Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:virtue signaling (Score 1) 477

While I admit that I don't like the SJW type (and I'm inclined to believe you are one),

You missed the point, there is no such thing as a SJW, it's just a way for you to show a tribal affiliation.

Your pathetic attempt to reinterpret my text, and in the process put in a few cheap shots on my person, suggests you are feeling threatened, which in turn indicates I came entirely too close to the truth for comfort.

Projection. You're not worth insulting. That was also the point: you're not saying anything, you're just raising the noise floor. I am also compelled to point out that in no sense were your words "reinterpreted", and I said nothing to suggest that your words should not be interpreted in their literal meaning. It would be convenient for you if that were true, and it would save you an awkward self-realization.

you're a wanker.

Deflect, dehumanize. How tedious

Comment virtue signaling (Score 4, Insightful) 477

That position is exactly as valid as saying that the opposition to "Social Justice" is merely a bunch of amoral recalcitrants.

But really you're just using "Social Justice" to mean "people I don't like". Because to the degree that that has anything to do with this subject, basically the strongest argument that can be brought to bear would be that the "slave" women have internalized the Patriarchy to the point of self-degradation. But if you're wont to hold that opinion, there are quite a few things higher on the list than private sex games.

What you're doing is virtue signaling. It's not very intelligent and rather boring.

Comment Re:Saudi Arabia (Score 1) 301

Your education on this subject is insufficient for discussion. You have no idea of the context of these topics in either current or historical Muslim philosophy. You're an adult and should not need to be spoon fed information. The book I mentioned will be a good introduction to the relevant phases of expansion and the beliefs on jihad at those times and in the present. And I can promise your opinion of Islam will be preserved.

The insults you deserve. What you are doing is more or less exactly what is meant by jihad. We as a nation do not need to engage in religious conflicts, domestic or abroad. The analysis of the threat from radical Islam needs to be driven by intelligence, in the military sense. Islam is a deeply divided religion, and understanding those divisions is very important in controlling the region. The suggestion that anyone is making a politically correct argument here is ludicrous.

Get off it. You know that you know next to nothing about Islam, and what you're objecting to is that you don't think I have any right to call you on that. You can't articulate what the Muslim idea of jihad is in either a historical or modern context, and you can't give any reasons why medieval interpretations of Islamic expansionism have any relevance to modern politics. You have never talked to any Muslim on this subject or read anything written by a Muslim on this subject, or you would know that violent interpretations of jihad are very much not the dominant view. Quote-mining Muhammad, whose every word has had centuries of religious and legal interpretation, is facile. You don't know Mughals from Ottomans from Umayyads. Go educate yourself.

Comment Re:Saudi Arabia (Score 1) 301

Telling you to get your head out of your ass and learn something is not an insult. You deserve abuse. You're spreading a message of fear and hate, and as it happens you have an extremely loose understanding of who you're attempting to target. These are all bad things, but your argument isn't completely baseless. You just don't know which parts might be valid and which might not, because you don't understand your enemy. You prefer to dehumanize and demonize them, because it's an effective way to make other people fearful. You want people to sign up for a religious war, and to that end you don't particularly care if your knowledge of the other religion is accurate. And you don't care about the consequences of this mistaken belief because you're a general misanthrope.

That this is a common behavior pattern has a lot to do with why these brown people you don't like keep trying to kill us. Your post could be a recruiting message for ISIL -- "See? The Americans are going to treat you like a terrorist whether or not you are one, so you may as well take up arms." And among other things this is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to have happen: that the US would be so consumed by fear as to oppress our own citizens, and export our own brand of indiscriminate terror. You need to figure out how to be more dangerous than useful to your enemies.

Comment Re:Saudi Arabia (Score 1) 301

You don't know as much as you think you do, and you're spreading a message of fear which is unnecessary and uninformed. Get your head out of your ass and learn your enemy's teachings -- it's the only path to victory. You need to understand jihad as it is understood by Muslims, or you'll fight the wrong threats. Mostly you're a terrified moronic misanthrope, but to the degree to which you're not you need to actually understand what you're talking about.

Comment Saudi Arabia (Score 2) 301

Everything quoted is true with one exception.

But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

Jihad is something that Islam can't really live down, but most people of any stripe are not interested in engaging in holy war. The problem is Wahhabism, which was originated by the House of Saud. It is still actively promoted by them and they want it to be the default sect of Islam. Wahhabism teaches that jihad is a duty of all Muslims in the same sense that praying five times a day and making a pilgrimage to Mecca is a duty. That would be the reason why 15/19 of the September 11th attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Al Queda is Wahhabist, and so is the Islamic State.

