ysv2

> No-one (left or right) would have found a word-fight between evenly-wrong grey characters very interesting if that was the story in the first place.

That you would rank the Covington kids as "evenly-wrong" with their racist (not to mention adult) abusers is incredible.

Yes, some "sides" of some issues are objectively false. But the problem is that even where facts are not in dispute, the mainstream press's strong left-bias influences the facts it chooses to emphasize and the narratives it promotes.

Take the coverage of the Covington High School protest, for example. When the available facts seemed to support the narrative that white, male, MAGA-hat-wearing, anti-abortion Catholic students were racially harassing a defenseless Native American elder, the media was shouting "fascism!" from the rooftops.

But when more facts emerged in the form of a longer video showing the high school students being abused, and with no mere smirk, by a group of overtly racist Black Hebrew Israelites no less--and the Native American elder accosting the students rather than the other way around--suddenly that no longer serves a narrative the left wants to tell, and there's been comparatively little coverage of the aftermath of the mob unleashed by the initial reporting, of the death threats to students and the high school's temporary closure.

This is why it is crucial for the media to present the facts from more than one, very specific angle, even when the facts are largely not in dispute.

I agree that cutting the stream was the best thing to do in this situation. But if you want to troll people about lacking reading comprehension, try fixing your grammar and punctuation first?

The reaction to this ad is predictably absurd. The far left's constant push to draw increasingly unremarkable positions like "US jobs should go to US workers" as beyond the pale is why we're stuck with Trump.

For my part I don't even agree with the ad, and I consider myself lucky to work with my H-1B coworkers. But it can be disagreed with minus the pretense that it's equivalent to painting a swastika on the side of a bus.

Nervous? Not at all. My point is, it isn't my responsibility to ban them or take any other action on my end. That's a problem to be resolved between the EU's governments and its citizens.

No, if I want to have a physical presence in the EU I have to follow EU law. But if I'm residing entirely in another country, and EU citizens want to do business with me over the internet, I could care less what EU law says. And no amount of whining on this thread will change the fact that the EU has no leverage over me.

> You might just wake up one morning with your bank accounts frozen and your credit cards revoked if you violate the GDPR.

Please, spare me. I'm no more worried about EU laws than I am about China seizing my accounts for mentioning Tiananmen Square. You overestimate the EU's reach.

I would continue to do nothing special to support the EU's provincial laws. If EU citizens want to send me money, fine. If the EU decides to block its citizens from doing so, that's also fine.

But I will take no actions on my end to implement EU laws, and it's laughable that some people in this thread imagine the EU has the power to coerce me to do so.

I have no business assets connected to any EU countries, and I don't have any desire to cross any EU borders. So I will continue to enjoy life in my home country and ignore your provincial laws.

Exactly, that's the distinction.

No, you're confused. Google has a physical presence and business partners in Europe; I do not. (Profiting from EU citizens is beside the point.)

> the EU is saying "You can't do these things to our citizens without their explicit consent, and we will punish you if you do, regardless of where you host your website."

The EU has neither the right nor the ability to deliver on that threat. I will continue to ignore the GDPR, as I ignore the ridiculous cookie laws, without worrying about European police raiding my home at night.

Right, hypothetically if I were to physically enter the EU I could expect trouble, and that's the EU's right. But in the meanwhile, if EU citizens wanted to do business with me, that's not my problem.

I basically agree with your assessment.

A lot of the GDPR's provisions are admirable, and fundamentally good for citizens. I'd like (some) similar rules in my country.

I just wish they'd drop the absurd pretense that the EU is somehow capable of imposing their provincial laws on foreign companies with no physical presence in the EU.

What makes you imagine your government has any jurisdiction over me?

EU citizens can choose to use services offered under other countries' laws, or not. The EU can choose to implement their own Great Firewall to block such services, or not. Frankly I don't care either way.

Yet it is fundamentally incorrect. I'm not an EU citizen, so I have zero reason to care about their laws. I will simply ignore them, and the EU has no recourse, other than possibly mandating that their ISPs block me or something. Which I also do not care about.

It isn't my responsibility to block them, or to take any action whatsoever to comply with another country's laws.

> This regulation is not limited to companies based in the EU—it applies to any service anywhere in the world that can be used by citizens of the EU.

That's fundamentally incorrect. As a non-EU citizen, I reject the notion that a foreign government has the right to impose their own laws on me, be it the EU or China or anyone else. If the EU thinks it's a problem that I'm offering a service to EU citizens that doesn't comply with laws I have no vote on, frankly they can sod off.

Widening our spheres of empathy means we can't predicate empathy on finding a label that fits people into an orthodox feminist understanding of privilege.

The key takeaway from Farrell's book is that men also suffer. We need to become OK with having compassion for men, full stop. Even the men for whom we cannot apply an additional qualifier like "neuroatypical".

Companies will always comply with valid warrants for data in their possession, and it would be ridiculous to expect them to do otherwise.

What made this case different was that it was not about a simple warrant for data held by Apple.

Thanks for the explanation.

Am I missing something here, or is there no reason the FBI couldn't desolder the 5C's Toshiba NAND flash chip, read its encrypted contents, and perform the desired offline brute-force attack themselves?

The key derivation function is known, right?

It seems the Justice Department admits that Apple's reputation for privacy and security is of great value to the company. I wonder how it intends to argue, then, that forcing Apple to create a corrupted build of iOS which harms that security and that hard-won reputation does not place an "undue burden" on the company.

> It is none of my business how other people lead their lives, even if I disagree with their lifestyle, as long as their actions do not harm me or the society as a whole.

Willful deceit and endangering your spouse is not a "lifestyle choice", it's wrong in an objective ethical sense.

Exposing your spouse to sexually transmitted diseases without their knowledge harms society as a whole. In cases where it's a wife cheating on a husband, forcing men to pay to raise children who are not their own harms society as a whole.

I'm not in favor of this kind of vigilantism either, by the way. But I think the relativism you express above, implying that cheating is a personal decision without a victim, is desperately in need of a reality check.

I haven't done a ton of reading on the movement, but I can point to Warren Farrell as a thoughtful author who has important things to say about men's issues.

One of the most obvious problems with this argument is that the National Organization for Women has stood in the way of alimony reform (http://www.flnow.org/press%20release%202013-4%20alimony.docx) and supports the Obama administration's expansive Title IX interpretations, both of which are harmful to men. If this author's ideal pro-male feminism does not exist at NOW, then where can it be found, and to what extent is it actually relevant to a discussion of real-world social movements?

I would also point out that to a great degree, the public face of the feminist movement is Jezebel and other such mainstream sites. The author you quote essentially claims that these feminists aren't True Scotsmen ("public, academic, or otherwise serious"), but on the other hand he or she has no problem judging the men's rights movement by its most grating voices.