Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 17 2017, @12:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the trumped-again dept.

El Reg reports

The Internet Engineering Task Force has taken the rare (and possibly costly) decision to relocate an upcoming meeting out of America.

IETF 102, scheduled for mid-2018, was booked for the San Francisco Hilton, but instead will be held in the Fairmont Hotel in Montreal.

The reason, as announced by IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) chair Leslie Daigle, is the President Donald Trump administration: American travel restrictions make attendance uncertain.

[...] travel restrictions have been bounced around between the US legal system and the White House, and the Oversight Committee hasn't seen anything to reduce that uncertainty.

[...] it is impossible to know or predict the extent of the restrictions placed on individuals attempting to attend IETF 102 twelve months from now, or the level of uncertainty that will exist, and the impact that will have on the ability for the IETF to hold a successful meeting in the United States at that time. However, the current orientation and actions of the US government provide no basis for expecting conditions at the US border to improve for non-citizens.

[...] if the IETF cannot stage something in San Francisco, it will likely lose any deposit paid to the venue.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by turgid on Monday July 17 2017, @04:54PM (6 children)

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17 2017, @04:54PM (#540389) Journal

    TL;DR. You, sir, are an Alt-Wrong and you are stupid signalling.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=2, Insightful=1, Funny=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:08PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:08PM (#540403)

    SJW means that the writer is inconvenienced with the argument of the person, and has little counter argument to offer because it would make them look bad.

    Rather than promote a counterpoint, it is easier to call them a name, as if that solves any perceived issues.

    Remember, someone fighting for social justice -- is probably doing a good thing. Often the SJWs are seeking to further the protections against discrimination, bullying, abuse, etc. It is hard to admirably stand up and and make a compelling counter argument, but there are plenty of white nationalists that make an argument. Some more polished than others. And none of them can be called admirable.

    Also calling someone a moral authority... that is essentially a condescending term that admits that yeah that other person has better scruples. It is only an insult when spoken by someone inconvenienced by it.

    NRA advocates are SJWs. They are one-issue SJWs.

    Anti-abortion advocates are just as much an SJW as pro-choice advocates.

    You would expect Mr. Bradley to make note of this, but he does not. He and others only cast it upon those liberal mindsets that are found to be too distasteful for his level of tolerance.

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Monday July 17 2017, @05:25PM (1 child)

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17 2017, @05:25PM (#540413) Journal

      Thanks. I'm sick and tired of trying to point that out myself so I just give them a taste of their own medicine nowadays, as it were.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:49PM (#540430)

        Yup, patience and tolerance have been worn out where shitty conservatives are concerned. Apparently they just shut their mouths for quite a few years when being a bigot was out of fashion, but Trump has brought it back into popularity. I will say that is one silver lining to this mess, getting to see people's true beliefs.

        For all you conservatives who might melt over this, I specifically said "shitty conservatives" because there are plenty of decent ones out there.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @06:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @06:08PM (#540438)

      Social justice is about victimhood ranking and privilege checks.

      It goes vaguely like this: You can get a point for being non-white, a point for being a woman, a point for being gay, 5 points for being trans, 5 points for being disabled, 5 points for being an illegal alien, and 10 points for being muslim. Add the virtue points to determine your victimhood ranking.

      When two people argue, the person with the higher score is correct. If that contradicts any facts, then the facts are racist and sexist and homophobic and islamophobic. The facts are especially racists, even if the subject is unrelated to race and everybody involved is of the same race.

      People with low scores need to grovel before those with high scores, apologizing for current and past group inequality, even when the low-scoring person happens to be worse off than the high-scoring person. It is important for a high-scoring person to be embarrassed about his privilege, and to generally hate himself and all of his kind.

      People with low scores are expected to support their own population replacement -- that is, to use UN terminology, a genocide. For example, one could avoid having children or one could adopt children with more virtue points. One must support immigration, since immigrants generally have more points.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Monday July 17 2017, @07:11PM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday July 17 2017, @07:11PM (#540492) Homepage
      > [use of "SJW"] means that writer is inconvenienced with the argument of the person, and has little counter argument to offer

      But the bradley post *did* have a counter-argument - that was the paragraph that followed the line that sent turgid into a tizz. You realise that you've just argued against turgid with the above line. And he's agreed with you. OK, it's wasn't a compelling argument but if you claim it didn't exist, that means you both turned your brains off (and presumably they were running in energy-saving mode already) as soon as you were triggered by the scary words in the first sentence.

      Perhaps it's time to just sit back and watch you salt your own soil and further weaken your arguments' roots.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @08:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @08:30PM (#540541)

        The comment by bradley13 is simply bigotry.

        He claims that one can determine an individual's technical utility by nationality/location.

        One might also claim that everyone in the USA approves of The Orange Clown.

        Both of those notions are ignorant, narrow-minded, and prejudiced.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]