Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:In a word, YES! (Score 1) 469

Again, my point is not about a particular power dynamic, but instead about a cultural dynamic: that people who expect a thing of others often get that thing, and in America, an expectation of danger and distrust leads to those very things.

You propose that muggers exist because we imagine them to be? I think you've reversed cause and effect--we imagine there are muggers because there are.

I'm less interested in the "cultural dynamic" you perceive than how you dealt with the "power dynamic" you so unfortunately encountered: Why didn't you defend yourself? And why scorn others who do? This complete debasement of the individual is incomprehensible to my American mind, and what drew me to your post originally. It seems to dominate other societies, so I would sincerely like to understand what system of values produces it.

It makes sense that a society should not allow harm to come to innocents

I specifically said, "violence," and not "harm," sir. As awful as our healthcare system can be, I was speaking specifically of mugging, and why you find self-defense more reprehensible.

Comment Re:In a word, YES! (Score 1) 469

. Life is important. Quality of life is more important. Liberty is important. Responsibility is more important. Property is important. Enfranchisement is more important.

This is nonsense. Where do you have "quality of life" without Life? What "responsibilities" do you imagine a man without Liberty or Property to have? These aren't Millennium Development Goals--these are fundamental human rights, of which none are more important or fundamental.

Less abstractly, why do you find it noble to allow yourself and others to be victimized? Although I'm sincerely glad you're safe, a society that tolerates violence against innocents is no society at all.

Comment Re:In a word, YES! (Score 2) 469

I can't speak to the rest of your points, but I found your first one incomprehensible:

Simply a belief that enough other people are "bad" that you must protect yourself and it would be okay to kill someone else to do that.

Were you to be attacked on the street one day, would you not protect yourself? Do you think poorly of those who have? Do you not believe in a right to life, let alone liberty and property? Or do you just not believe in "bad" people?

Comment Re:Is RTFA possible? (Score 2) 469

The article's not much better than the summary. Key points:

  1. Taxi regs prevent rape--in no way are they meant to stifle competition and guarantee monopolist profits for medallion owners. Why does Uber hate women?
  2. "Disruption" was invented by Ayn Rand, and is an excuse for, ahem, "every spoiled trust fund brat looking for an excuse to embrace his or her inner asshole."
  3. Uber doesn't have your best interests at heart--they wouldn't drive you anywhere if you didn't pay them! Presumably, the existing cabbies are the pinnacle of altruism.
  4. Author concludes using Uber, despite their documented objectivist leanings and hatred of women and civil society.

8/10 troll. Outrageous while maintaining credibility; full-bodied with notes of cassis and oak.

Comment Re:I'm fine... (Score 1) 334

You do realize that under a functional democratic government, the will of the state is approximately the same as the will of a majority of its people, right?

That's better known as "mob rule," and is exactly why no first-world country is a democracy. You should question your "majority rules, might makes right" thesis, if only because what majorities of your countrymen can be found to believe.

Posting from what I'm sure you consider a "sham republic."

Comment Re:Free market! (Score -1, Flamebait) 419

AHAHAHA you mean back when the telco charged you 4x as much for a "data" line as they did for your daughter's second phone line?

AHAHAHA, no, you faggot. He meant back when "there was a choice of like twenty different ISPs in the area, including some that were 'free' and ad-supported." As in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted.

Comment Re:official takedown notice? (Score 1) 71

That's what this is about. If the "right holder" really isn't, you can now challenge them, forcing them to file a regular DMCA notice under penalty of perjury.

Challenging the DMCA notice forces them to actually go to court, although Google, admittedly, isn't then obligated to restore the content or clear your account of any "strikes."

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what you want. -- D. Cohen

Working...