There are a lot of types of "responsibility". I'd say many platforms have a social responsibility to be part of an ongoing process to help encourage quality content and discourage false, abusive, etc. content, and that we as their users and customers should hold them partly accountable on that front. They have a role to play and I'd like to see them be/remain a committed, productive part of the conversation. That's not the same as saying they don't have a right to run their platform however they want.
Automatic copyright is one of the reasons we criticize copyright. It's one of the many key things I had in mind when designing this shirt. So uh, the fact that we are subject to it is not the brilliant gotcha you seem to think it is. I think you may need to look up "irony" again...
I recently re-played through a SMB3 - discovering that in my childhood fascination with warp flutes I had actually never even visited a significant number of the worlds - and I never could have done it without save states. Or rather I maybe *could* have, but I don't have that kind of time to spend. Plus, after playing Super Meat Boy, the idea of waiting longer than .5 seconds to restart a level is just unacceptable to me now.
In fact, part of the reason we haven't released it yet is because we're considering updating the design with something new! (Though we'll also probably continue offering the "Classic" version as well if we do). I'll count this as one vote for a sci-fi style, though I've heard other opinions and have some other ideas too.
You have to deal with actions, not thoughts, because you can never truly know thoughts, and even if you do, it doesn't change reality
So, for example, would you remove the notion of "perceived threat" and the question of whether such perception was "objectively reasonable" from determining qualified immunity for police, and base it solely on a material determination of whether someone did genuinely pose a threat?
While I do think hate crime laws are often redundant and can cause problems, this whole focus on "punishing thought" misses the mark for me.
Thought is already highly relevant to crime. For example, "remorse" plays into both sentencing and the parole process, and is even sometimes examined via forensic psychiatry. "Motive" and "malice aforethought" are critical to murder charges, with the latter being specifically enumerated as four different "states of mind". And of course there is the entire world of "Not Criminally Responsible" which hinges almost entirely on a person's mental capacity and state.
So while I think there's plenty of room to debate the appropriateness, necessity and specific implementation of various Hate Crime laws, I don't buy that just saying "you can't have laws about thought!" is the be all and end all of the discussion.
Wait, so something needs to happen on a large, widespread scale for it to be a rights issue?
So like, hypothetically: if you were illegally searched or arrested without cause or denied a fair trial or compelled to testify against yourself or had any of your other core civil rights stripped from you, that wouldn't be a rights issue? After all, it's just one person, barely a measurable portion of the population. So if you were to complain about your rights being ignored, and others were to stand up for you, we'd be justified in saying that you're just being "political" and this is not a rights issue because it's not happening to millions of people every day?
If she is better for the job then let her have it, if he is better for the job then let him have it, but don't go down the road of forcing a lessor (male or female) into that job just because of some distorted idea of gender equality.
The engineer at Uber was literally told by the company's HR that "some genders and ethnic backgrounds are more suited to some professions" and thus she should not be surprised by the lack of gender equality in engineering.
Real and blatant sexism is happening right in front of your face, but you're much worried about the vague possibility of some reverse-sexism slipping through?