TheBranca18

So wait, based on what I'm reading in this post, a saner opinion is getting into a debate about the definition of the words sexual assault on a mailing list? I understand people thinking there is a right way and a wrong way to express disillusionment with a particular person, however, what you're doing here is misleading at best. I'm not really sure why you're expressing derision towards people that don't want sexual assault trivialized. I dunno, I feel like reading these types of posts, which are prevalent in this thread, that I have less and less in common with people on Hacker News. Also it's not a bad thing to want social justice, no matter how many times you type SJW.

It's increasingly clear that I have less in common with many on Hacker News when these types of responses are considered valuable.

> sounds like you dont know who gavin is then

This is directly from Wikipedia.

> McInnes was a leading figure in the hipster subculture while at Vice, being labelled as the "godfather" of hipsterdom. After leaving the company in 2008, he became increasingly known for his far-right political views. He is the founder of the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist men's group classified as a "general hate" organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I called him a neo-fascist, I'd love to know what makes you conclude I don't know who he is.

> why dont you watch the episode with him and learn for yourself

That's not learning for myself, learning for myself is consulting various sources and investigating things he said and actions he's done. Not hearing a milquetoast description of his views from the man himself that aren't being challenged.

> thats why its not good to deplatform people you dont like because other people told you not to like them

Why would you jump to this? What in my response told you that someone else told me not to like him? McInnes screaming the n word the way he has in the past among many of his other actions makes me not like him.

Edit: I'm also clueless as to how my response was directly to the main thread as there was a deeper thread I was trying to respond to originally. Not sure what went on there.

I've found over the years as I get to be more and more of an irascible old man, that my viewpoints don't align with much as far as popularity goes. And that's okay. Frankly the power in YouTube for me was to look back at seminal events that resonated and transformed my life. It is wonderful for that. However, it's very poor at complex recommendations. If I watch a video about the polar ice caps melting, that doesn't mean I want to watch a climate change denier. I realize this is not an easy thing to solve and that's why it shouldn't be solved solely with algorithms. The same way that copyright claims should have a human touch and not just automatically remove revenue for people on the platform.

To add context here, I responded to someone who said the current Hong Kong situation illustrates the importance of the second amendment. Which I think truly was a myopic, insipid comment. As far as your contention that they haven't wiped out a few thousand foreign insurgents, are you referring to Iraq or Afghanistan? Afghanistan is an interesting case, I truly don't understand what the current goal is.

I would add that the US monitors its civilians with multiple agencies, including Homeland Security and the NSA, and I would think it'd be easier to do on the domestic side than have to contend with foreign governments and the distances involved in operating overseas.

I'm not sure about the Gallup poll you're referring to, but the Pew Research poll I stumbled upon has 30% of Americans owning a firearm with an additional 11 to 12% living in a household with someone who owns a firearm. I don't really agree that means 42% of Americans own firearms. In fact, the ratio of households that own a gun has been going down for decades (You can see this here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/despite-mass-shootings-number-o...). The issue is there are fewer and fewer people owning guns, but those people own far more guns than they did previously. Which is where the extremism and mass shootings come in (along with our current social and political structure). Here's a quotation from the article I linked above:

>They found that those who own guns own an average of 4.8 firearms. But they also found that half of all guns — 130 million guns — are owned by 14 percent of gun owners or 7.6 million people. That's 3 percent of the U.S. population.

The international pressure angle is interesting and not something I've really thought a lot about. Incidentally, the current administration doesn't seem to care what international governments think.

Korea and Vietnam were decades ago, the United States annihilated Iraq. Surprised you didn't mention Afghanistan. Modern technology would make any potential secession in the United States almost impossible. You are also applying American culture to Hong Kong. If Hong Kong residents violently opposed the Chinese government with weapons, they would be systematically destroyed. The Chinese government has done that before and has shown no compunction in destroying people based on what's happening with the Uyghurs.

You mean the first amendment right? The US military machine would decimate any civilians wielding weapons if they were so inclined. They wouldn't even have to use troops, they could do so with drones.

It's not hatred to ask people that are hoarding almost all the wealth in a country to spend more in taxes. That's just a progressive tax system. There isn't anything controversial about it even if not everyone thinks it's the right thing to do.

Also if you're going to talk about context, the US tax system at the time of its founding isn't relevant at all. I know you didn't bring it up, but you are still defending something largely irrelevant. It'd be like a candidate for President of the United States defending a tithe system because it's mentioned in the Bible.

>Honestly, I was just trying to be silly ;) But you don't really expect us to watch your 20 min video do you?

I don't care if you watch it or not, but if you're going to comment on it and discredit it, it makes you look silly to do so without watching it.

>Obviously if folks have bad working conditions, I want them them to improve. But how are 'anecdotes' from people I personally know who work in Amazon FC's any different than 'testimonials' from people on TV. I know at least 2 people who work or have worked in these FC's and they never complained. They worked hard & collected their paychecks.

You're acting like the people that you know that never complained somehow cancel out the people complaining. That's not how it works.

>That doesn't mean this is everyone's experience, I'm sure many have been treated poorly. But it goes both ways, we can't assume because some were treated poorly that that is all FC workers experience.

It doesn't go both ways. The fact that you think highlighting some of them are being treated well is troubling. That should be the default. That shouldn't be commendable on Amazon's part.

>I have never worked for Amazon, but I have worked for FedEx unloading trailers by hand. It was back breaking work. The things I hear these workers saying remind me of that job. We were expected to throw boxes nonstop until it was finished, and our boxes per minute thru-put was closely monitored & expected to be kept above a certain level.

Sounds like FedEx has some labor issues to me. Do you think treating people like they're robots is a good thing? Both Amazon and FedEx seem to do so.

>I don't wish poor working conditions on these people, but I also imagine that some of this is getting blown out of proportion.

Where is your evidence that would lend credence to this getting blown out of proportion?

So I post a video in response to someone using anecdotal evidence as a counterpoint to Amazon treating their workers poorly. Included in the video are testimonials from actual Amazon workers and your response is to dismiss the video because it's not real news, not funny and heavily biased. None of the things you listed have anything to do with the evidence presented.

And now I see in your other response in this topic you express anecdotal evidence as well. It's simply a poor way to counterpoint something. It really is.

You are remembering correctly. But it also pointed out that Amazon sets the standard in the industry and just because they're not the worst doesn't mean they shouldn't get better.

The media absolutely pushes an agenda, they are paid to do so. Not many would question that. The difference is, reporting on these things is their job and Amazon is treating their employees like trash. You have to be purposefully ignorant to miss this stuff. It's everywhere! Last Week Tonight broke it down pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9m7d07k22A. The fact you think your anecdotal evidence means anything is puzzling though.

I'm not really following your analogy. A video game isn't a car, a car is a means of transportation that depending on your situation, is a requirement in order to get goods and retain employment. A video game is a hobby for most people, it's like watching movies or television. I'd say it'd be more similar to how people reacted to Lost's final seasons rather than a broken car.

One can separate the launch of the game, where clearly there was a lot of confusion and misleading information, from the events since. They have issued free updates for years. They received death threats and other harassment as well. I'm not saying you have to like the game, but I'm just confused as to what they're getting with.

Your entire premise is fallacious. It's responding to someone complaining about an injustice by saying there are starving children in Africa. Your situation sounds awful and if you are that miserable I would be happy to help with anyone that I know that has open positions, depending on your concentration. That being said, saying things like: "Sure, sexism and racial discrimination is bad bad bad, but this happens at the vast majority of employers." is not acceptable in my opinion. It's defeatist and dismissive. No one should just accept an injustice because it happens everywhere. That's simply not how civilization should work.

The main point of this meandering article that I'm gathering, and that's being kind since it's basically a 'book' about notable events at Google over the past few years, is the erosion of communication and transparency between the upper echelons of Google and the lower level employees. The amount of doxxing in particular really scared me.

More worthy is hard to measure. Newspapers have to follow a process in order to publish, including gathering sources, reporting, etc. A Facebook post has none of that.

This is why governmental bodies need to rely on experts in various fields. There is no way we should require our politicians to know everything about everything, but they should be smart enough to recognize what they don't know and become educated and informed. I feel your last statement is sadly, 100% accurate.

>Violent crime doesn't happen on the internet. The only thing to prevent is fraud.

I couldn't disagree more with these statements. Human and sex trafficking occur through the net, hell you can hire hitmen! Then there's the grooming of underage kids, etc. To say only fraud happens on the net just seems wild.

>Not everyone subscribes to the thought that government makes better decisions than individuals. Having laws are often used for corrupt purposes.

This is a pretty general statement. What specifically in the proposed law are you against?

I would agree with you but think your examples are poor. Rogan generally lets his guests just talk about what they want to talk about without questioning them. Ben Shapiro sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but tends to pick debates with college students. Shapiro is full of platitudes, something which you seem to criticize the New York Times and New Yorker about interestingly. All of the people you mention, besides the Young Turks who I don't know anything about, lack self-awareness of their place in the world and the effect of their words on the general populace. I'd also argue that CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc have the same issues.

Also I'm not advocating for cable news, I think for profit news is generally terrible.

It's authoritarian that American web sites can't do the bare minimum to comply with privacy laws in the EU? I worked on some GDPR integration, on a publishing site no less (considering most of the time I noticed publishing sites being unable to be visited when I was overseas), and it took us all of one sprint to do so correctly. It's laziness not difficulty.

It's also not the EU's fault that people in the United States (I say this as an American) are ignorant enough to associate Norway with the EU when it's not a member. The effort involved to actively block people from viewing websites could have been pointed towards GDPR integration.

Edit: You know the real reason some American sites aren't complying? Because they looked at their European analytics and decided that it wasn't worth their effort.

I feel like you're offering a false choice. The point of the tariffs is to punish China for a trade deficit and make companies produce things more in the United States according to this administration. Companies aren't changing things as a result of these tariffs as far as I can tell. So currently, consumers and producers are being punished and the administration isn't getting what it wants either. I just struggle to see the point. Personally I think it's more of an anti-globalist segment of the administration, as a trade deficit isn't necessarily a bad thing.

What is winning the war mean in this case? Because the producers in the US, such as soy bean farmers, are not winning anything. Consumers and producers generally don't seem to win trade wars. Especially when tariffs come into play.

If this is the issue, the electoral college doesn't solve this. Because what happens is the campaigning for the general election is usually dictated by swing state status and when the caucus or primary takes place in the election calendar. If you look at the distribution of states visited during the campaigning for the general election, it backs this up.

Also, the Senate is supposed to combat the House in this instance. That's what it's there for, and frankly, because of the importance of the Senate, a voter in Wyoming has more voting power than a voter in California. This isn't good either as you mention in your last statement.

The fact that the word literally means itself and its opposite based on use for emphasis is another good example of this.

My favorite story about Ice Poseidon was when he and his friends were at a Denny's talking shit about black people and a person comes up to them and calls them out to fight outside for being racist. They backed down so fast.

That's the problem with people who grew up streaming their lives, there is no normal life for them. Everything is a meme, etc.

Regardless of his political views, they can't be that important to him to back down from his toxicity when called on it.

That's quite a jump you made there: a port of a game that came out in 2011. I don't really think getting Skyrim is a big deal. If you were around for the Wii U launch, they got a ton of third party ports. Comically a game like Mass Effect 3 when I'm pretty sure the first two games didn't appear on any Nintendo platform.

I'd also be wary about battery life. The 3DS and its sleep mode aren't known for being very good on that front.

Does such a setting actually exist? I cannot find any information about that. There hasn't been any other source for this post either.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Stopping texting while driving and stopping smoking can both be done. It's just completely irrelevant really.

It doesn't. Not sure of the official name but Appeal to Worse fallacies are some of the worst I've come across. The smoking example is pretty much one of the worst ones considering what we're talking about anyway. Smoking has gone through a ton of regulation over the years. And is already rarer and rarer.

Perhaps scientists should stop finding a vaccine for Zika since it isn't as bad as cancer and other deadly diseases.

I think the actual issue is trusting the American government with our privacy. They've shown repeatedly that they don't care about it through various initiatives.

The article was well-written and gave me the feeling that I traipsed all over the various subjects' lives. As someone who has done his fair share of what I feel to be innocuous trolling, I'm glad I've grown up.

If one of the comments at the end of the article is to be believed, the author left out a ton of possibly relevant information. The information includes the type of school it is (a school for kids with disciplinary issues) and the girl involved having a history of faking asthma attacks.

Regardless though of the information brought up, there's no reason to suspend a student for this, so hopefully this wasn't the case.

As someone who just spent some time figuring out why Australians were getting errors on the site I work for, I fully support standardizing automatic updates. Since the site is running a two year old version of PHP, it looks like I either have to update the PHP version to the latest (just to be safe) or add the timezonedb PECL package. This seems to be a ton of work just to get something that should be updated automatically.