Sure, it's unlikely that my decently maintained car driven within normal limits will have a crash, but I still wear a seatbelt in case something happens beyond my control.
You couldn't have told me this BEFORE I went on Jeopardy? $10,000 grand prize, down the drain.
Thanks buttwipe.
So, yes, what they were doing was bad. But it sounds like they're getting fined because they weren't following their stated promise not to, not because of the inherent badness of the behavior itself.
Do you guys bend over backward to not understand things, or is this genuine?
They promised not to after the FTC declared the behavior "bad" 9 years ago. Its "badness" underlines the entire set of exchanges between the FTC and Twitter.
I can't wait to read the next comment. I expect something like:
"So, what I think this means is this that the scorpion was a misogynist and the frog was a racist. The snail wasn't even mentioned because they is transgender, so the bottom line is the whole thing is about sexually assaulting ostriches."
I mean, why not. I means what you want it to mean I guess.
good grief
I’ve heard this parable over and over again, during my lifetime, and it’s always seemed to be pure foolishness.
It takes a measure of abstract thinking to get ones like this. Abstract thinking, at least in it's most commonly-acknowledged forms, begins at an IQ somewhere around 110. This Is a full standard deviation above the average US national IQ of 98.
There are no doubt plenty of people confused by it. They tend to be bamboozled by parables like this, and read into them all kinds of things that were never intended. You are doing that here. Some of you desperately want a straw man to attack so badly, that you're creating it out of all kind of non-strawman things.
This does not imply "blaming" the victim or anything of the like. That's a creation of your own mind. Break free from the buzzword salesmen, those people who promise salvation if only you return the favor and fail to point out their hypocrisy.
Jut say no to their temptations and false rewards of absolution.
you not only think this is original and clever to invoke (it's not)
No, what's unique and clever is attacking and arguing with someone over something they so obviously never said. What's unique and clever is implying bad faith where none was evident to anyone else, and what's unique and clever is being an asshat for no other reason that it's the Internet.
It's literally the first time each and every one of these things has been done. Congratulations on staying original.
A private company acting on its own platform, is not.
Ah, yes, how calm and straight-forward. Surely were they acting in a way that you didn't agree with, you would still be all about private company rights. Right?
It's odd how Democrats have shifted on this position, especially given that they are, on average, the more educated party.
When companies discriminate against, say, people who are against gay marriage, we scream that they are private companies.
When they discriminate against people who are gay, or who are for gay marriage, we go about as berzerk as a group can, we melt-down every social media platform in sight, and we command our legislators to pass laws preventing private companies from discriminating against said groups.
What happened to being a private company's discretion?
Well, that's the thing. We only cite this when we agree with the decision. And we're grown, mature, educated adults.
White privilege is one thing, but affluent white privilege, that's where it's at. There's where you can taunt others about their preferences, because yours just become law. We're so used to getting our way, that it just becomes the act of divine right. After all, we're us, human pure of thought and one step away from being a messiah. People for whom there is no problem that a snarky one-liner won't fix.
The best part about affluent white privilege, however, is having carte blanche to be a hypocrite, knowing that nobody will call you out on it.
I would argue that a warrant, as it stands in 2020, does not meet the definition of a warrant in the 1700s.
Judges never receive criticism when a warrant turns up nothing, but if they fail to issue a warrant, and something happens, they receive unlimited criticism.
This being the case, how likely are they to protect your constitutional rights?
Answer: not very
Some judges have approval rates exceeding 98%, and those that aren't approved are usually re-submitted once the minor procedural errors are fixed (wrong name, date, etc) and then approved.
Warrants are. for all intents and purposes, rubber stamps, and don't protect anyone from anything.
Unfortunately.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by SeattleRex.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
<b>OK, that's very good, though it still won't protect you from your account on any website getting compromised on the server end. It doesn't matter how good your password is if their database gets compromised.</b> Wait, I know you! https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/otMpBO682HEELHriNSsX6yZ28IY=/1200x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RPMJ3ZO2FS2JV4DPKM2L6FP47A.jpg
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, it's unlikely that my decently maintained car driven within normal limits will have a crash, but I still wear a seatbelt in case something happens beyond my control. You couldn't have told me this BEFORE I went on Jeopardy? $10,000 grand prize, down the drain. Thanks buttwipe.
Re:
So, yes, what they were doing was bad. But it sounds like they're getting fined because they weren't following their stated promise not to, not because of the inherent badness of the behavior itself. Do you guys bend over backward to not understand things, or is this genuine? They promised not to after the FTC declared the behavior "bad" 9 years ago. Its "badness" underlines the entire set of exchanges between the FTC and Twitter. I can't wait to read the next comment. I expect something like: "So, what I think this means is this that the scorpion was a misogynist and the frog was a racist. The snail wasn't even mentioned because they is transgender, so the bottom line is the whole thing is about sexually assaulting ostriches." I mean, why not. I means what you want it to mean I guess. good grief
Re: disturbing connotations
I always read it as a justification for racism or distrust of rival religious faiths. Of course you did. Why not ...
Re: Re: Parable Time
I’ve heard this parable over and over again, during my lifetime, and it’s always seemed to be pure foolishness. It takes a measure of abstract thinking to get ones like this. Abstract thinking, at least in it's most commonly-acknowledged forms, begins at an IQ somewhere around 110. This Is a full standard deviation above the average US national IQ of 98. There are no doubt plenty of people confused by it. They tend to be bamboozled by parables like this, and read into them all kinds of things that were never intended. You are doing that here. Some of you desperately want a straw man to attack so badly, that you're creating it out of all kind of non-strawman things. This does not imply "blaming" the victim or anything of the like. That's a creation of your own mind. Break free from the buzzword salesmen, those people who promise salvation if only you return the favor and fail to point out their hypocrisy. Jut say no to their temptations and false rewards of absolution.
Re: Re: Parable Time
you not only think this is original and clever to invoke (it's not) No, what's unique and clever is attacking and arguing with someone over something they so obviously never said. What's unique and clever is implying bad faith where none was evident to anyone else, and what's unique and clever is being an asshat for no other reason that it's the Internet. It's literally the first time each and every one of these things has been done. Congratulations on staying original.
Look Who's Arguing Private Corporate Rights Now
A private company acting on its own platform, is not. Ah, yes, how calm and straight-forward. Surely were they acting in a way that you didn't agree with, you would still be all about private company rights. Right? It's odd how Democrats have shifted on this position, especially given that they are, on average, the more educated party. When companies discriminate against, say, people who are against gay marriage, we scream that they are private companies. When they discriminate against people who are gay, or who are for gay marriage, we go about as berzerk as a group can, we melt-down every social media platform in sight, and we command our legislators to pass laws preventing private companies from discriminating against said groups. What happened to being a private company's discretion? Well, that's the thing. We only cite this when we agree with the decision. And we're grown, mature, educated adults. White privilege is one thing, but affluent white privilege, that's where it's at. There's where you can taunt others about their preferences, because yours just become law. We're so used to getting our way, that it just becomes the act of divine right. After all, we're us, human pure of thought and one step away from being a messiah. People for whom there is no problem that a snarky one-liner won't fix. The best part about affluent white privilege, however, is having carte blanche to be a hypocrite, knowing that nobody will call you out on it.
Warrants Are Useless
I would argue that a warrant, as it stands in 2020, does not meet the definition of a warrant in the 1700s.
Judges never receive criticism when a warrant turns up nothing, but if they fail to issue a warrant, and something happens, they receive unlimited criticism.
This being the case, how likely are they to protect your constitutional rights?
Answer: not very
Some judges have approval rates exceeding 98%, and those that aren't approved are usually re-submitted once the minor procedural errors are fixed (wrong name, date, etc) and then approved.
Warrants are. for all intents and purposes, rubber stamps, and don't protect anyone from anything.
Unfortunately.