SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC are reporting that troubled community website Reddit has lost another female member of its senior team with the resignation of chief engineer Bethanye Blount, only days after the resignation of Ellen Pao. The BBC report continues:
Ms Blount told website Recode she believed Ms Pao had been put on a "glass cliff" - or set up to fail. Victoria Taylor, who oversaw a popular question-and-answer section of the site, was sacked last month.
"Victoria wasn't on a glass cliff. But it's hard for me to see it any other way than Ellen was," Bethanye Blount said in an interview.
But Ms Blount, a former Facebook employee, added that her own decision to leave Reddit just two months after joining, had not been based on gender issues. And new chief executive, Steve Huffman, said he was "confident" that the site could recruit female executives.
The phrase "glass cliff" is used to describe women placed in leadership roles during times of crisis, when positive change is hard to achieve.
[...]
Despite the ongoing turmoil, Reddit is in good financial shape, according to Mr Huffman, also one of its co-founders.
"Reddit has a lot of cash," he said, in an Ask Me Anything session on the site.. "Monetisation isn't a short-term concern of ours."
The site currently attracts 164 million monthly users.
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:47AM
[quote]Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen[/quote]
Umm...and the difference between those two things is what, exactly?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Farkus888 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:52AM
That translates to [pretty bow]agree with us or else[/pretty bow] in my head. Do you see something else?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:54AM
10,000 redditards also realized that, and this:
Reddit Co-Founder Alexis Ohanian's Rosy Outlook On The Future of Politics [forbes.com]
lol
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday July 15 2015, @02:56PM
Ohanian is a greasy Armenian and behaving like shady used car salesmen is in his peoples' genes (as well as the genes of every other race in the Middle East.) It is to be expected of his kind. He'll tell you that Reddit has infared night vision and a jet engine if he thought telling you that would sell it to you.
As for Bethanye, her parents should be smacked in their mouths with rolled-up newspapers for cursing their daughter with such a stupid first name. If she hasn't already she'll team up with all the other big angry dykes who've written off their chances for getting dick and start a version of Reddit with mandatory multiculturalism, where straight white males and their privilege are forbidden.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:46AM
Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen
Umm...and the difference between those two things is what, exactly?
You know, this is exactly what has been puzzling me for quite some time. We have had Soylentils claiming that moderation was censorship. And we have had some people (who?) claiming that being racist, sexist, misogynist, or fascist is all part of free speech. This makes no sense to me. Allow me to explain. First, in order to qualify as "speech", a verbal expression must be intelligible. When I hear a Anti-Social InJustice Warrior say, "I am not a racist, but . . .", there is no intelligibility. Obviously they are a racist, just a racist saying they are not a racist, so that just cancels out an they have actually not engaged in any speech what so ever.
So this is why we have a problem? Open and honest discussion requires that you at least make sense, and not contradict yourself in your very attempt to speak. I think this is what they have in mind: bastions of free speech are for those incapable of making speech, so we should let them have a space to make sounds with their meat, like the American Republican Presidential Primary, or the British Parliament, so they do not feel oppressed. But there is no obligation for us to try and make sense of the noises coming out of their pie-holes! That is not what Reddit was established for!
Of course, the fact that Taylor was fired after doing an AMA with Jesse Jackson, hmm, maybe they are making a distinction between "free speech" and "speech we agree with, that is not by Black people". Maybe. Just saying. Oh, in other news, the President of the United States is still black, and it is increasing looking like the next one will be, too.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:03AM
Who defines intelligible, logical, etc.? As soon as you start putting subjective constraints around free speech, what you have is tolerated speech, and that ain't free.
(Score: -1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:10AM
Hemo, could you restate your objection? There seems to be some static, or interference. I can't make sense of what you appear to have said.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quadrox on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:19AM
Just in case you were askin in earnest, GPs point was that if you only accept certain speech (based on some more or less subjective criteria), what you are left with is only "tolerated speach" (as in speech that is only allowed because someone approved it) instead of "free speach" (as in you can say whatever the fuck you want, not matter who approves).
