Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:I think civility is going to go out the window (Score 2) 1560

3) The right to abortion. First off, this is a legal right, which Republicans have been trying to whittle away in a very sneaky manner for decades. For a party that is supposedly all about "law and order", and a party who considers itself pious, religious and morally upright (I know, I know), this is hardly honourable. At least attempts to outright repeal Roe v. Wade via Constitutional amendment are honest and forthright.

You guys complain when we try to whittle away gun rights; you really can't complain if you do the same thing with abortion.

But I digress.

Let's say you're a "good person" who is "pro-life". You believe human life is sacred. So you believe abortion should be illegal.

Sounds great, right?

Except if you try to actually apply science to this, it all falls apart. First off, a human fetus is no more sentient to pain than, say, a baby monkey, and certainly less aware of pain than the adult cows and pigs you kill to eat your food. If you claim abortion should not be allowed because it causes pain to a fetus, you should be a vegetarian, if not a vegan. But you probably aren't.

And then there's that whole pesky "self-determination" thing. Again. What you're saying is "I believe that OTHER PEOPLE should not have the right to make their own choices about their own lives" (or, rather, their own fetuses' lives.) See, us liberals aren't stupid. We know that a fetus is alive. We just recognise that it's a living FETUS, not a living PERSON. We have the basic understanding of scientific principles to recognise that a fetus is not a baby, and we believe that, up until a point (or if the life of the mother is in danger, at ANY point) the person bearing a fetus should have the right to choose whether or not to continue to bear said fetus.

It isn't murder, because a fetus isn't a baby. It's a fetus. We recognise this, because we aren't blinded by religious dogma. But you... well... ARE.

And as a result, you attempt to force every woman who gets pregnant-- with or even without her consent-- to carry any resulting child[ren] to term, regardless of her OWN WISHES for her OWN BODY. Some of you even go so far as to say there should be no exception for the life of the mother, which is basically saying "I'd rather a sapient woman die for the slight chance of a nonsapient fetus surviving". And yet, most of the conservative people I've talked to are pro-death-penalty (and it's been proven that plenty of innocent people get executed), so... again. Good people? No, not really. You really aren't.

Let's look at the OTHER end of life, shall we? Most "pro-life" people are against assisted suicide. You claim that you are against abortion because it causes pain and suffering to the (again, non-sapient, not-yet-a-baby) fetus, yet you are completely okay with, say, cancer patients being forced against their will to suffer in endless pain rather than being allowed to kill themselves.

Because you're... good... people? No... no, you really aren't, and yes, us liberals are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to see your hypocrisy as hateful.

Let's go on.

4) Universal healthcare! Oh, but this is a good one. I know the "conservative" argument backwards and forwards. "You're entitled to buy your own healthcare; you're not entitled to force me to pay for anyone else's healthcare." Which is just a fancy way of saying "if you can't afford healthcare, then I am okay with you dying." You brush this under the rug by saying things like "if you can't afford healthcare, you should appeal to charities" or "if you can't afford healthcare, you can get a loan", but this is, again, contrary to reality. THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD HEALTHCARE, AND UNLESS HEALTHCARE IS UNIVERSAL, SOME PEOPLE -WILL- FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS.

But you can't be arsed to care, because "muh money!" You'd literally rather let some people suffer, die, or go without healthcare than be forced to... have a bit higher of a tax bill.

So... not quite "seething wraith" material, but you're definitely a hateful asshole, yes.

I could go on and on, but my point is, basically, that nowadays the definition of "conservative" in the US is basically "the party of selfishness." You regularly ignore the findings of science in favour of religious dogma; you preach selfishness as a virtue (thanks a bundle, Ayn Rand); you are all for self-determination when it's YOUR self-determination and those of people who believe JUST LIKE YOU. But for the rest of us... well. You really don't care.

Comment Re:I think civility is going to go out the window (Score 2) 1560

Hi. You said: "I would love to have polite, civil discussions, but the left is going to need to stop shouting down, deplatforming, and physically attacking everyone who disagrees with them, and understand that it's possible to disagree with leftist politics without being a seething wraith of pure hatred wrapped in human skin. I don't see this happening any time soon though."

Let's look at the bulk of the left's platform from recent years, and let's see how possible it is to be a "good person" who opposes it.

1) Equal marriage rights for gay couples. If you're against this, then you believe that certain civil contracts should not be allowed to people who love the "wrong" gender[s] of person. Literally the best (and most common) defence of "straight only marriage" is "it's necessary for reproduction." Except the overwhelming majority of anti-gay-marriage people believe that celibate, sterile, or post-menopausal straight couples should be allowed to marry, so that puts the lie to that. Leaving... only bigotry. "Pure hatred"? Maybe not, but definitely bigotry. (To say nothing of how primitive the "marriage is about reproduction and only reproduction" notion is, but that's more of an opinion, so hey.)

2) The right of transgender people (like myself) to use the restroom they feel comfortable with, and not the restroom OTHER PEOPLE would feel more comfortable with them urinating/defecating in. If you disagree with this, then you disagree with a small and often-maligned minority's right to self-determination. The only valid reason to do this is to claim that it puts cis ("non-trans") people at risk-- so this is precisely what "conservatives" (bigots) do.

