I've yet to see this logic done right.

Dec. 1st, 2014 | 12:09 am

"You shouldn't be cautious around [this minority] people because in reality,[this minority] people get victimized far more often than they victimize others."

Do the people who write that think like that? Or do they just use it as signalling, without regard to meaning at all?

Link | Leave a comment | | Flag

Score this non-apology! How many bingo lines can you spot?

May. 27th, 2014 | 09:21 pm

Score this non-apology! How many bingo lines can you spot?

But I’m not [minority], and I don’t have a radar that pings whenever [minority adjective] and words like [neutral-word] are mentioned in close proximity [separated by 40 other words]. It didn’t even occur to me that the statement could be read as an allusion to the stereotype of [minority adjective] people being [insulting-adjective]. That’s certainly not how I read it, obviously — but I get that this is one possible interpretation of the passage, and that my own privilege as a [not-that-minority] person is why I didn’t notice that. And especially in light of (TW for anti-[that-minority-ism] and general bigotry) ongoing bullshit happening both here and overseas — I also get why some of the folks who heard those lines were… concerned.

Sooooo not my intention, ya’ll. Really sorry for that. And from here forth I’ll try to keep a closer lookout for those kinds of “stereotype keyword” combinations, to avoid confusion/alarm.

[ source redacted ]

ETA for clarity

Link | Leave a comment {3} | | Flag

"When the rich use their wealth against you, target their wealth." (But not otherwise, I hope.)

May. 18th, 2014 | 11:00 pm

More good sense from elsewhere. Nuances as clear fresh air.

Money is not speech. Eich was not stating his belief; he was using dollars most of us do not have to suppress a basic human right, the right to marry the person you love. His case is a classic example of capital versus democracy. When the privileged use their wealth against the people, it's right to respond with the people's tool, the boycott.

That said, I agree with the gay folks who signed the petition at Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both: "People must be allowed to be wrong in order to continually test what is right. We should criticize opposing views, not punish or suppress them."

When people use words against you, respond with words. When the rich use their wealth against you, target their wealth.

IMO, Chik-Fil-A, yes, target their wealth. Ender's Game not so much; profit from the movie will be split among many people, so will go to many different causes.

his may sound like double-talking, but I don't support what happened with Eich. That war was over in 2013, and punishing losers is bad form.

Logic, fresh air, and sportsmanship too? Nice!

Link | Leave a comment {3} | | Flag

Reddit's got it right: free speech is an ideal independent of laws

May. 18th, 2014 | 01:34 pm

Attributed to Reddit administrators:

We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States - because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to uphold it - but because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform.

From a comment Further down the page:
Free speech is a concept that exists outside of the Bill of Rights and isn't wholly defined by the government.

All from http://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/23c1dq/xkcd_free_speech/

Link | Leave a comment {9} | | Flag

Comments I'm posting elsewhere, in defense of free speech

May. 17th, 2014 | 11:31 pm

Remember the other part of the no-free-speech side: "You do not have to provide a forum for those you disagree with. There is no principle that says everyone should have an opportunity to present their side. Censorship of opposing views is just what they deserve. If they weren't assholes, no one would criticize or censor them."

What now prevents the New York Times and other organs of the 1%, from suppressing all statements from Occupy, and running only the most negative views* of them? When the 1% buy enough stock in Google, why would Google continue to list sites criticizing the 1%?

Maybe some public respect for the principle of, oh dear, "free speech"?

* altogether, instead of partially as they do now


ccjohn: Except we only get to speak at all because we all supposedly believe in free speech. They will come after you or me next time. Not one of us has never said anything the mob cannot insist demands action.

You're right on the big point, but it isn't the "mob" that will come after us, at least not soon. First it will be the rich who will give us less and less "free space" in their big newspapers and You-Tube. The will define more and more of the 99%'s positions as "too offensive to be allowed any time."

Later, (and maybe already), who is it that will inform and incite the "mob"? Astro-turfing is easy for those with plenty of money.


Link | Leave a comment {3} | | Flag

"They knew the dangers!"

May. 15th, 2014 | 10:48 am

But Stewart kept things in perspective and saved his utter scorn for Boko Haram. He said the girls they kidnapped are the real “badasses,” because they go to school every day, fully aware of the dangers facing them if they do.

Huh. That's what XKCD says about freedom of speech.

Link | Leave a comment | | Flag

Spot the flaw? What elephant is thriving on two blades of grass, here?

May. 14th, 2014 | 08:40 pm

What elephant is thriving on two blades of grass, here? What well-known factor is ignored here? And in every big establishment source I've seen talk about this.

China’s demography is a disaster. About 2015, the seemingly boundless labor pool will begin to shrink. One reason is rapid aging, which presages that China will become old before it becomes rich. By 2050, China will have lost one-third of its working-age population. Meanwhile, the U.S. will bestride the earth as the youngest industrialized nation after India.

Also in this decade, the number of China’s dependents will start to soar. The U.S. curve will rise only slowly, due to high fertility and immigration, two classic sources of rejuvenation. By midcentury, one Chinese worker will have to support two dependents, a ratio worse than anywhere in the West. If ample labor is the food of growth, China is looking at starvation.


Sigh. Two dependents won't need two workers producing X amount of goods each; you only need one worker producing 2X amount.

China's One-Child policy has saved a lot of resources to invest in new tech, which the world is happily buying.

Hint: "Whoever makes two ears of corn, or two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before, deserves better of mankind, and does more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together…" -- attributed to Jonathan Swift

Link | Leave a comment {5} | | Flag

To answer some questions....

May. 4th, 2014 | 04:02 pm

Because PM's and email don't work well for me, here's place I can answer them.

Link | Leave a comment {3} | | Flag

Vera Nazarian / Norilana

Mar. 15th, 2014 | 01:04 am

Fundraiser for a wonderful and deserving publisher, and her authors.


h/t: http://sartorias.livejournal.com/605892.html

Link | Leave a comment | | Flag

Why gay marriage so suddenly? And about discouragement....

Mar. 7th, 2014 | 12:45 pm

When I see young people discouraged because their movement didn't win dramatically, on the first try (salute to OWS!) here's the metaphor that comes to mind:

waves with foam and force
fail against the rocks.
another wave always comes.
the rock's lost molecules
never come back
then "suddenly"
the rock comes down.

Link | Leave a comment | | Flag