censor (so they get their tech-giants to de-platform it instead). The latter is illegal and the government can most definitely arrest you for harassment and breaking entering into my private bedroom.

In every meaningful sense - the method, the outcome, the legality, the consent - your analogy falls flat. They are nothing alike. They arent even on the same planet. That you even wrote your comment and thought it was a winning argument proves my earlier point.

If their speech is harmful, then any rational person would, at the absolute minimum seek to avoid enabling them in the slightest.

The same reasoning was used to ban religious speech in soviet Russia. And currently used by the Chinese to censor the Uyghur Muslims. In fact its the exact same reasoning used by every fascist in human history. "Those people have dangerous ideas so we are silencing them for the Public Good." And the citizens dutifully cheer and wave their little flags and agree that Bad people are Bad and their Bad ideas should be silenced, but quietly they pray they won't be next.

Removing spam is not even in the same ballpark as de-platforming people, banning their accounts, and censoring their words, all for nothing more than having the wrong opinion. It's disingenuous to even make the comparison. A person's opinion is not spam, no matter how wrong they are, no matter how stupid they are, they still should have the right to voice their opinion without being censored.

And how ridiculous that this weapon, formerly a favourite of the religious-right used primarily against the liberal-left, is now being wielded with glee by the liberal-left themselves. With the same apologists and the same justifications from 30 years ago. "We are just stopping the spread of dangerous ideas, the average person is foolish and needs our guidance, we know best what they need to hear." I have heard this all before.

Facebook is just trying to stop people abusing their service,

No, the article I linked to specifically refutes that talking point.

Removing crap in any language should not be seen as virtuous, with the exception of illegal crap. It is not the place of Facebook to decide The Truth because history shows again and again when you give that power to a small group of individuals they will abuse that power.

Serbian people especially should know of the danger of corporate mouthpieces for the government. It devolves from good-intentions into one-sided propaganda alarmingly quickly with devastating results. That is a shameful part of their history that should serve as a warning. Russia, China, more of the same, this is not a standard for the media to be encouraged.

"But They Are A Private Company They Can Do What They Want". They can. They simply shouldn't. "They Are Allowed Their Opinions But They Are Not Entitled To A Platform". Agreed. However the platform is being allowed or denied based on what is being said, not how it is being said, and there is mounting evidence the government is coercing the private companies to de-platform their political rivals.

I am not making any statement about what is True or Not-True. My opinion lies firmly in the "dumbass people say dumbass shit". Anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, 9/11 truthers, they are all stupid, and yes, their words can have measurable harm on society. But it is far better to let them speak and be stupid than to cede control of our public discourse to a bunch of billionaires in Silicon Valley who are very clearly acting on behalf of specific political parties.

Private companies are brazenly being coerced by the government to act on the governments behalf. The legality of the situation is not as simple as you seem to think it is. For example

https://greenwald.substack.com...

We have a name for when corporations act on behalf of the government to infringe the rights of citizens. This is not something the progressive left should be supporting. But it seems nobody learns from history.

Normally taking a knee is seen as highly respectful.

It is historically seen as an act of submission to a superior force. Indirectly this is used in worship to religious icons. Kneeling exists in all major religions and their related organisations, e.g. kneeling before the King who receives divine right to rule by God.

This is not the same as respect. Kneeling may be because of fear, because of failure, or to acknowledge power, but not to show respect. You respect the guy who works 2 jobs to feed his family but you don't kneel to him. Religious people don't kneel out of respect for God, but to worship God.

Kneeling in modern usage is plain weird. Who are they worshipping? Who are the submitting to? Who is the superior they are acknowledging? Or is it a sarcastic way of calling attention to historical submission aka slavery?

Perhaps kneeling is changing its meaning just like handshakes used to show good-will but now are apparently sexist. But when two groups have wildly different understandings of the symbolism behind kneeling there is going to be confusion and anger.

Regardless of the good intention it's weird and divisive symbolism. We saw this in F1 where many European drivers refuse to kneel because in their culture you only kneel to God. This caused massive friction with F1's resident activist who wanted everybody to kneel.

A raised fist is a far better symbol of rejecting oppressive power. Kneeling was a bad choice of symbol and is now cemented in culture mostly because Trump spoke out against it. If he had not opened his fat stupid mouth it most likely would have fizzled out by now.

A lot of the hatred is being fuelled by news media which profits from controversy. Fake news is not restricted to the right-wing although there was a time not that long ago I would have though it was exclusively a Fox News problem. Now I recognise the vast majority of news media is constantly lying about nearly every major event. Reading articles by independent journalists like Green Greenwald has opened my eyes and I'm sick to my stomach realising how bad it has become. Partly this is due to profit motive but my cynical opinion is that news media is now mostly a propaganda arm for political hacks.

The solution is to take away the shield that corrupt journalists hide behind. Make them accountable for telling lies. Put the purveyors of falsified incendiary news in prison where they belong. This includes punishing inflammatory speech that incites mobs. That applies to *all* mobs including ones trying to overturn the process of law and conduct trials by public opinion (or more accurately trials by public manipulation).

I didn't accuse him of being racist. I said his post was so low information content it came across as racist or nonsense.

Your comment comes across as asshole-ish. Note that I'm not accusing you of being a asshole. Just saying that your post is so far up its own rectum that it comes across as asshole-ish nonsense

To those who didn't read the article, it talked about the effects of standard-test-less admissions, enacted because COVID-19 shutdowns made it hard or impossible for some students to take tests.

Equally likely the universities are seeing a drop in income due to COVID and are relaxing their requirements to increase revenue. Universities don't care if the low-income families fail and drop-out next year, permanently mired in debt, so long as the profit margins are kept high this year.

Whenever you see a policy that is reputedly for good reasons, it's often a cover story for the more disreputable reason of making money. A common example is greenwashing by corporations trying to extract more money from well-meaning but poorly-informed consumers.