I hear Trump went to Saudi Arabia to kiss ass a couple weeks ago. Isn't interesting that at this height of anti-Islamic sentiment, our leaders are embracing the Saudis? Funny how this idea of Wahhabism has had zero press since 9/11 too.

By the way, if you want a real introduction to Islamic history, pick up a book called 'Destiny Disrupted'. I am the mushy liberal who welcomes all -law abiding- muslims, but I recommend the book in the sense of 'know your enemy'. It's not a book to change anyone's opinions. It may give you some perspective on exactly how far the Islamic world has fallen. It will refine your priorities of what sects to keep an eye on.

Honestly, Islam is a hell of a lot more problematic for its practitioners than to anyone else. The religion is fucked, and more or less incompatible with either the modern concept of the nation-state and generally prohibitive of democracy. But western civilizations beat the Islamic world so badly in the 18th and 19th centuries that we don't even bother to teach that part of history. The entire history of the Islamic world does not even merit a footnote in most western histories. And if you'll take a look at (e.g.) the civil war going on in Afghanistan, it will hopefully become clear that these people are mostly dangerous to themselves (especially in the sense that sharia law does not apply to non-Muslims). However, to the degree that there is a threat, let's do be specific about which country is exporting terrorism and terrorist ideas.

Comment Re:Believing crazy things (Score 1) 269

if you can't explain what's causing it

Bzzzt. It's very well explained.

predict the future by modelling the data

Predicting the future is hard, especially when you have to take into account human reactions to what you're doing. Modeling the entire planet plus whether or not humans take action sounds hard enough to me that I'm willing to cut people a bit of slack. That the warming will happen is driven by fundamental properties of atmospheric gases, and this has been obvious since Tyndall in 1856.

Personally I have little doubt that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels into the atmosphere every year is contributing hugely to global warming, if global warming is indeed real, but I keep an open mind. Personally I don't give a fuck what the current scientific consensus for anything is. Most new scientific discoveries go against the current scientific consensus. Fuck scientific consensus up it's closed minded ass.

Dipshit. Go learn the science then come back and tell us what's wrong with it. We've been trying to falsify this theory for over 100 years. It was considered completely invalidated throughout the entire first half of the 20th Century. The consensus did change. Read about it.

Open minded my ass.

Comment Jihad (Score 1) 56

And for the record, the distinguishing characteristic of Wahhabism is that it teaches that jihad is a duty of all Muslims in the same sense that a pilgrimage to Mecca is. Speaking of Mecca, the Wahhabists destroyed the tombs of Mohammed's followers when they took over that place. They're not big on iconography. You remember those al Queda guys right? And when they bombed those giant stone buddhas? Same sort of thing. Well, more or less the exact same thing.

The idea of Islam was nice and Mohammad was apparently a pretty good guy. But if your doctrine calls for holy war as a duty then you are an inherent threat to everyone around you. That the United States has been so enthusiastic about embracing the people who teach our enemies to kill us is completely fucked.

Comment Who indeed? (Score 1) 269

Plastics and packaging don't contribute the the problem of atmospheric carbon significantly. The issue is that we burn hydrocarbons.

The amount of shitposting here is getting out of hand, and this "junk science" phrase being repeated so often is more suggestive of a botnet. If there is a mind behind this though, it's one that posted anonymously specifically to insulate themselves from a contrary viewpoint. Denying basic reality is its own issue, but I'm not sure what's worse, that someone has an interest in making it seem like there's a wave of moronic activity, or that there actually is.

The theory of global warming is at least as well established as plate tectonics or relativity, and predates both.

Comment Hard Science (Score 1) 269

It's cute how you think you have any idea what would make global warming falsifiable. It's cute because you have no idea what the evidence is or how the theory was developed. Global warming is not based on statistics, nor models. Also, when it was proposed initially in 1896 it was immediately discredited, and you can find meteorology textbooks from the 1950s that not only deny that climate changes but explicitly deny anything but the most minor role to carbon dioxide. This is a theory that had to fight for acceptance. Sufficiently good evidence was acquired in the middle of the 20th Century to change that consensus, almost in parallel with Wegener's theory of continental drift. If you don't know why, go look it the fuck up.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is difficult to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys.