Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:That does not sound awesome (Score 2) 160

This sort of effort is likely to turn an otherwise hard worker with a great work ethic who just happens to think for themselves instead of being an obedient sheep into someone who plays along on the outside, but harbors a seething hatred on the inside and therefore constantly sabotaged and undermines your system at every turn they can.

Comment Re:That does not sound awesome (Score 2) 160

On the other hand, this is already done and has been for decades. It is called requiring a college degree. That's why it often doesn't matter what your degree is in or if it is related to the job -- just having the degree proves that you can sit down and shut up and do what you're told and buy into the institution for four or five years straight.

Comment Re:That does not sound awesome (Score 1) 160

I read about how this is how adoptive parents used to (or maybe still do?) get their adopted children to depend upon and bond with their new parents. After adoption, they put the children through intense emotional drama and sort of force a "rebirth". Fortunately, it is now considered to be child abuse. Same theory applies, I think, though.

Companies show no loyalty to employees anymore, yet employees often feel this strange sense of obligated loyalty to their employers (I'm not averse to this, myself, either). So this makes this whole thing even sicker.

I suppose it's not too different from the military, where they break you down during the first couple of months and then rebuild you into an unquestioning, obeying, fighting machine.

The only difference being, of course, that you sign away a lot of your freedom when you join the military and you're going to be fighting against life and death. You're not looking to stick tab A in slot B for eight hours a day in a guy's business to feed your family

Comment Re:Not so fast (Score 1) 289

I guess maybe I can almost see the point he is trying to make. Maybe.

Ultimately, free speech should be free. HOrrible things should be allowed to be created for the sake of exercising that free speech. NObody has to love it or like it or even pay it any attention. As a society, we generally seem to draw the line at the point where the creation of the content itself involves harming people and that feeds a demand to see that harm.

In other words, snuff films (actual snuff films) and child porn are fucking hideous because they feed a demand to see death and child molestation by actually killing or molesting people.

However, those shitty SAW films are acceptable, because as hideous and stupid as they are, they don't involve any actual harm to any actual people.

I would place crime evidence under this same categorization. Those sites that archive photos of murders and terrible accidents using what I believe are mostly crime scene stuff (and therefore, probably publicly available stuff on file at courthouses or wherever) are showing actual harm and actual murder and actual crime, but they do not exist as part of some supply/demand that the snuff film/child porn production stuff does. Maybe that is starting to draw a fine line, but if it is on file to the public, then . . . so be it.

This is also where a lot of people who support unrestricted free speech but abhor child molestation become conflicted. One is bent toward the spirit of free speech and free society. As long as something does not directly impact an unwilling human being, then its their business. Even if it's repulsive or "against their morals" (think gay porn or something, I guess?). But what about depictions of these things? Are books that involve underage sexuality something that should be illegal, because of the subject of the material even though it is all fictional and doesn't involve any actual people? How about anime and drawings? How about the SAW films (which I would see as the violence/murder/snuff equivalent to real violence/murder/snuff equivalent to the book Lolita being compared or judged under the actual crime of child molestation).

It really puts the idea that you can say whatever you want and I will defend your right to do so even if I find it abhorrent. Is the line where it discusses or presents something hideous, but not real? Is just the concept alone something we decide is forbidden? Or do we decide that writing about serial killers is not the same thing as actual serial killers being serial killers?

Even worse is when we start to apply the whole "obscenity is a community standard" bullshit that the church and politicians pushed through in America decades ago and has resulted in idiotic bullshit like the FCC and the planet losing its shit over a nipple-slip.

Comment Re:This all sounds familiar (Score 1) 289

I'm sorry, but crime evidence is hardly the same thing as "snuff".

Snuff films are as abhorrent as child porn for exactly the same reason. Crime evidence (video, photos, etc), while very disturbing and not something most people would want to view, are different. Crime evidence of horrible crimes are gross, depressing, and horrifying -- but they are not created to meet the demand of a hungry audience consuming it. Snuff and child porn are directly created to satisfy a consumer demand (one feeds the other, presumably).

