Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:well... (Score 1) 397

I didn't want you to cite a source for a text-to-speech converter. I want you to cite any decent source which claims "Before the early 20th century, rape was a constant. The majority of women experienced it at least once in their lives, many as adolescents. That is the consequences of a chaste society, a hell hole where people are hurt and no one talks about it."

Those are some pretty outlandish claims. (Most pre-20th century women raped? Eh?) A citation would be in order.

Comment Re:why are stereotypes so bad? (Score 2) 397

No. Just no. Stating that there exist outliers in a distribution does not mean a given statistical technique is invalid. Or that the mean of the distribution can't be meaningfully distinguished from another. Or.. ANYTHING AT ALL!!! It's a simple assumption when dealing with random variables.

And yeah, I agree stereotyping can have a bad impact on the target population. I even agree that impact may be worst for outliers! But that in no way invalidates the technique as a useful time-saving measure.

Comment Re:thought police (Score 1) 397

I disagree; my stereotype of Klansmen must be different from yours. As a first-order approximation, he sounds like an English conservative I know (NOT US conservative necessarily)

If significant chunks of the political debate in Europe sounds like klansmen speaking to you, perhaps you should adjust your stereotypes.

Comment Re:thought police (Score 1) 397

'Wrong' is inevitably a normative judgement; it depends on morals, ethics, etc.

Steroetypes though, are something we all share. They're a heuristic. A mental shortcut built into all our brains. If it's inherently wrong, then our brains are built wrong. One can certainly argue that some stereotypes are inaccurate, unhelpful, or even harmful to the stereotypee; in that case, perhaps it is 'wrong' to encourage such error.

Comment Re:thought police (Score 1) 397

This is exactly the Orwellian part; government is making normative judgement about thoughts, and attempting to impose that view on part of people's public life. (Specifically the published part.)

Declaring what is and is not 'right' for people to believe, and then attempting to enforce it, is so far outside the proper role of government in a liberal society that it's appalling. It's as bad, from a principled standpoint, as attempting to ban works critical of the government. Trying to regulate the expression of ideas is inevitably an attempt to regulate the ideas themselves, which is Orwellian, tyrannical, evil, and quite a few other unpleasant adjectives.

Comment Re:The very definition of "Liberal Fascism" (Score 3, Insightful) 397

the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society.

Fairly negligible. Sexist advertising is the symptom of sexist culture. Advertisers are very good at adapting to cultural expectations. Whether sexist culture is good or bad is a normative judgement, and hence likely to be contentious.

And the 'cure' in this case is almost certainly worse than the disease. Social engineering of this sort can only be justified through a paternalistic view of government; that it's the majority of us trying to keep us individually on the 'right' path. Which is dictatorship. Benevolent and majoritarian dictatorship, but dictatorship nevertheless. [1] And hence should be anathema to the true liberal; much worse than individuals making choices we personally disagree with.

[1] Blatantly plagarizing from Milton Freedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Slashdot Top Deals

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."

Working...