Free speach is pretty much an absolute. As soon as you place any restrictions whatsoever, you don't have free speach anymore.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:22PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:00PM
What should, or could we do about people that falsely claim slander? What about merely inconvenient speech or speech that appears false but actually is not or worse still speech that can be interpreted as both true and false?
Nevermind that truthful but private knowledge can be just as damaging as any slander.
At the end of the day if you educate your citizens to use their minds then words are just words. If citizens can't understand that then nothing will stop them from being severely harmed and harming others due to speech whether truthful or not. They could not tell the difference or more likely not even care. Thus politics I imagine.
It is all a subjective mess as to what constitutes slander or not. Best to err on the side of free speech. To say otherwise is to be blind ;)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:12PM
At the end of the day if you educate your citizens to use their minds then words are just words.
Except... they're not. Otherwise Free Speech has no value.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @11:19AM
Utterly false. People can choose to accept your claims or not. Free speech is useful because it lets you communicate ideas without being punished by the government, enabling you to perhaps convince some people of whatever it is you're arguing for, relieving your stress, saying what you want to say, or some other such thing. It doesn't suddenly because useless if most people actually use their brains when listening to you; that's purely nonsensical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:04PM
Has anyone ever actually done that? Your hypothetical situation is unimportant compared to the real damage caused by slander. The power of words [wikipedia.org] has been known for a long time, anyone trying to claim that words are harmless is arguing against known facts with nothing to support their claim.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @11:21AM
The words are not what is powerful; it is those who respond to the words in certain ways. It is you who doesn't have the facts. You seemingly believe that words have a magical influence over others, but that is nothing but magical thinking.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:50PM
"You learn other people's definition of free speech in high school, coming up with your own definition is one the things college is there for."
I take the rather radical stance that slander/libel shouldn't even be a thing. Maybe I'm just young and stupid. But if I make up some bullshit about somebody, and people just accept it as fact without looking it up, I see that as their fault more than mine for not thinking critically about it.
Don't just believe anything you hear. Verify. Look up what the reasoning is.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:11PM
I think defamation (libel and/or slander) is a valid concept that can co-exist with free speech. A person is free to say whatever he or she wants. A person damaged by that speech in a salient and identifiable way (not just "hurt my feelings" -- cost me $x in lost business) is also free to make claim against the speaker and receive compensation if there was a) actual provable defamation (requires falsity), and b) actual provable calculable damages. This is important because the hearers are not always well equipped to evaluate the truth or falsity of the speech, and not because the hearers are sheep or idiots, but because they are separated from the incidents. For example, I have no way to evaluate random statements about Bill Cosby because I know none of those involved and have no association with any of them -- not even remote. If I am misled, it will not be because I'm an idiot, it will be because I just don't know the circumstances (one could say it would be idiotic to form an opinion on such a basis, and I'm partial to that thinking, but at the same time there are many areas of life where we form opinions based on the input of those we see as having special knowledge, and it is important to be able to do this because we can't be experts in all facts, sciences, and arts -- if we could, we'd be gods).
What I object to is a prior determination that some speech should not be made for [being illogical/unreasonable/some other random subjective reason]. FN1 I believe all people should be able to say whatever, and the value of that speech then determined after it has been said, and if there are consequences to that speech, then so be it. To make a pre-speech determination however, is censorship.
FN1: What is or is not logical often depends on the state of knowledge, one's culture, or any other factors. Those most careful take a scientific perspective such as, "our best knowledge to date is Z, thus Y, but if Z proves false eventually, Y will be different." In this sense, what is a logical or reasonable conclusion is not always an absolute.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:24PM
All good points.
I was going to post some cynical wankery but meh. In theory the courts work, and people only get convicted for clear damages. Anyway.