Comment Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score 1) 289

So free speech ends at the point where other people feel bad?

I'm sure there are a lot of movies and news stories that make the victim's family relive horrible memories and emotions, too. Should those be censored or banned?

Once again, it is important to remember that in a free society the cost of that freedom is potentially being disgusted, repulsed, or otherwise put-off. This whole site thing seems fucking hideous and grotesque and I don't know what is wrong with people who want to see that sort of thing -- but "it'll make people feel bad" is hardly justification for forbidding it.

Now, I could see some sort of privacy assertion being reasonable. That is a different beast.

And, again, it's a pretty dangerous thing to start going around asserting that free speech can only be applied to things which are political in nature. (Yes, I'm writing this from the aspect of the US and the Constitution; not Canada).

Frankly, your whole viewpoint is pretty disgusting and . . . frankly your concept of free speech has nothing to do with free speech.

Comment Re:Mob rule (Score 2) 289

Yeah, the whole "morality" thing is bullshit. It seems repulsive and horrible and it grosses me out that people would want to see this kind of shit (I'm sure we all stumbled across things like it in the earlier days of the net) . . . but unless it is violating some sort of privacy or something . . . . I just see it as the cost of a free society. (Yes, I know this is in Canada). In a free society, things are said, presented, and done that can be highly offensive to you and that is a good thing.

Comment Re:Things like this... (Score 2) 289

Yes it is. Read the Constitution. "Congress shall make no laws..."

It doesn't say "unless what you say hurts someone's feelings, is super gross, is obscene, isn't accepted by your local community, or is inciting hatred/violence/fear/etc".

It's a pretty dangerous thing to be going around trying to convince people that the freedom of speech has "limitations". Only in its application -- not in its spirit (or writing).

This is how we end up with idiots promoting the idea that "well, free speech is really only intended for journalists - fuck the rest of you".

Comment Re:Then maybe it's time for some new laws... (Score 4, Informative) 259

It doesn't matter. They are right. They do not need a warrant to track you. You know how we can confirm this? They have been tracking everyone. Gathering data on everyone. Violating the privacy and rights of everyone. Constitution and laws and ethics be damned. It doesn't matter. If our existing laws don't apply to them, then new laws won't, either. Make every law you want and their statement will still be correct... they will still not need a warrant to track you.

Sort of the same way fenced-in "free speech zones" are fucking abhorrent and against the law . . . and yet deployed and enforced, anyway.

I think any rational person sees how wrong all of this . . . but also how hopeless it is. The only option is to give up and accept it. That is exactly what they want, what they are counting on, and what will ultimately happen.

Comment Re:Individual members of Congress may grandstand.. (Score 3) 259

We're the ones who keep voting in people who

I don't know about you, but I didn't vote for the FISA court, or for the jackoffs on the Supreme Court, or for the head of the NSA or for any of the thousands of congressional staffers who are actually doing the legislating. Nor did I vote for the lobbyists who write the bills, or for ALEC or for the biggest PACs.

You could blame "the American People" if the elected officials were actually doing any governing. Unfortunately, we have outsourced everything to a bunch of people whose names we do not know and who are not accountable to anyone. That's why it sometimes seems so strange, how the legislative process often suddenly takes such unexpected turns, with last-minute changes and secrecy and obfuscation. I don't know too much about what it was like before the 1950's, but I know for sure that at least since 1980, the people we think of as our elected officials are not the ones running the government.

Comment Re:Reward the artist (Score 1) 301

A music producer doesn't have complete control over the pricing and distribution of their product.

Sure they do. They have ALL the control. If they want, they can print up some CDs and sell them out of the back of a van, or at live shows. They can sell them off a website the way the Residents do.

Nobody is forced to put music on Spotify or sign with a record label, or major booking agency. The reason those entities have gotten too powerful is because too many artists see them as a way to not have to learn a little something about business.

Slashdot Top Deals

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr