Filed under: #NotYourHashtag
-
I based my statement on a post that made the * mailing list on 1/22. And then when I went looking for that post to provide the date, I realized that my statement was a bit too broad.
Corrected claim: In the version 9 firmware, the Cisco 7xxx series phones no longer support UDP SIP. Only TCP SIP and SCCP.
Source: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2015-January/285589.html
-
Or it might be that women and POC are getting really cranked up and free-speaking and it's making him feel threatened.
Yeah, this is how I read it.
Filed under: Don't tell me not to tell you what not to say.
-
Benlb.
-
Jaloopa£
-
Yeah, this is how I read it.
Huh, really? Threatened in what way?
I interpret it more along the lines of the saying, "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." IOW, since he wasn't a target of PC silencing / shaming, he never really understood it.
-
Bet you ten bucks that he still doesn't understand it, and that he's not gonna stop continuing to do it. But yeah, I agree with you about the yesterdays liberals are tomorrows conservatives thing.
If you go to the original article, you can see a bunch of examples of actual censorship, that people really should be upset about, but the Binders thing is out of place. So naturally, that's the one everyone is talking about, which makes me feel like the rest of the article was just there to set up the argument against the Binders folks.
-
If you go to the original article, you can see a bunch of examples of actual censorship, that people really should be upset about,
Totally agree.
but the Binders thing is out of place
I can't see why.
So naturally, that's the one everyone is talking about,
Really? I've read about it in a few places, and Althouse was the only one I saw talking about that. She talks about stuff that interests her for whatever reason, not what's "important" or whatever.
-
All speech must be protected, not by the general freedom to speak, but by law.
I'm sorry, if people get offended by speech, that is THEIR problem. People need to grow some balls and realize that "feelings" are their own responsibility. I cannot be responsible for your feelings, especially if they lead to you committing violence.
The reason that protecting all speech, no matter who is offended by it, is that offense can be used to stifle ANY speech. This is not a slippery slope, this is a downright 90 degree cliff. Once you cross that line, you aren't waiting for someone's rights to get violated, you already violated rights.
If someone cannot understand this, then try to imagine your ideological opponent controlling speech. No matter how right you think your ideas are, the cost of losing free speech is greater than the cost of granting it.
So, a few people will get violent. That's the cost of freedom.
And that's what liberals are losing grasp on. They are currently in ideological power of their domain. They have lived in previous generations of ideological submission. How they cannot perceive their hypocritical bigotry is beyond me.
No, speech is not just free independent of law, free speech is and must be the law. It is not free if you claim freedom does not include legal protection.
Soon there will be a violent group that opposes each possible ideology, and what the liberals don't understand is that the very groups they are protected, already oppose their ideology. It is only a matter of time before we go full steam down the path of appeasement that our previous generations chose in WWII, that we will wake up and realize, "Now it's my speech that's threatened".
And then it will be too late. There won't be any conservatives left to help you defend it.
We have the 60s through the 90s to show that controlling the ideology space results in violence. The "peaceful" hippies were anything but. Rallying in the streets, burning and busting up cars.... And that wasn't for protesting the death of anyone, that was just protesting a culture that said that rock-and-roll was of the devil.
Now this culture that was repressed has control and they have infiltrated and dominated every part of society. They are so sure that they represent freedom, they haven't stopped to think about what freedom really means.
They've basically committed the same sins that they cry was perpetrated on them.
I mean, I cannot understand, for the life of me, how they can condemn the mocking of Muhammad, and celebrate a jar full of pee with a cross submersed in it as art.
-
-
- Free speech doesn't just mean the ability to speak. I see this trend happening lately. Free Speech inherently demands protection by law.
- The protection of speech must be universal.
- People being offended should never quell the freedom of speech. Offense is a feeling, and a feeling is the owner's responsibility. There is no defense of violence committed driven by a feeling like offense.
- No matter how you feel you know best. Eventually some group that disagrees with you will gain power and use your own methods to quell your speech. This is reality.
- The liberal mentality is one of intellectual superiority. This is hypocritical. They were derived from a group of "peaceful" protesters (as far as burning cars and smashing private property is peaceful), that complained about the dominant group quelling their speech, only to grow up into politicians that quell our speech, and then call us bigots.
-
See? Was that so hard?
-
Comment on article
I find that trying to explain the concept of free speech to some
people is like trying to explain the benefits of secularism to some
Evangelicals. They love the idea when it protects them from sharia law,
but not when it protects others from Christianity.TRWTF
Comparing Sharia law to corner street Evangelicalism.
Apparently a woman having to listen to someone preaching on the street is so disturbing that it's worse than her having her head chopped off for displaying her hair.
-
Comparing Sharia law to corner street Evangelicalism.
I think it's healthy to compare the two. It's the retards who go in for moral equivalence you have to look out for.
-
why
The other examples were of people doing things to inhibit others' freedom of speech, but the binders thing only had people saying things. You cannot defend free speech by limiting people's ability to speak freely.
-
The other examples were of people doing things to inhibit others' freedom of speech, but the binders thing only had people saying things. You cannot defend free speech by limiting people's ability to speak freely.
Eh...I thought the Binders folks were shrieking at each other when they said something "offensive" or "insensitive" with the purpose of less talk from privileged white chicks (AKA Women Without Color). It may not be people actively doing something, but it's people who want other people to not speak out.
I dunno, mostly it's just funny watching the spoils of decades of identity politics ripen.
-
In a futile attempt to brighten up the mood, I'll just leave this here.
http://www.checkmyprivilege.com/quiz
I took the quiz before. Apparently I'm a shitlord. Still waiting for that acceptance letter from the patriarchy though.
-
Pretty sure this was the result I got before, too (if only I could lose some weight):
BTW, I have a certificate hanging in my bedroom declaring my membership in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. There weren't any questions about that on the quiz, sadly.
-
Found my screenshot:
I blame living in Europe (shit).
-
First off, there are some gaps in the Status question:
What if I made $30k-44,999? Or $65,001-99,999? What if I made $250,001-999,999? What would I choose then‽
Anyway, I got a pretty good score:
-
It's a natural process. As each wave of feminism gets replaced by the next, adherents of the previous wave just keep banging on about how they thought they've already solved all of the problems now what are these other people complaining about? Third wave feminists are basically just bigoted old dinosaurs, imo. I try to stay off their wildly overgrown front lawn.
-
lame quiz
-
Huh, figured I'd get more than that.
-
-
As each wave of feminism gets replaced by the next, adherents of the previous wave just keep banging on about how they thought they've already solved all of the problems now what are these other people complaining about?
And each new wave is just crazier than the one it replaces. I really wonder just how crazy they can get.
-
It helps that I know ‘liberal’ and ‘crazy’ are interchangeable to you.
-
THE UK IS EUROPE - MEH‽‽‽
…
About right actually
Is it actually possible to get a rank other than Shitlord?
-
It helps that I know ‘liberal’ and ‘crazy’ are interchangeable to you.
Not really. Just wrong. Sometimes evil. It's hard to tell when they're serious or not.
-
Yeah, those evil liberals. Completely unlike Boomzilla, who wants to overthrow Cuba.
-
Is it actually possible to get a rank other than Shitlord?
Let's try, shall we ...
Answer: Yes
-
Yeah, those evil liberals. Completely unlike Boomzilla, who wants to overthrow Cuba.
Yes, that's exactly right.
Hang on, was that...sarcasm? Which of these do you think aren't evil and the world wouldn't be better off if they weren't running countries:
- Fidel / Raul Castro
- Kim Jong Un
- Daniel Ortega
-
Decided that diabetes is technically a condition, not a disease.
-
Decided that diabetes is technically a condition, not a disease.
I think we have the front-runner for the president of the WTDWTF chapter of The Patriarchy.
-
I think we have the front-runner for the president of the WTDWTF chapter of The Patriarchy.
Hey, I was tied with @boomzilla...maybe I'll be his running mate.
-
Hey, I was tied with @boomzilla...maybe I'll be his running mate.
Really? ... Oh, right. Ok, time for the obligatory question: does either of you have a daughter?
cc: @boomzilla
-
-
And, IIRC, @chubertdev does not[1]. That's it: @boomzilla shall be president of the WTDWTF chapter of The Patriarchy, at least until someone beats his privilege score.
[1] No, your dog does not count.
-
-
That's it: @boomzilla shall be president of the WTDWTF chapter of The Patriarchy, at least until someone beats his privilege score.
I totally have the beard for this job.
-
This should be more clear.
-
-
It is also acceptable to use Linux voluntarily while clean-shaven. Nobody's ever told me to stop doing it, at least...
-
- Barack Obama
-
Decided that diabetes is technically a condition, not a disease.
There was a question about disease? Oh, do you mean counting it on the disability question? Maybe I can get an even lower score.
-
Wow, counting diabetes as a disability dropped me a lot (had been 105).
-
Exactly.......that was the one change that I had between my two scores.
-
-
I'm sorry, if people get offended by speech, that is THEIR problem.
Fuck you.
I mean, I cannot understand, for the life of me, how they can condemn the mocking of Muhammad, and celebrate a jar full of pee with a cross submersed in it as art.
There's a difference between "forbidding you to do something" and "considering it bad taste". Voltaire's "I hate your guts, but you have the right to talk"not an actual quote is still a thing, y'know.
The point is, I have the same right to condemn the mocking of Muhammad that you have to draw Muhammad, on the same basis. And both of us can get people pissed, except yours are maybe going to get more pissed.
Is it actually possible to get a rank other than Shitlord?
http://i.imgur.com/PUaAfq9.png
I blame Poland.
@abarker said:
does either of you have a daughter?
We already had that discussion.
I thought you'll be linking the bathrobe thread.
-
First off, there are some gaps in the Status question:
<img src="/uploads/default/13794/099771eb54dfb45c.png" width="555" height="248">
What if I made $30k-44,999? Or $65,001-99,999? What if I made $250,001-999,999? What would I choose then‽
Anyway, I got a pretty good score:
<img src="/uploads/default/13796/34f374df95522850.png" width="356" height="261">
Oh god.... another idiot that believes that 100k is rich.
Box house, non-luxury car, and crap for internet.
The only thing my income gives me is not being in debt.Middle class ends at 65k. Better call up my dad. He's struggling to make his retirement goals so he doesn't have to depend on welfare. I'll have to let him know he's rich.
-
Ok, I put in my wife's description and got Disadvantaged.
I guess she'll have to call up that organization and demand the financial aid they refused her.
She's Chinese and looked at the section labeled minority, and the only races there were Black and Hispanic checkboxes.
I suppose 13% black population is a minority, but 11% ASIAN TOTAL is not a minority.
-
another idiot that believes that 100k is rich.Box house, non-luxury car, and crap for internet.The only thing my income gives me is not being in debt.
I'd imagine there's some skewing going on at one end of the chart, so even though 33% of the population have >$100k in income, the fact that 50% of the economy is in the hands of 1-5% of the population is not being reflected. Because that's probably not something we want too much attention drawn to.
Filed under: all figures obtained from thin air/my butt, the difference between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000 is probably less emotionally significant than $100,000 and $1,000,000