What I say to people IRL these days is, "How can we ever hope to solve our problems if we can't talk about them?"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:09AM
I think defamation (libel and/or slander) is a valid concept that can co-exist with free speech.
It can't. If the government gets involved and punishes you for your speech (and handing out a verdict in favor of the other party counts as government involvement, even if it's a civil case), then you don't truly have free speech in that case.
It's easier to just admit that you're in favor of some restrictions on free speech.
If I am misled, it will not be because I'm an idiot, it will be because I just don't know the circumstances (one could say it would be idiotic to form an opinion on such a basis, and I'm partial to that thinking, but at the same time there are many areas of life where we form opinions based on the input of those we see as having special knowledge, and it is important to be able to do this because we can't be experts in all facts, sciences, and arts -- if we could, we'd be gods).
When you don't know, just admit that you don't know. Don't be like theists.
A person damaged by that speech in a salient and identifiable way (not just "hurt my feelings" -- cost me $x in lost business)
Speech can't damage you in such a way. Only people who react to the speech in harmful ways can hurt you, but that is their doing and not the speaker's. It's also quite the entitlement complex to assume that you're entitled to other people's money (i.e. "I was making $x a month, but after someone accused me of things I didn't do, I'm making $y a month."); you're not, and that remains so even if they stop giving you their business for bad reasons. You're not actually 'damaged' in any way, because lack of gain can rarely count as harm.
Most people are seemingly not critical enough and are willing to believe too many things that have little to no evidence to back them up. A system that punishes people other than the ones who take the supposedly harmful actions likely just encourages people to become dependent on that system, rather than developing the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge false statements.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 15 2015, @10:05PM
Yep, it was in earnest, but got modded to oblivion.
if you only accept certain speech (based on some more or less subjective criteria), what you are left with is only "tolerated speach" (as in speech that is only allowed because someone approved it) instead of "free speach" (as in you can say whatever the fuck you want, not matter who approves).
This was my question. What subjective criteria? Yes, anyone should be able to say whatever they want, unless it harms someone else (this is your basis liberalism, as much freedom as is compatible with like freedom for all) like yelling "theatre" in crowded fire, or slander and hate speech. (Oh, the word is "speech".) But my point is that saying whatever you like is limited by actually saying something.
I recently read coverage of Southern American white people parading the Confederate flag through various towns and getting a negative reaction. They could not understand how people could assault them with racial slurs! One comment was that it is funny how most "white supremecists" are self-refuting. And this was my point with racism: if some one says racist things, we may just think that they are just saying that they are a racist, which might be a good thing to know. But if we then turn around and say, you're a racist! they should just say "yeah". But what they are saying is not just that they are a racist, they are saying that racism is true, correct, and that we should all be racist! But of course, we can't all be, since some have to be the non-racist inferior class of the SJWs. So really, they are not saying anything, beyond that they are a racist.
So, freedom to say whatever you want, yes. But that includes my freedom to say jpafjlfnl;ganlvnrr hgoairug'p arjg'fgna'lghnl!!!1!! So there! Take that! See? That random mashing of keys (no, seriously, not encrypted, as far as I know) deserves just as much respect and attention as the ravings of a racist. And if you don't agree, well, that is because you are trying to suppress my freedom of speech just because you don't like it. So yes, free speech. My point is that some speech is not even speech, because it is not saying anything.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:17AM
This was my question. What subjective criteria?
The criteria where you're arbitrarily determining that others aren't actually saying anything, when they, in fact, are.
So really, they are not saying anything, beyond that they are a racist.
Whether their speech is logically invalid/incomprehensible or not has nothing to do with whether or not they're saying something.
But that includes my freedom to say jpafjlfnl;ganlvnrr hgoairug'p arjg'fgna'lghnl!!!1!! So there! Take that! See? That random mashing of keys (no, seriously, not encrypted, as far as I know) deserves just as much respect and attention as the ravings of a racist.
Correct.
My point is that some speech is not even speech, because it is not saying anything.
Racists are saying something, and whether it is understandable or not, the pseudo-random letters you typed out were also a communication.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:51AM
So really, they are not saying anything, beyond that they are a racist.
Whether their speech is logically invalid/incomprehensible or not has nothing to do with whether or not they're saying some
Whether I find it incomprehensible may have nothing to do with whether they are saying something (though I like to think I am rather good at spotting nonsense), but if it is logically self-contradictory, then they are not saying something, or anything at all. They may be trying to say something, but we have no way of knowing what that may be.
My point is that some speech is not even speech, because it is not saying anything.
Racists are saying something, and whether it is understandable or not, the pseudo-random letters you typed out were also a communication.
Hmmm, I seem to have committed an unintentional Sokal! (Sokal tried to mimic Post-modernist jargon that he was quite sure was jibberish, and got a paper accepted to a prestigious PoMo journal, an episode known as the "Sokal Affair"). But just because you think it is jibberish does not mean it necessarily is, granted. So since "jpafjlfnl;ganlvnrr hgoairug'p arjg'fgna'lghnl" is meaningful, in spite of my intention for it not to be, could you please tell me what it was that I was saying? Thank for for respecting my right to say it, but it would be helpful to know what is means, because I might want to stop saying it. This brings up that whole "subjective" thing: If you think I said something that I did not mean to say, then it was not what I said, only your interpretation of what I said. In this case, I would correct you by restating what I was trying to say, but since I was trying to say nothing, I can't!! Well played, Anal!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:11AM
Whether I find it incomprehensible may have nothing to do with whether they are saying something (though I like to think I am rather good at spotting nonsense), but if it is logically self-contradictory, then they are not saying something, or anything at all.
Well, as long as they are speaking, then they are saying something; it just might be nonsensical.
But just because you think it is jibberish does not mean it necessarily is, granted. So since "jpafjlfnl;ganlvnrr hgoairug'p arjg'fgna'lghnl" is meaningful, in spite of my intention for it not to be, could you please tell me what it was that I was saying?
I don't know what it means myself, but that does not mean no one does or will never know. Anyone could make up a meaning for it if they wanted.
If you think I said something that I did not mean to say, then it was not what I said, only your interpretation of what I said.
That's how language generally works: Other people interpret what you say. We have little chance to know what long dead authors or artists intended to mean when they made their works, and yet people come up with their own interpretations anyway. Similarly, and whether you like it or not, people come up with their own interpretations of your communications. You may or may not try to correct them, but those interpretations do not cease to exist.
And I would say the fact that you send data is itself proof that you were trying to say or convey something. Maybe to try to demonstrate some sort of point.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:40AM
And I would say the fact that you send data is itself proof that you were trying to say or convey something. Maybe to try to demonstrate some sort of point.
And what exactly makes you think it was data? It is static, noise, random keypresses, not even pseudo! So for you to think it means something just shows you have "A Beautiful Mind". If I cannot make you understand what it is that I am communicating (and evidently this is the case), then whatever you get out of the exchange is not communication. I am done talking to you, since you refuse to discuss nonsense in a serious manner, and you have failed to disrespect my attempts at gibberish. I am sorely hurt, wounded to the core, and I have no recourse other than to express to you that I cannot understand how you possibly could understand what I intended to make no sense. Unless, of course, you are getting my point! So I just want to say, "I am not a racist, but . . .. " Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge; say no more! say no more!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:56AM
And what exactly makes you think it was data?
Everything that I've said about interpretations and the potential for language to evolve, even if it evolves only in certain contexts or to certain individuals.
If I cannot make you understand what it is that I am communicating (and evidently this is the case), then whatever you get out of the exchange is not communication.
