I speak the language just fine. Backpedal less, please.
I speak the language just fine. Backpedal less, please.
Well, neither Reddit nor Twitter have banned opinions like the one you gave, so I guess there is nothing to worry about.
But we aren't talking about Reddit, we're talking about the new "safe space" the fired CEO from Reddit is hoping to create, so that's a straw man.
As for safe spaces though, yeah, incredibly someone who is transgender might want to discuss transgender issues they are facing with a sympathetic group on occasion, in which case such an opinion wouldn't be welcome.
Then let's be clear we aren't talking about "trolls", just people with "offensive" opinions.
I have no obligation to invite you into my home to state your opinion.
Why yes, I do believe in free association and rules for private property. But it's funny how that argument flies out the window when it comes to bathroom rules, baking cakes, or having "men only" clubs.
Is there really no way to differentiate genuine trolling from people who simply disagree?
Troll: Some off-topic "f1rst p0st" gross-out story.
Opinion: Catering to trannies is a bad idea.
Oh, but we can't have "incorrect" opinions like that in our safe space!
Didn't they (they being Mozilla, but I don't think other browsers are any better) learn that users hate popups yet?
Mozilla has demonstrated over the past several years it knows what's best for users. Their desires or "needs" are irrelevant.
You're just as murderous and authoritarian as the tyrants you condemn.
Are you people so selfish that you would deny basic support for all if our society could afford it?
Humans are lazy. I believe in workfare.
That's a lot of talking for somebody who "mathematically virtually-guarantee[d]" an outcome. Don't tell me to plug in the numbers, tell me what numbers you plugged in. My guess is you didn't plug any in, and were just talking out your ass.
You know, communism was actually attempted in countries across the globe, and failed spectacularly. Ayn Rand lived through that revolution in Russia. Anybody that steals the product of your efforts to distribute it to others is a looter.
Anybody defending communism these days is good for a laugh.
So you aren't willing to demonstrate the actual mathematics behind your "mathematically virtually-guarantee" claim. But we should take your word for it as a self-claimed mathematician.
Honestly, guys, I would love to witness such a thing. I firmly believe in the Drake equation. I virtually guarantee you there's "something" out there. I also mathematically virtually-guarantee you (I'm a mathematician, certainty is a big word) that we'll never be in the same time/space/evolution that we'd ever be able to communicate usefully.
Where's your mathematical analysis, then, that resolves the Fermi paradox?
Do you now see what I'm dealing with here?
Yes, somebody who sees through your "ignorant jackass" approach to arguing.
I'm quite confident after this exchange that it's the latter.
Point blank simple question, answer it: Did riots happen as a result of the false accusation in the Michael Brown shooting?
For one my business loses money because the church's political influence won't allow us to trade on certain days of the year.
Oh, you poor soul. Maybe you can find a "progressive" reason for that? After all, lots of religious dogma is based on societal good.
See how that works? Now your turn...
I'm not playing your stupid game. I don't have to be personally affected by an event to be concerned by it, just like you have no personal reason to be commenting on this Slashdot sorry. See how that works?
you pointed out some headlines
And now we're back again to the question which you tried to dodge: "So are you saying all the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud are just the collective imagination of "the news"??"
but we are yet to hear how any of things have created an actual real problem for you
Why do I have to personally experience the problem to be concerned by it? What have the religious people personally done to you that prompted your inquiry? Point on the doll where the priest touched you.
Because headlines! is not a reasoned argument.
Neither is acting like an ignorant jackass.
You didn't explain anything. You said, "So the system works. What was your problem again?" I pointed out the real-world problems generated by the "progressive" idiots, and you mumbled something about not personally believing headlines. Umm, ok?
This is what makes talking to dishonest ideologues so painful. They crank up the smog machine and make non-nonsensical replies, and fill in the blanks with insults.
"Fox News" is a subset of "the news" you retard.
No shit, but there's a difference between accusing somebody of a single-source bias and generically bashing all "news", retard.
Well you're wrong again. What do you owe me?
A gold sticker for being such a special boy? You did reference an article which can be categorized as news, though it's also a poll, which would qualify as research. So enjoy your gold star, special boy.
The difference is dummy, I didn't just read the headline and believe it in face value
Neither did I, or I'd just be another "progressive" idiot, dummy. But we've established you follow the news. So are you saying all the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud are just the collective imagination of "the news"??
I'd mirror your most X person on Slashdot I've ever argued with comment, but your kind of intellectual dishonesty is not unusual.
No, if you could read, it's the same defense.
No, first it was "the news" (widespread dismissal), then it was "Fox News" (accusation of single-source blindness), then it was back to "the news" after I pointed out yet again that I pull from a variety of sources.
No if you could read, i asked that you give us all something more substantial than "the news".
We've been over this. It's just a lazy way for you to dismiss anything that threatens your preconceived notions. And what the news chooses to report and the narrative they try to frame is a major part of the "progressive" politicking going on that has me worried.
By the way, I noticed you left out the part about, "which is quite a hypocritical position to take given that you're commenting on a sensational news story on Slashdot, 'How San Francisco Hazed a Tech Bro'." You follow the news just like anybody else, and I'm willing to bet you've used them as sources in arguments before.
Oh I'm familiar with them, I just wanted to understand which specific detail concerns you.
Oh, really? Then if you're familiar with them (I wonder how, since, you know, "the news"), you should also be familiar with the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud that went along with the false accusations hyped up by "progressives".
I'm not across this organisation, but there must be millions of similar activist groups all across America, all with varying degrees of extreme views. Do you let all of them affect your opinion?
Do you let all crazy religious groups affect your opinion? Why are you worried about religion when you want to move? The fact is the media and politicians are pandering to "progressive" nutters, with real-world consequences.
Science and religion are in full accord but science and faith are in complete discord.