Should we conclude that it won't work just because you're in a snit?
Should we conclude that it won't work just because you're in a snit?
So please don't make up lies trying to paint us as vapid thralls for the Democratic Party.
The problem is that many liberals really are vapid thralls for the Democratic Party. The reality is that there's two sides to the party and its voters: the progressive side, and the establishment side. Hillary and her legion of supporters are in the latter, Bernie and his enthusiastic supporters were in the former. The former is arguably larger (and certainly more vocal), but the latter is where all the big money is, which is the real problem with the Democratic Party: the party insiders chase the big corporate donations and Wall Street for campaign funding, and so the progressives get alienated and the lower-class people don't feel the Dems represent them.
On the Republican side, the politicians chase corporate money, spew a bunch of trickle-down economics BS, and throw in some stupid Christian crap (abortion is bad, gays are evil, Jesus love rich people and AR15s, etc.) and their voters eat it up and happily vote for them.
Are you unable to read? He never said anything about "serious golfers", he said "most golfers", which obviously means casual players.
Serious enthusiasts in any amateur activity always buy higher-end equipment. They even have a name for it: "prosumer". They're not the majority of customers.
From the comments at your link, I don't see any consensus that the idea doesn't work.
As an undergraduate, I had Set Theory class taught by Paul Halmos (yes, *that* Halmos).
On the first day, during his introductions, he suddenly veered into grammar. He addressed the ignorant statement as put forth in the quoted text above that "To recap: In English, there is no gender-neutral pronoun for a single person."
First noting that some languages have a pronoun for persons of unknown gender, he finished with "English is such a language. The word is 'he.' So you will forgive me if I do not say 'he or she' throughout this course."
He was (and remains) correct. "He" and "him" do not imply gender in English unless context indicates otherwise.
It wouldn't cost much to model this in a simulator, and let a couple dozen pilots try it out. We'd find out pretty quick how easy or hard it really is. It would be an interesting semester project for some students at Embry-Riddle.
So working on low-level embedded programming and designing electronics as a hobby isn't enough to be "geek" enough for you, because I don't play stupid FPS video games?
Wow, this site has really turned into a pile of shit.
No, it wasn't. He was kicked out because his sexual proclivities include the domination of women, specifically. To quote Buytaert word-for-word:
Then he's a fucking moron, and he's going to be in for a shock when he gets condemned by the wider social justice community. Acting out Gorean fantasies doesn't mean you believe, in real life, in the subjugation of women any more than acting out Star Wars fantasies means you believe in The Force.
You are correct that traditionally it'd be conservatives making a stink about someones sexual proclivities. That has changed, and is no longer true
Conservatives still seem to be where the majority of attacks on sexual activities, especially non-"normal" sexual activities, comes from.
Do liberals do it? You'll find one or two, just as you'll find any large community has its outliers. But in reality, it's telling that the major schism that lead to the end of Second Wave Feminism and the birth of Third Wave was sex, and the degree to which Second Wave leaned towards prescribing right and wrong sexual behaviors, something unsustainable given human needs. Third Wave is known as "Sex positive", and it was the result of a sizable amount of debate involving everyone from sex workers to the BDSM community that drove Third Wave in that direction.
To put it another way: it's always been the case that the two groups have had people within them that want to control other people's sex lives. Liberals have traditionally done that less than Conservatives. And Liberals are less prescriptive than they were, not more.
Except if you are into BDSM involving fantasies of sexual slavery of women
That's right. Women and men acting out fantasies which are entirely consensual and, by definition, involve no real transfer of power, in private, are entirely fine, because nobody is subjugating anyone else.
Or you're a muslim
I've yet to hear a single so-called SJW argue that Muslims are right to subjugate women.
What almost everyone on the left believes is that simply being a Muslim doesn't mean you're deserving of hatred, that you should be dehumanized, that you should be blamed for terrorism, that you should be attacked, or that you should be forced to live in countries governed by extremists.
Kinda like we'd defend conservatives too if we were told they all inherently support terrorism, or that they shouldn't be allowed in this country if they're trying to escape a fascist regime.
Bondage, Discipline & Domination, Submission & Sadism, Masochism. (The "&"s are where the same letter is shared, not any linking of the two concepts.)
It's a generic name for all that stuff where something resembling power is exchanged in the context of a sexual relationship, in much the same way as LGBT(*) is a generic term for sexual relationships where gender/sex norms are unusual.
Within the BDSM communities, you'll find they usually use the letters "SSC", which stands for Safe, Sane, & Consensual - essentially do what you want with one another, but make sure everyone consents and that lines of communication remain open so if consent is withdrawn it can be communicated, practice safety at all times (it's relatively easy to accidentally injure or even kill someone if you restrain them, for example), and, well, snuff scenes are probably not sane.
Contrary to the grandparent's assertion, there's no opposition to BDSM from the majority of people interested in social justice - in fact, attempting to suppress someone else's sexuality is generally frowned upon by social justice types.
Dries and Acquia can't afford to have anything that could set off the SJWs near them
So they're screwed then. Because pretty much everyone who gets called an SJW is going to be up in arms about this.
The term SJW proves, yet again, to be meaningless. You'll find precious few people who believe in social justice - which once upon a time were the "SJ" in "SJW" - agreeing with the notion that other people's private, consent based, sex lives are justification for discrimination.
If the article is a fair description of what happened (and that's a big if) then this is an example of puritanical conservatism run amok. Discriminating against people for what they do in private, behind closed doors, involving consenting adults only, should have no place within the development community.
Oops. Slashdot's website broke badly. Submissions weren't showing up for minutes. And now I got three identical posts because the duplicate post detection also wasn't working. *sigh*. Sorry for the noise.
I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.