It's not about either of us as individuals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:16AM
Since when is "logical" subjective?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:09AM
Hate speech contains objectively measurable and quantifiable information. Censorship is defined by the suppression of information. Therefore, you can censor hate speech. QED.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:20AM
"Niggers are sub-human" may contain "quantifiable information", but it conflicts with reality - dark-skinned people are still human - therefore its delusional. Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate people who have lost their grasp on reality and instead live in some fictional world that only exists in their mind?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday July 15 2015, @02:44PM
"Racism:" -- "I'm skeptical about the DHS' poor handling of illegal immigrant inflows."
"Anti-Semitism:" -- "I'm not in agreement with Israeli foreign policy."
"Sexism:" -- "I don't think Carly Fiorina did a very good job while she was at HP."
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:21PM
If your actual posts where anywhere close to this civil, you are correct that you would likely not be called racist so often.
They aren't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:20PM
Everyone knows that overt bigotry is PR suicide, but the lack of overt bigotry doesn't mean bigotry doesn't exist anymore. Taken at face value, none of those statements are bigoted, but when taken in-context bigotry becomes painfully obvious. For example, every criticism of Obama for things that literally every other president has done, or done worse - what makes Obama so different from everyone else who did it to evoke such a response? Despite using fewer Executive Orders than any president in 120 years, Obama is called a dictator [downtrend.com] for his use of Executive Orders; its certainly not because he's issued more of them, because he hasn't, its not because of the D by his name, because no previous D president was reviled like this, so by the process of elimination we're left with the only difference - his skin color - as the only thing left that could be the catalyst for such hate.
Your fallacy here of quoting out of context doesn't prove what you wish it does, it just proves that subtle bigotry and "dog whistle" [wikipedia.org] bigotry doesn't appear to be bigotry when taken out of context [fallacyfiles.org].
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:37AM
For example, every criticism of Obama for things that literally every other president has done, or done worse - what makes Obama so different from everyone else who did it to evoke such a response?
The fact that others guys did it too does not indicate that Obama is not an evil scumbag; all it indicates is that all the others were evil scumbags as well. But do I really have to list every politician I have issues with before I can criticize the guy who is currently in power? Because the list would truly be endless.
By the way, even if they only criticize Obama, that isn't even necessarily racist; it could just be that they've bought into the one party scam, and believe the guy who belongs to the group on the other side of the coin is bad because he's part of that group (a Democrat in this case). You see the same thing happen with other politicians who are Republicans; people will criticize them for X, yet allow Democrats to get away with the same nonsense.
its certainly not because he's issued more of them
Quality, not quantity. It could be because they erroneously believe that his executive orders have been much worse than other presidents' executive orders, showing their ignorance of history. Executive orders are simply routinely abused by pretty much every president.
because no previous D president was reviled like this
This is just bad logic. You can't simply pretend that every individual who does such things is racist, because that would be a hasty generalization. This is one huge argument from ignorance ("I can't imagine X not being the answer, so X must be the answer."). So while there are certainly racists, you're making too many generalizations.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:14PM
I'm going to guess that you weren't around for the Clinton administration...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:39PM
Ethanol-fueled, you are like the magic 8 ball that comes up right when asked the correct questions... ask the wrong questions and you get what you asked for.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:10PM
Censorship is defined by the suppression of information. Therefore, you can censor hate speech. QED.
Quod Erratum, Donatus! This is my point, that honest open discussion requires at a minimum the presumption that there is some intelligible content being discussed, what our dear AC characterizes as "information". But someone's self-contradictory opinion is not information. False information is not information. Dis-information is even less so. To quote "Cool Hand Luke", what we have here is a failure to communicate.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:52PM
"Jews are normal people" was "false information" in Nazi Germany.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:01PM
We have had Soylentils claiming that moderation was censorship. And we have had some people (who?) claiming that being racist, sexist, misogynist, or fascist is all part of free speech.
Being allowed to say unpopular things is precisely what freedom of expression means. Seriously, that's its definition.
But there is no obligation for us to try and make sense of the noises coming out of their pie-holes!
