"I disagree. It would be best for all involved if we, as a culture could get less hung up about nudity and embarassing teenage shenanigans."
I think there is a middle ground here. Note that I qualified my statement with "with reckless abandon." I'm aware that underage kids have been showing each other their genitals since time immemorial and I agree that converting that practice into digital form doesn't in and of itself make it somehow a worse activity....except we'd be silly to simply disregard the real differences in dangers in terms of distribution of the images and/or more permanent embarrassment that come along with sexting as opposed to mere show-and-tell.
As I said, I don't think we need to be prudish here, but I do think we can go stronger on educating the young of the dangers even as we understand the natural inclination of the behavior....
Sigh, please read the article again, because you missed a pretty important point. Yes, Google suppresses some negative content about Hillary Clinton, as it does about Donald Trump and pretty much all highly recognized public figures' names. The algorithm is trying to weed out vulgar or defamatory content about anyone's name.
The point isn't that Google isn't suppressing autocomplete results. It is, and it has come out and stated as much. The point is that there's no bias in this, because it's doing the exact same thing for Trump's name....
Look, it would be really easy to get frustrated about comments like these, but I'm not going to. All I will do instead is implore you to read the vast body of work produced by Techdirt generally, and myself in particular. If you do that and come away with the idea still that I am a partisan on the left, then I think you probably should indeed leave the site, because that just isn't true.
On this post in particular, I attempted to focus on the relevant facts and one candidate pitching the lie that is a conspiracy theory against those facts. Nothing about that is partisan. You may not believe that when I say so, but I'm being perfectly honest with you.
As an aside, so you understand where I'm coming from, in most political discussions I have, my friends on the left generally like to refer to me as a conservative, while my friends on the right go on and on about how liberal I am. It's a frustrating way to try to talk to people, and I would encourage you not join those folks, because that's how you STOP conversations, not start them....
"You just literally stated that it is okay for us to import potential terrorist refugees because they would only kill a small number of Americans."
What I said, had you bothered to understand it, is that the ideals America is to uphold are worth the lives of some patriots. Should you want to disagree with this, go ahead, but understand how cowardly you will appear in doing so.
That's mostly because the point that Trump is trying to make isn't accurate, isn't relevant, and doesn't remotely convey an accurate depiction of whatever threat or danger might exist from the taking in of Syrian refugees. I'll give you an example of how to fix this analogy based on the actual danger involved and to keep the analogy consistent.
-I present you with a swimming pool filled with Skittles and inform you that you can eat them by the handful, but within this swimming pool of Skittles, there are roughly 100 or so that have just enough poison in them to destroy roughly .001% of the cells in your body. Would you eat them?
My answer is YES, I fucking love Skittles and my body can recover quite easily from the loss of a tiny amount of cells in my body. The pleasure of Skittles (or the pleasure of being kind to the downtrodden of the world) far outweighs the displeasure of losing some cells in my body (having some of the downtrodden kill an unfortunate by statistically infinitesimal number of American citizens). In other words, taking in refugees, or eating the Skittles, does more good than harm, all while living up to the ideals of American society.
The biggest of many flaws in this stupid Skittles analogy is that it uses multiple skittles to represent refugees, but only a single body to represent America, a body which can be permadeathed by a few poison skittles. That isn't how this works, nor is it an accurate depiction of the situation and relevant dangers.
So, once again, the Trumps prey on the simple by playing con-man games. Cool candidate you have there, bro....
Um, no, none of what you wrote is either correct, nor was it the subject of this post (which I wrote, not Mike). The point of this post was that playing word games with customers is a shitty way to do business. It was not a comment on the quality of the ads that are still included in the ad-free service.
Good, informative, entertaining advertising most certainly IS content, and it can be captivating content when done correctly. I'm struggling to see how that's even arguable....
"ESPN gets even LESS sympathy, because they double douched in paying for the records and then making them public pretty much in direct violation of doctor patient confidentiality."
Um, no. ESPN by definition cannot violate patient doctor confidentiality as they are neither the patient nor the doctor. Again, this is a matter of who the lawsuits sights ought be set upon, and it sure shouldn't be ESPN, which did it's journalistic duty.
"Or rather they believed that their misfortunes were the result of their sins - but please bear in mind that the bible isn't supposed to be the literal word of God (like the Koran) but rather the writing of men inspired by God."
Well, that depends entirely on which version of Christianity you belong to, because biblical literalism is actually a thing....
"It rather depends on what you mean by secularism. Does secularism simply mean the separation of church and state - or does it mean some kind of aggressive anti-religious stance?"
Secularism is the policy of having the government both have no official religion and take no position of favor between religions. It is the separation of church and state. That's all it is.
"Since the United States motto is in God We Trust" it is not clear to me why it should be held up as an example of secularism."
I said we were secular, not PERFECTLY secular.
"I would describe the United States as a deeply religious, (historically) overwhelmingly Christian, country that adopted an (officially) religiously neutral government system in order to prevent the otherwise inevitable rise of religious conflict. In doing this the founding fathers were extending the model for defusing religious conflict that had earlier ended the 30 years war in Germany."
Which is about as perfect an example of secular democracy as you will find.
"To portray the founding fathers as non or even anti-religious is more than a stretch."
As with any other group of people, there was a mix. That said, some of the most important founders were certainly non-religious and/or actively atheist. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and Thomas Jefferson were all publicly deists at most, with all three of them actively writing against and making policy against religion. Paine in particular was about as anti-religious as it gets. Others called themselves Christian, but were so heavily influenced by deism that this claim doesn't really square with their other professed beliefs. Still others were devoutly Christian, such as Patrick Henry. That said, this nation was founded on the ideals of the enlightenment, which was itself a massive pushback on organized religion and its power.
To suggest that this nation isn't a beacon of secularism isn't just wrong, it missed the entire point of the country.
"The US government is thus a very different animal from the Chinese government - which still officially espouses atheism."
Correct. It would be every bit as illegal for our government to adopt a policy of atheism as Christianity. The 1st amendment's instructions to our government can bu summed up as: you shall take no position respecting religion.
"It is completely accurate, Google Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Darwin if you like."
Please. Stalin wasn't remotely a secularist. He created a church out of the state, was a minister in his youth, and even promoted "miracles" within communism, such as Lysenko's biology (2 harvests every season! wheee!). Mao Zedong, meanwhile, certainly was anti-religious, which isn't the same thing as secular. But, he ran his state as a secular state, so I take your point. However, why you would lead with Mao as an example of secularism instead of, oh I don't know, the UNITED STATES, is beyond me. As for Hitler, he wasn't remotely secular and it's laughable that you seem to think he was. He was overtly religious, as is easily proven.
"It also hits to your point that secular governments are somehow saints."
Not only did I not say anything remotely like that, I certainly hope you crafted the end of this sentence to be ironic, because it most certainly is. What I actually SAID was that secularism is preferable to theocracy. Is that REALLY something you're not prepared to agree with?
"And no, the Republicans are not the racist, sexist, phobic people the left like to believe they are. The only people that believe those lies are the left and it makes you look pathetic by repeating them."
Well, I'm most certainly not on the Left, as you call it, and Republicans most certainly ARE tilted towards racism and sexism to a degree more than the liberal parties we have. This isn't to make an overt generalization. Put another way: there are more members of a racist/sexist fringe in the Republican Party than in the Democrat Party. Both parties have these elements, both parties are NOT majority in those leanings, but pretending they're equal or that Dems are more racist is hysterically wrong....