Easily the most unintentionally hilariously ironic comment I've seen on Slashdot in years.

I recommend listening to Tim Sweeney when he was on the Lex Fridman podcast (or read the transcript):

https://lexfridman.com/tim-swe...

He explains why he wasn't able to offer games at lower prices to compete with Steam, and why exclusive offers were the only path that could set his store apart. I admit, it isn't perfect, but there are some sound reasons why it can be hard to break into this space.

> The Mueller report found collusion.

"Collusion" is not a crime specified under Title 18 USC. Please be more specific. What criminal act (title and section) are you referring to?

> Found obstruction.

Obstruction is a "process crime," see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Process crimes take place during an investigation and are a result thereof. Without the investigation, they would not exist.

Claiming moral victory over someone because of a process crime is intellectually disingenuous. I understand that we all have political enemies, but if you want to take the high road, you have to take it all the way, not just when it's convenient.

Did you even read it? It clearly says "It shall be unlawful for an entity to...[provide] internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application..."

And in Section 2(g)(5), an internet hosting service is defined as "a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or on- line services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting."

So it seems like that means you are banned from using a VPN to access this. By all means, reply and let us know if you disagree.

I’m not sure you are clear on the antecedent for the pronoun "that" in my sentence. "That" represents the NPR article "Vehicle Attacks Rise As Extremists Target Protesters," which by itself and with no supporting context still does not justify your more clearly stated thesis of "hate speech [does not] deserve tolerance." While clarified, I still do not see any support for this thesis anywhere in your posts.

No, an article that advocates for the private suppression of intolerance - and then goes on to very carefully state that mere speech itself should not be suppressed - does not support your thesis of "hate speech does not deserve tolerance." Unless you are equating "hate speech" with "hate crimes" (such as violently attacking those with whom you disagree or are members of a race or ethnicity that you do not like), then I fail to see a justification for inhibiting speech with which you either dislike or classify as "hate speech."

Please clarify. I am not sure what my ilk entails. People who reject the suppression of speech?

Having said that, I am in agreement with the author of the Medium article (and possibly you as well) insofar as the legal right of private citizens, companies, or groups to silence or otherwise censor those with whom they disagree with or designate as unwanted from communicating on their privately-owned platforms. There is no requirement for Twitter to allow the president (or anyone else) from using their platform in violation of rules they set forth. I would offer that Slashdot provides one of the best mechanisms for allowing for speech, while moderating less popular comments to dark crevices of "-1" land. I find this method better than banning users outright.

However, I must admit that you seem to be implying that the truth is assumed by the premise of your thesis, since you offer no actual support for your argument. You close with the assertion that First Amendment arguments do not apply (which I never mentioned and happen to agree with under the circumstance of my previous paragraph), but still make no convincing argument that it is just or good to suppress the speech of others.

I understand that you owe me no answers and have no obligation to provide me with any further justification of your position. But I find it highly offensive that you are apparently so willing to corrupt the notion of free speech - writ large - in order to satisfy your desire to silence those you disagree with. Speech deserves tolerance, or it is not free. When speech turns to actions, that is where the need for tolerance ends.

That still does not support your argument. Your argument appears to have initially been that hate speech should not be tolerated. However, you have not supported this argument. You initially provided an article that advocates for the suppression of intolerance, then you provided an example of people causing physical violence and harm to others.

Neither of these support your implied thesis that hate speech should not be tolerated. If your argument is that extreme intolerance should be rejected, then say so. If you wish to demonstrate a position that rejects hate speech, you have not justified that.

The article you linked to does not support your argument. In the article, the author quotes Karl Popper:

Instead, Popper was arguing that you should not go so far as to tolerate the extreme intolerance of others when it spills beyond just rhetoric and becomes a physical, or kinetic issue.

Okay, let’s pull that thread and see how far down the rabbit hole it takes us.

You claim that hate crimes "are intended to cause fear in certain groups." Okay, I could potentially see how that could be true. Instilling fear is not the primary motivation for a hate crime, which is defined as "A crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds," but I can see where you’re coming from on that.

Then what is terrorism? Well, terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Hmm, something doesn’t sound right. Yes, there is the word "violence" in both definitions, but now terrorism must have a political component. Okay, what is political?

Well, political means "Relating to the government or public affairs of a country" or "Relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics." Well, that was somewhat helpful, but now we need to go further down the rabbit hole.

Politics are "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power" or "The activities of governments concerning the political relations between states." Huh. That doesn’t sound a lot like hate crimes to me.

So let me make sure that I understand your argument. People are afraid during hate crimes. People are afraid during acts of terrorism. Therefore, hate crimes and terrorism are the same thing. Sorry, that is not logical.

What you’ve instead illustrated is the new modern penchant for redefining words, ideas, and concepts to fit into a new ideological narrative. To be sure, this is something O’Brien would be proud of, as changing definitions is a great way to keep people you don’t like on their toes. But to sum up, no, hate crimes are not terrorism and should not be equated as such. Words have meaning, they have accepted definitions. Changing those definitions to meet an ideological goal (as the article author has done) is intellectually disingenuous.

There's so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin.

First off, the article you cite does not claim that "Rightwing Christian terror groups" are responsbile for the statistics you mentioned. I will admit, there was someone mentioned in article with the last name Christian, so perhaps that led to your confusion.

Second, the author of the article that you cite has written a paper in which *he* decided that "hate crimes" and "terrorism" were basically the same thing (at least for the purpose of twisting numbers to make his point). Then, this author, Arie Perliger, further decided that even in cases where you couldn't show that the crime was terrorism or hate crime related, he'd make it so anyway. He says, and I quote:

So basically, any chance this guy gets, he's going to paint the picture that

a) As many crimes as possible are hate crimes
b) Hate crimes = Terrorism
c) Because of a) and b), there is more non-Islamic terrorism in the U.S. than AQ/ISIS-style

Oh, and just for fun, he decided that fundamentalist Islam was *NOT* right-wing. You know, because otherwise his argument wouldn't work.

I haven't commented in several years. I rarely do, because I mostly lurk. I read Slashdot for years before I finally signed up for an account around 2000. The reason I signed up? This article:

Dark Hearts and the Net

That's right, JonKatz drove me, a lurker, to create an account just so I could exclude certain authors. Damn, missed five digits by that much.

If only there was a Linux that was actually UNIX certified by The Open Group...

http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/single_unix_specification.html