I thought we were discussing censorship, not interpretation...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:10PM
Freedom of expression means that you're free to say it, but that doesn't mean you're free of the consequences of saying it, eg, being shunned, ostracized, and mocked for being a bigot. Bigots are always crying about the backlash from people after they voice their bigotry, but being told to STFU and losing your reputation is not an infringement of one's freedom of expression.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:53PM
So would you consider being allowed to say politically incorrect things, but as soon as you say it they take you out back and shoot you, as fair game?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:09PM
Racist, sexist, misogynistic, and fascist speech is free speech.
But a community laden with that bullshit isn't one a lot of people are going to like hanging around. Reddit "solved" that with subreddits and voting, but then even worse shits engaged in highly unethical behaviors that couldn't really be called "speech" started making shit like /r/jailbait, or illegal incitement against a public figure in the case of /r/fatpeoplehate. It wasn't sustainable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:08PM
I am deeply concerned by this statement of your:
But I still think you should be allowed to say it. Even though it is as ridiculous is me saying - 'When I hear a SJW say 'I may be a psycho spreading hate based on shitty rejected theories and no facts, but people objecting me are be racist and misogynist and holocaust denialists...', I still support their freedom of speech. Why?
Because speaking is thinking. Because speaking is how we communicate and get to know each other. For example now I know you have no idea about anything that requires thorough reading but are likely to throw around random insults to people who disagree with you, but may be I am wrong and you might prove me wrong?
It is speech. Not a creation of political party. Not an action. Get real. This is universe, where our whole life is a tiny blip and where most people, majority of people, don't have enough power to convince someone on the internet to accept defeat. So why there is such a problem with speech, which is the most basic freedom of a thinking mind?
And lastly, who decides what is right and what is wrong? You surely don't think that slavery was a free-speech related issue, right? It had real consequences that did real harm to real people, and it was abolished because it was really unsustainable on moral and ethical terms, not because of some flimsy - 'black people don't like it so don't do it'.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:31PM
You'd never hear that, because "SJW"s aren't real, except in your persecution-complex riddled delusions.
I don't know what strange fantasy-land you live in, but in reality, speaking is definitely an action, which can cause real [thefreedictionary.com], verifiable [ncab.org.au] harm. Trying to claim that "[somebody] doesn't like it" is ever part of the issue is either an obvious strawman or a clear indication of your ignorance.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:37PM
SJW"s aren't real
I wish. Apparently many of my old 'friends' turned into them. Fighting for causes one 'like' at a time. Tell me that I am a horrible person because I do not agree with them. Then I remember why I stopped hanging out with them and they are now 'facebook friends'.
"so do you donate to XYZ?" "Oh yeah they are a good organization" "oh good for you put your money where your mouth is" "Yep thats right" "What did they spend your money on?" "Uhhhh, they spent it on the thing to save the ABC" "Are you sure? Did you see them cut the check and pay for anything? They could have had a blow out party to 'raise' more money for all you know and you helped pay for the cake." "well I trust them" "why?" "uhhh". Pretty much every time. Very few times have I found someone who bothered to research the org they threw money at.
speaking is definitely an action
Actions speak louder than words. I always like to think of the scene from the Blues Brothers. The dudes were allowed to do the march. Well Jake and Elwood did not agree with it so they tried to run them off the road. No one hurt, but everyone got their say. People also seem to equate giving dollars to these people will do something. It is lazy and does nothing. I follow my money. A few organizations stopped getting my donation after a bit of digging into the org. Finding good charities to donate to is hard. As unfortunately there are a lot of bad ones out there who use the good intentions of others for a pay day. Even good ones are many times badly run.
Free speech is just that. You are allowed to speak your mind. It does not mean however you get to shut down the other side because you disagree with it. Free speech is a 2 way street.