Except that's bullshit. Trans people use the restrooms of our choice every day, every week, every year, and we don't make a habit of victimising cis people in the restroom. IF WE DID, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SPLASHED ACROSS EVERY HEADLINE IN THE NATION.

At this point in the "debate", the "conservative" will usually say "well, if we let 'legitimate' trans women into ladies' rooms, then plain old ordinary men will go too, just to harass women!" Except harassment, voyeuristic acts, rape, etc. are ALREADY illegal, and-- to use the "conservative's" favourite argument about gun laws, "criminals aren't known for following laws", so if men wanted to do illegal things, they'd ALREADY BE DOING IT.

Leaving, again... you guessed it! Bigotry. Maybe you're not "a seething wraith", but you're not exactly bastion of respect for other peoples' self-determination.

Shall I go on? Oh, but I will.

Comment Re:No they aren't denying it (Score 1) 680

Additionally, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that climate change deniers skew more religious than climate change acceptors.

What's more, I vaguely recall reading some actual religious arguments against anthropogenic climate change. Something vaguely like:

[1] "The climate is not changing significantly enough to harm humanity, because God would not let that happen"


[2] "Only God is powerful enough to change the climate".

And then there's the US's ridiculous Rapture cult, who would WELCOME an Extinction Level Event because they're convinced they'd be Raptured. Don't even get me started on THAT crowd.

Comment ARCTIC vs ANTARCTIC (Score 3, Informative) 319

As even a cursory Wikipedia reading will note, ARCTIC ice is DECREASING in extent at a faster rate than ANTARCTIC is INCREASING.

In other words, Antarctic ice is growing X units per year, but Arctic ice is SHRINKING more than X units per year.

The net result is that the Earth's ice cover is shrinking.

See also:

Those who believe anthropogenic climate change is a myth thrive on the confusion caused by nuance like this. But the Earth's climate is not a simple system. It has nuance. Ice may be shrinking overall, and yet still growing in some places.

Comment Re:Transgender Persons (Score 1) 412

Trans woman (that means "body born 'male', brain 'female') speaking up here.

I hate being trans. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I would sooner wish a slow, painful death upon someone than wish that they share in this agony.

But I'd sooner jump off a building than take some hypothetical treatment that would make me want to be male.

Comment It's not a 'free market v government' thing. (Score 2) 246

I'm as far from a 'free market religionist' as one can get. I'm a ridiculously left-wing hippie-dippie liberal. To me, this isn't about some sort of mad faith in Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. It's simply a reaction to the fact that our government would rather allocate huge sums of money to things OTHER THAN manned space exploration.

For instance, the military. And the contractors that support the military.

NASA's budget has, quite simply, been far too small to support an envelope-pushing manned space flight program for quite some time. Witness how the Shuttle (1970s tech!) was used into the 2010s. NASA's manned spaceflight program stalled some time in the 80s and never really recovered. (It may have been the Challenger tragedy that made funding NASA significantly harder; I don't know. I'm not a politician, nor an economist.)

Quite simply, the government ISN'T doing it. And it probably won't, for the forseeable future. Who does that leave, with the kind of money to go to space? Corporations.

It's simple logic. Has nothing to do with 'the corporations are better than the government' or any sort of rhetoric at all. It's just "[X] isn't doing it, so [Y] is gonna try, because it's something some people want."

Comment Re:The party of anti-regulation (Score 1) 176

They only take stances against regulations that impact the ability of the very rich to get richer. For example, they're against evil evil anti-pollution restrictions, because those cost rich companies MONEY. However, the ever-extending copyright terms MAKE rich companies money-- so it stands to reason that they'd be all FOR those "restrictions".

Comment Re:of course (Score 1) 176


No, the GOP is NOT "more closely aligned with the ethos that could back copyright reform than the Democratic party." While the Dems may be more heavily entrenched in big media circles, the Repubs are most DEFINITELY in favour of "helping the 1% get one-percentier". Ever-extending copyright terms definitely benefit the 1%. As long as it's making the rich richer, it's in the GOP's interest, even if it's primarily being pushed by people from the Dems' camp.

Comment Re:The GOP is very divided. (Score 1) 176

It's also worth noting that, as instituted by the government, 'marriage' is HARDLY a religious sacrament. You go down to City Hall and fill out a form. It's a legal contract.

(Also, there are plenty of religions ready, willing and able to marry gay couples, so, yeah, your "ERHMAGERD GUMMINT IS REDEFINING RELIGIOUS TERMS!1" argument just don't fly. Which religion is the benchmark? Yours? I see, then. So you want the government to enforce the terms of YOUR religion for a secular institution. Yes, marriage is now a secular thing. You don't need to enter a place of worship to get married. Get with reality.)

Comment Re:Do Not Want! (Score 1) 254

I'm sorry, but-- having been a long-time VICTIM of trolling-- I must point out that most trolling is unambiguously INTENDED to harass and to cause emotional distress-- "for the lulz". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read some of the shit kids post on 4chan and recognise it IMMEDIATELY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY as deliberate bullying, plain and simply-- harassment, which (yes) SHOULD be illegal.

Comment Re:nonsense (Score 1) 729

See, I could agree with the idea of letting the kids and/or parents choose when their vacation is. I highly disagree, however, with the idea of reducing or eliminating vacation days given to kids. Some (many? most? all?) kids NEED those vacation days.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programs don't eat cache.