"you're essentially saying that nobody who is against X has any business setting policy for X. (Abortion and the drilling of new oil wells immediately come to mind, to drive the point home on both sides of the political spectrum.)"
Uh, no, that is NOT what's being said. What's being said is that the people in charge of a specific function, X, should not be willfully ignorant of X. To use your examples, someone making decisions on abortion should not be unaware of basic reproductive medical facts, and someone in charge of oil drilling policy should not be unaware of basic geological facts. Imagine, for instance, if someone were to be in charge of oil drilling policy show said, "I have not interest in oil at all, nor any idea of how it works. That said, here are the rules."
"Everyone has a bias, TD is no different. And no, I do not think you are up any of the candidates asses. That said, you tell me which one you think is worse and I will be able to show you a bias."
Um, that only works if one of them really ISN'T worse than the other. Otherwise, it isn't bias, it's just what it is....
"Really? I'd say serial sexual assault is kind of a big deal."
It's actually kind of not on matters of public policy. It reveals a great deal about what a horrible retched piece of shit Donald Trump is, but it doesn't say much necessarily about how he would govern.
Put another way: let's way I could promise you a candidate under which the economy would thrive for American generally, the country would be at peace, and he would have a public approval rating of 90%......but while in office he did something horrible. Take your pick: rape, murder, whatever. Would you vote for him/her?
I think it's an interesting question without a clear and clean answer, given how many people he/she would help versus the few he/she would hurt. To be clear, I'm not suggesting there's a right answer here, only that it's an interesting moral dilemma....
This, actually. While I would never come ten miles from voting for Trump, this had better be a real thing to start this shitstorm, or else Comey will have some explaining to do...
"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....
Ah, yes, we're super pro-Hillary around these parts. It's why we officially endorsed her for super-President of the World of the Universe and all that.
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....
I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the risk of terrorism slipping through refugee lines is 1 out of every 100 refugees? Because that's fucking hilarious....
"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....
"Shouldn't this alone disqualify her from being a presidential candidate?"
If being a fool disqualified someone from the Presidency, imagine how many past presidents we would need to go back and retroactively strip of their title....
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....
On the post: Why Is Your Bigoted, Luddite Uncle Crafting Internet Policy In Europe?
Re:
Uh, no, that is NOT what's being said. What's being said is that the people in charge of a specific function, X, should not be willfully ignorant of X. To use your examples, someone making decisions on abortion should not be unaware of basic reproductive medical facts, and someone in charge of oil drilling policy should not be unaware of basic geological facts. Imagine, for instance, if someone were to be in charge of oil drilling policy show said, "I have not interest in oil at all, nor any idea of how it works. That said, here are the rules."
On the post: Oh, Look, Two Breweries Work Out A Trademark Issue Without Lawyers, Threats, Or Asshole-ery
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The FBI Seems To Be Leaking Like A Sieve Concerning Details Of Clinton Email Invesgitation
Re: I am not racist but...
Um, that only works if one of them really ISN'T worse than the other. Otherwise, it isn't bias, it's just what it is....
On the post: FBI Investigating New Information Regarding Hillary Clinton... Because Of The Anthony Weiner Sexting Investigation
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable
It's actually kind of not on matters of public policy. It reveals a great deal about what a horrible retched piece of shit Donald Trump is, but it doesn't say much necessarily about how he would govern.
Put another way: let's way I could promise you a candidate under which the economy would thrive for American generally, the country would be at peace, and he would have a public approval rating of 90%......but while in office he did something horrible. Take your pick: rape, murder, whatever. Would you vote for him/her?
I think it's an interesting question without a clear and clean answer, given how many people he/she would help versus the few he/she would hurt. To be clear, I'm not suggesting there's a right answer here, only that it's an interesting moral dilemma....
On the post: FBI Investigating New Information Regarding Hillary Clinton... Because Of The Anthony Weiner Sexting Investigation
Re:
On the post: Australian Teen With Wacky Mullet Sues The Media For Making A Meme Out Of His Haircut
Re: Am I the only one....?
On the post: Stepdad Goes To Police With Stepdaughter's Sexts, Asks Them To Intervene, Is Prosecuted For Child Porn
Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
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....
On the post: How One Young Black Man Supporting Trump Massively Skews The LA Times Presidential Poll
Re:
On the post: How One Young Black Man Supporting Trump Massively Skews The LA Times Presidential Poll
Re: Newly Released WikiLeaks . . . Hillary Clinton Claims Blacks are "Professional-Never-Do-Wells"
On the post: Donald Trump Happily Repeating Lie About Google Autocomplete Suppressing Negative Hillary News
Re: TechDirt must be pro-Hillary
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....
On the post: Donald Trump Happily Repeating Lie About Google Autocomplete Suppressing Negative Hillary News
Re:
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....
On the post: Donald Trump Happily Repeating Lie About Google Autocomplete Suppressing Negative Hillary News
Re: Re: google news
On the post: Donald Trump Happily Repeating Lie About Google Autocomplete Suppressing Negative Hillary News
Re:
On the post: Former Refugee Who Took Skittles Photograph Donald Trump Jr. Used In A Stupid Meme Threatens Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
Brilliant....
On the post: Former Refugee Who Took Skittles Photograph Donald Trump Jr. Used In A Stupid Meme Threatens Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
On the post: Former Refugee Who Took Skittles Photograph Donald Trump Jr. Used In A Stupid Meme Threatens Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
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.
On the post: Former Refugee Who Took Skittles Photograph Donald Trump Jr. Used In A Stupid Meme Threatens Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Missed the point
-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....
On the post: Nintendo DMCAs Fan-Game 'No Mario's Sky', Devs Rename It 'DMCA Sky'
Re:
On the post: FBI Publishes Clinton Email Investigation Documents; More Bad News On Documents Mishandling, FOIA Compliance
Re:
If being a fool disqualified someone from the Presidency, imagine how many past presidents we would need to go back and retroactively strip of their title....
On the post: CBS Announces New Ad-Free More-Expensive Streaming Service...That Includes Ads
Re:
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....
Next >>