Still dont think so? Try this little experiment. It will cost you a few bucks (less if you can bum one off someone). Buy 1 pack of cigarettes and a bic lighter. You are not going to smoke them. You are going to learn what it is like to be on the other end of a SJW's wrath. After you have bought them find a mall. Any mall will do, so long as it is decently busy. Walk into it and sit down. Pull out one cig and act like you are smoking it, flick a bic lighter for flair if you want. Within an hour you will have people swing by and inform you of the rules. You can even inform them that you are 'not smoking its just sitting here'. They will still lose their shit. The tirade you get will not mater. I want to show you what it is like. How they use the very verbal abuse you are against to shut down things they do not think is right. That is but one small example.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:38PM
Yeah, they're totally "psycho[s] spreading hate based on shitty rejected theories and no facts, but [calling] people objecting [to them] racist and misogynist and holocaust denialists" there aren't they? So how exactly does that prove "SJW"s exist, unless "SJW" is defined as "anyone who disagrees with you" rather than the bullshit the GP is trying to assert are actions to be expected of them? You need to come back to reality, you've clearly gotten lost in your persecution complex.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @11:25AM
You'd never hear that, because "SJW"s aren't real, except in your persecution-complex riddled delusions.
You didn't ask him to define "SJW", so you don't even know what you're saying doesn't exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:57PM
You just have to face up to the fact that you are dumb.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:43PM
I think I see your general point, but I feel I'm still confused. Is it free speech when a presenter gets up on stage and says, “All you men in this room are guilty of date rape. You merely haven't been caught in the act yet.”
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:42PM
Under the law, any man who has sex with an intoxicated woman is a rapist, because anyone intoxicated cannot give consent. Like it or not, the statement is true. Don't like it? Work to change the stupid fucking laws instead of being pissed off at people trying to elucidate some of the absurd and sexist laws on the books.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:39PM
My apologies for not being clear.
In this case none of the men (or myself) present had engaged in intoxicated sex. (Well, I can only say for sure in my case.) Yet we were being told that we were already guilty.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:28AM
We have had Soylentils claiming that moderation was censorship.
Even without being logged in, I can still view comments moderated down to -1. It would be censorship to me only if comments were deleted, not merely if people chose not to view such comments by using certain settings.
First, in order to qualify as "speech", a verbal expression must be intelligible.
Intelligible to whom? I can create my own language that no one understands but me and perhaps a few others. I could buy into logically incomprehensible ideas and rationalize them in my head (like racists and such likely do) so that, to me, it would make sense. I could pseudo-randomly mash letters on the keyboard to form a message that appears to me to be incomprehensible, and yet other people could interpret it as they wish. Human language itself is quite arbitrary, and new words are created all the time, with the possibility of the creation of entirely new languages. And even if something is currently incomprehensible to all, that does not mean it will always remain so.
So I reject this idea. But of course, Reddit can use whatever arbitrary rules they think up.
I think this is what they have in mind: bastions of free speech are for those incapable of making speech
Not quite. Just because there would be some speech that you consider nonsensical, that doesn't mean all of it would be.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:45AM
Umm...and the difference between those two things is what, exactly?
You're free to be as progressive and left wing as you want. Other direction, well, not so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:16PM
That's because the "other direction" is not logically sound. The entire concept of conservatism [merriam-webster.com] is that things shouldn't change because they've always been that way [logicallyfallacious.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @02:11PM
Are you absolutely sure you didn't invoke one of them fallacies yourself?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:56PM
If you think your opponent in a debate is being fallicious, its your responsibility to point out the fallacy in use and why its an example of that fallacy. The first step in any debate is making sure your opponent's argument is sound, because there's no point in arguing against an invalid argument, because its already invalid, invalidating it a second time won't make it more invalid, and if your opponent is unable to present a valid argument and continues pushing sophistry, thats a clue that they're delusional (willfully or not doesn't matter) and you should stop wasting your breath, because you can't debate rationally against a position that wasn't reached rationally.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:08PM
if your opponent is unable to present a valid argument and continues pushing sophistry, thats a clue that they're delusional
Or it's a clue that you just can't stand anyone disagreeing with you, such that you can diagnose any disagreement as a mental disorder.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:44PM
Or it's a clue that you just can't stand anyone disagreeing with you, such that you can diagnose any disagreement as a mental disorder.
Now that is just crazy, and paranoid to boot. We should invoke the principle of charity before we launch into our own persecution complexes. The principle of charity is to assume your opponent is making sense, until they manifestly prove otherwise. That means that if your opponent in an argument appears to be insane, you should at first blame yourself for thinking so, and not understanding what their point is. And so, you should ask them to clarify their position for you. The question is, how many times should you do this? If the best they can come up with is "you just don't understand because you don't like my position", we have a problem. They may actually be crazy. But in any case, they are not being charitable, and are not seeking to forward our open and honest discussion of issues.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:01PM
Hear, hear.
I try to operate under a similar rule, "Assume that each individual thinks that they're doing the right thing." Some politicians make it damn hard to do, though.
.
(Cf. Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. I'm not sure whether that was directed at me or the parent, but I'll admit I fall into the GIFT trap all too often.)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @10:26PM
Not the same AC but I'm pretty sure it was a rhetorical question.
The comment invokes a double dichtomy, it implies that if you are not with the left-wing progressives you are a right-wing conservative nutjob. This is obviously bs "us versus them" crap that the great enemy conservatives have been invoking since the dawn of time (6000 years ago!).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @07:54AM
Wow. You are seriously deep in the aspie-land. Come off that logical bondage and embrace the universe with motives different from your tetris-world. Before you come yelling ad hominem, note that this is not an argument but a suggestion.
Anyway, for the sake of entertainment, I'll present equally broken statements in different context. Had I had time I would have given them in the original post.
"If you are not with us you are with hitler" (these are not the only options)
"I see racism in your behaviour and ideological racism is pseudoscience, therefore you believe in pseudoscience" (one meaning of a word cannot be inferred from the other)
"Oh you misspelled x, therefore your argument is invalid" (the actual argument is not its literal presentation)
Finally a furher offtopic note: Usenet made me realize that superficial by-the-book understanding of argumentation fallacies is sometimes worse than not knowing them at all. In the latter case you might still be able to use your brain and reason why they are broken.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @11:28AM
Finally a furher offtopic note: Usenet made me realize that superficial by-the-book understanding of argumentation fallacies is sometimes worse than not knowing them at all.
A superficial by-the-book understanding? Fine. But what comments here, specifically, are you referring to?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:19PM
Full Definition of CONSERVATIVE
1
: preservative
2
a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3
a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional
b : marked by moderation or caution
c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4
: of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism
Your own link doesn't support your argument.
Just because something is new doesn't make it automatically better. I'm sure we can come up with plenty of examples just in the tech field where the old, unexciting but reliable tech got thrown out for the New Hotness...which it turned out was a great deal of work (and money...and pissed-off customers...) to get actually functioning properly, with fewer features.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:44PM
Who said anything about changing just for the sake of change? Oh yeah, that's right, its just a strawman.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:05PM
That's what happens when you whip out the absolutes. You made an absolute statement that is by no means factual and I said, "No, that's dumb." Then me proposing a middle ground is conveniently "fallacious."
You're one of those people who likes to use the Fallacy Fallacy: Find (manufacture) a fallacy in everything and then use that to dismiss it.
In closing, Conservatism is the PREFERENCE for keeping things the way they are. If you call yourself a conservative and NEVER even consider a new idea, you're not a conservative; you're crazy.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:30PM
Wow!
In closing, Conservatism is the PREFERENCE for keeping things the way they are. If you call yourself a conservative and NEVER even consider a new idea, you're not a conservative; you're crazy.
Well said, Tangomargarine! Will this help?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:27PM
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"
McCarthy! Them was good times! No commies in Franco's Spain, Indonesia, Chile, and a whole bunch of other client states. But now the right-wing finds itself being called names and accused of incoherence? Oh, the pain!