It's a pretty simple thread and I hope that it will grow some activity and peak some interest. Any valid points or useful information can be linked back and used to make threads to discuss things in further detail. Feel free to share how you feel here, however if you would like to provide details, proof, graphs, data, ect. I highly encourage you to create another thread so that it can be discussed on topic there.

Single payer and other socialist programs. Maybe even eugenics.

23337 Healthcare in the US is a serious issue for me. I just can't understand how people wouldn't be fine with a moderate tax hike in exchange for providing complete medical care to everyone. Or perhaps most would be; it's just that health and prosperity isn't in the best interests of the insurance lobby. I'd welcome a tax hike for improved social services like education and health if I wasn't concerned about how the current taxes are actually being spent. With problems like an overfunded military and overpaid politicians, combined with politicians that care more about maintaining their position than actually doing their job, I really wish I had a say in where my taxes are spent. It's driving me to actually follow politics a little more so i can make an educated vote come election season. 23339 Maybe even eugenics. I'd love to be told i'm wrong about this, but isn't it a known fact that the earth can only support so many humans? I'd imagine that eventually some tough decisions will have to be made with regards to population control, espicially if we keep polluting the environment.

Turquoise wrote: 23337 Healthcare in the US is a serious issue for me. I just can't understand how people wouldn't be fine with a moderate tax hike in exchange for providing complete medical care to everyone. Or perhaps most would be; it's just that health and prosperity isn't in the best interests of the insurance lobby. I'd welcome a tax hike for improved social services like education and health if I wasn't concerned about how the current taxes are actually being spent. With problems like an overfunded military and overpaid politicians, combined with politicians that care more about maintaining their position than actually doing their job, I really wish I had a say in where my taxes are spent. It's driving me to actually follow politics a little more so i can make an educated vote come election season. 23339 Maybe even eugenics. I'd love to be told i'm wrong about this, but isn't it a known fact that the earth can only support so many humans? I'd imagine that eventually some tough decisions will have to be made with regards to population control, espicially if we keep polluting the environment. Americans are real fans of the whole doomsday deal, eh? Yeah, we'll have to take care of that, but I'd let the future governments worry about that, since it's not nearly as close to us as most people would have you believe. They'll be making those tough calls long after we've rotted in the dirt.

The american public education system is a fundamental betrayal of The American Dream and only a small portion of the country seems to realise there is even a problem.

Proprietary software https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/europe-going-kill-free-software-have-you-contacted-your-states-rep

Vosaiu wrote: "Social justice" i.e. raising minorities up by letting them step on the heads of the majority

Social Justice If it's access to opportunity I don't have an issue with it. Unless it involves quotas. My main issue with it are the ideologues, or SJWs, which aren't even representative of those whom they say they're fighting for (most of them tend to be young white guys). They ignore anyone who doesn't fit their narrative (which most of the time disinfranchises some of the same people they're "fighting" for). They aren't even solving the root problems that they are trying to tackle, all their "wins" are superficial (safe spaces don't solve shit, just adding more diversity doesn't solve the lack of diversity, shutting down the other side doesn't mean you're right). The worst part though is that they're just hypocrites and lack the self awareness to even realize it. The sad part is that they're actually having a chilling effect in universities and they're trying to expand it into law.

The liberal lash back, american "progressives" have been confused for liberals, causing a lashing out towards all left policies. So the youth of today are moving extremely far right or far left removing any centrist concepts.

People still judge each other based on appearence. As if they're not the same under their's.

Some of society's problems that concern you?

floattube

All in One wrote:
floattube wrote:
So after today, how many school shootings is the US up to this year?

The tally is at 18 now. It was at 12 only two weeks ago. That was quite the sobering search.

That's just incredible, really. I'm sure nothing will be done and every incident will be forgotten when a new one happens.

malmon

All in One wrote:
floattube wrote:
So after today, how many school shootings is the US up to this year?

The tally is at 18 now. It was at 12 only two weeks ago. That was quite the sobering search.

To be fair, that's still a constant rate of 3 per week, so it doesn't look like V day has had any effect. Not that that's not a completely fucked up number in the first place though.

Backlash

All in One wrote:
floattube wrote:
So after today, how many school shootings is the US up to this year?

The tally is at 18 now. It was at 12 only two weeks ago. That was quite the sobering search.

Gee-fucking-gee, America. This is what happens when you deny people proper access to mental health services.

All in One

Backlash wrote:
All in One wrote:
floattube wrote:
So after today, how many school shootings is the US up to this year?

The tally is at 18 now. It was at 12 only two weeks ago. That was quite the sobering search.

Gee-fucking-gee, America. This is what happens when you deny people proper access to mental health services.

-スニップ・スナップ-

At this rate I think I'd almost blame it more on the way the national media glamorizing school shooters. My local news station had made a point of refusing to show the Aurora theater shooter's mugshot or say his name, right up until his trial ended. Then on the night his sentence finally gets handed down Nightly News with Lester Holt starts out the broadcast by plastering his mug everywhere with the headline AURORA THEATER SHOOTER JAMES HOLMES CONVICTED. I was floored by the contrast. Fucking vultures, the whole lot of them.

floattube

All in One wrote:
Backlash wrote:
All in One wrote:
floattube wrote:
So after today, how many school shootings is the US up to this year?

The tally is at 18 now. It was at 12 only two weeks ago. That was quite the sobering search.

Gee-fucking-gee, America. This is what happens when you deny people proper access to mental health services.

-スニップ・スナップ-

At this rate I think I'd almost blame it more on the way the national media glamorizing school shooters. My local news station had made a point of refusing to show the Aurora theater shooter's mugshot or say his name, right up until his trial ended. Then on the night his sentence finally gets handed down Nightly News with Lester Holt starts out the broadcast by plastering his mug everywhere with the headline AURORA THEATER SHOOTER JAMES HOLMES CONVICTED. I was floored by the contrast. Fucking vultures, the whole lot of them.

I think it's a mixture of multiple things and it can't be placed on one reason. That reason, going against the people on my Facebook timeline, is not because teachers didn't carry guns.

LucianDreamer

I have to bring this NN issue again one last time, and that will be it.

The FCC is going to put in the Federal Register the repealed rules since December 14 last year by tomorrow, and by April 23, it will become their official policy.
According to the Battle for the Net site, it takes a 51% Senate and two-thirds majority to prevent this. In the Senate, it is 50-50 now with one more vote for either side, but in the House, it will take 75 more people.

Edit: As of April 9 at the time of writing, I am down to two full weeks here before time's up.

Backlash

[size=large]This Just In: Age verification of all pornographic content [in the UK] will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas.[/size]

The plans were initially announced in July 2017 with Matt Hancock, the then minister of state for digital and culture, saying the pornography block would be fully in place" by April 2018. Since then the government has been attempting to formalise the process of how websites should apply an age-verification system and establish a regulator for doing so.

For the first time, he added, the government would have the power to block websites, en-masse, without court orders. “This is a first in a democracy,” he continued. “Although this appears to be just about protecting children from porn, it isn't. It will block any site that doesn't comply with strict UK content rules.”

Sex & Censorship’s Barnett has been concerned that a great deal of content could be caught in the new regulation’s net that shouldn't. But the law does attempt to clarify this. It refers to videos or parts of videos that are already assigned an R18 certificate, but goes on to refer to “any other material” that “would be an R18 certificate”.

(via Wired)

Mal, Chris, why on Earth is this happening? I can't imagine there being any popular support for such a law in this day and age.

Ahegaliant

University cost and efficiency vs value upon graduation.

All in One

gBacklash wrote:

[size=large]This Just In: Age verification of all pornographic content [in the UK] will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas.[/size]

The plans were initially announced in July 2017 with Matt Hancock, the then minister of state for digital and culture, saying the pornography block would be fully in place" by April 2018. Since then the government has been attempting to formalise the process of how websites should apply an age-verification system and establish a regulator for doing so.

For the first time, he added, the government would have the power to block websites, en-masse, without court orders. “This is a first in a democracy,” he continued. “Although this appears to be just about protecting children from porn, it isn't. It will block any site that doesn't comply with strict UK content rules.”

Sex & Censorship’s Barnett has been concerned that a great deal of content could be caught in the new regulation’s net that shouldn't. But the law does attempt to clarify this. It refers to videos or parts of videos that are already assigned an R18 certificate, but goes on to refer to “any other material” that “would be an R18 certificate”.

(via Wired)

Mal, Chris, why on Earth is this happening? I can't imagine there being any popular support for such a law in this day and age.

All in One

Backlash wrote:
-snip-

[size=large]This Just In: Age verification of all pornographic content [in the UK] will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas.[/size]

The plans were initially announced in July 2017 with Matt Hancock, the then minister of state for digital and culture, saying the pornography block would be fully in place" by April 2018. Since then the government has been attempting to formalise the process of how websites should apply an age-verification system and establish a regulator for doing so.

For the first time, he added, the government would have the power to block websites, en-masse, without court orders. “This is a first in a democracy,” he continued. “Although this appears to be just about protecting children from porn, it isn't. It will block any site that doesn't comply with strict UK content rules.”

Sex & Censorship’s Barnett has been concerned that a great deal of content could be caught in the new regulation’s net that shouldn't. But the law does attempt to clarify this. It refers to videos or parts of videos that are already assigned an R18 certificate, but goes on to refer to “any other material” that “would be an R18 certificate”.

(via Wired)

Mal, Chris, why on Earth is this happening? I can't imagine there being any popular support for such a law in this day and age.

You left out the very best part of the pornography censoring:

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/porn-websites-sites-pages-videos-internet-adult-uk-digital-economy-bill-a7433551.html]Source[/url] wrote:
While there are no strict guidelines as to what acts and images can’t be shown on commercial DVDs, adult film producers have found that they have had to cut almost all kinds of non-conventional videos from their films.

Such restrictions include the “four-finger rule”, for instance, which limits the number of digits that can be placed into any orifice while on video.

Absolutely beautiful. I remember hearing that Britons would have to call up their ISP if they wanted access to pr0n and thinking that was absurd. This is really a whole new level of "Who asked for this".

malmon

Backlash wrote:

[size=large]This Just In: Age verification of all pornographic content [in the UK] will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas.[/size]

The plans were initially announced in July 2017 with Matt Hancock, the then minister of state for digital and culture, saying the pornography block would be fully in place" by April 2018. Since then the government has been attempting to formalise the process of how websites should apply an age-verification system and establish a regulator for doing so.

For the first time, he added, the government would have the power to block websites, en-masse, without court orders. “This is a first in a democracy,” he continued. “Although this appears to be just about protecting children from porn, it isn't. It will block any site that doesn't comply with strict UK content rules.”

Sex & Censorship’s Barnett has been concerned that a great deal of content could be caught in the new regulation’s net that shouldn't. But the law does attempt to clarify this. It refers to videos or parts of videos that are already assigned an R18 certificate, but goes on to refer to “any other material” that “would be an R18 certificate”.

(via Wired)

Mal, Chris, why on Earth is this happening? I can't imagine there being any popular support for such a law in this day and age.

Because people keep voting Conservative for some reason. I really don't know why.

floattube

malmon wrote:
Backlash wrote:

[size=large]This Just In: Age verification of all pornographic content [in the UK] will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas.[/size]

The plans were initially announced in July 2017 with Matt Hancock, the then minister of state for digital and culture, saying the pornography block would be fully in place" by April 2018. Since then the government has been attempting to formalise the process of how websites should apply an age-verification system and establish a regulator for doing so.

For the first time, he added, the government would have the power to block websites, en-masse, without court orders. “This is a first in a democracy,” he continued. “Although this appears to be just about protecting children from porn, it isn't. It will block any site that doesn't comply with strict UK content rules.”

Sex & Censorship’s Barnett has been concerned that a great deal of content could be caught in the new regulation’s net that shouldn't. But the law does attempt to clarify this. It refers to videos or parts of videos that are already assigned an R18 certificate, but goes on to refer to “any other material” that “would be an R18 certificate”.

(via Wired)

Mal, Chris, why on Earth is this happening? I can't imagine there being any popular support for such a law in this day and age.

Because people keep voting Conservative for some reason. I really don't know why.

Because look how good it's working for us Americans!
[size=x-small]HAHAHAhaha[size=xx-small] help[/size][/size]

Steph

Backlash wrote:

[size=large]This Just In: Age verification of all pornographic content [in the UK] will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas.[/size]

The plans were initially announced in July 2017 with Matt Hancock, the then minister of state for digital and culture, saying the pornography block would be fully in place" by April 2018. Since then the government has been attempting to formalise the process of how websites should apply an age-verification system and establish a regulator for doing so.

For the first time, he added, the government would have the power to block websites, en-masse, without court orders. “This is a first in a democracy,” he continued. “Although this appears to be just about protecting children from porn, it isn't. It will block any site that doesn't comply with strict UK content rules.”

Sex & Censorship’s Barnett has been concerned that a great deal of content could be caught in the new regulation’s net that shouldn't. But the law does attempt to clarify this. It refers to videos or parts of videos that are already assigned an R18 certificate, but goes on to refer to “any other material” that “would be an R18 certificate”.

(via Wired)

Mal, Chris, why on Earth is this happening? I can't imagine there being any popular support for such a law in this day and age.

TBH it doesn't really affect my life. Surprisingly enough my univeristy ISP seems to be exempt from this, at least judging from the number of times i've used exhentai on eduroam (daily). It's stupid but there'll always be ways around.

malmon

RX14 wrote:
Backlash wrote:

[size=large]This Just In: Age verification of all pornographic content [in the UK] will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas.[/size]

The plans were initially announced in July 2017 with Matt Hancock, the then minister of state for digital and culture, saying the pornography block would be fully in place" by April 2018. Since then the government has been attempting to formalise the process of how websites should apply an age-verification system and establish a regulator for doing so.

For the first time, he added, the government would have the power to block websites, en-masse, without court orders. “This is a first in a democracy,” he continued. “Although this appears to be just about protecting children from porn, it isn't. It will block any site that doesn't comply with strict UK content rules.”

Sex & Censorship’s Barnett has been concerned that a great deal of content could be caught in the new regulation’s net that shouldn't. But the law does attempt to clarify this. It refers to videos or parts of videos that are already assigned an R18 certificate, but goes on to refer to “any other material” that “would be an R18 certificate”.

(via Wired)

Mal, Chris, why on Earth is this happening? I can't imagine there being any popular support for such a law in this day and age.

TBH it doesn't really affect my life. Surprisingly enough my univeristy ISP seems to be exempt from this, at least judging from the number of times i've used exhentai on eduroam (daily). It's stupid but there'll always be ways around.

Well, it's not April yet

Ahegaliant

malmon wrote:
RX14 wrote:
Backlash wrote:

[size=large]This Just In: Age verification of all pornographic content [in the UK] will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas.[/size]

The plans were initially announced in July 2017 with Matt Hancock, the then minister of state for digital and culture, saying the pornography block would be fully in place" by April 2018. Since then the government has been attempting to formalise the process of how websites should apply an age-verification system and establish a regulator for doing so.

For the first time, he added, the government would have the power to block websites, en-masse, without court orders. “This is a first in a democracy,” he continued. “Although this appears to be just about protecting children from porn, it isn't. It will block any site that doesn't comply with strict UK content rules.”

Sex & Censorship’s Barnett has been concerned that a great deal of content could be caught in the new regulation’s net that shouldn't. But the law does attempt to clarify this. It refers to videos or parts of videos that are already assigned an R18 certificate, but goes on to refer to “any other material” that “would be an R18 certificate”.

(via Wired)

Mal, Chris, why on Earth is this happening? I can't imagine there being any popular support for such a law in this day and age.

TBH it doesn't really affect my life. Surprisingly enough my univeristy ISP seems to be exempt from this, at least judging from the number of times i've used exhentai on eduroam (daily). It's stupid but there'll always be ways around.

Well, it's not April yet

I don't know what effect it would have on me if I just couldn't watch porn anymore. I hope I'd just be upset, but I'd need to find another outlet that's similar.

LucianDreamer

Backlash wrote:

[size=large]This Just In: Age verification of all pornographic content [in the UK] will be mandatory from April 2018. But there are still a lot of grey areas.[/size]

They changed up their mind, but they will reconsider it, saying "age verification will be enforceable by the end of the year."

malmon

[video=youtube][/video]

Backlash

malmon wrote:
-snip!-

Sounds like someone on the BSD Core Team needed a hug.

FreeBSD is pmuch Linux's bitch, anyways. Even their license is some of the most lily-livered shit I've ever read; instead of mandating that FOSS software has to stay open-source a la the GPL, BSD's says it's entirely within your rights to steal their code and sell it for millions, just so long as you toss in a copyright acknowledgement somewhere in your program.

Steph

Backlash wrote:
malmon wrote:
-snip!-

Sounds like someone on the BSD Core Team needed a hug.

FreeBSD is pmuch Linux's bitch, anyways. Even their license is some of the most lily-livered shit I've ever read; instead of mandating that FOSS software has to stay open-source a la the GPL, BSD's says it's entirely within your rights to steal their code and sell it for millions, just so long as you toss in a copyright acknowledgement somewhere in your program.

Freebsd is still very very widely used, so it's really not linux's bitch. The BSD's design is actually far better than linux's in lots of places (kqueue). The way BSD licenced projects operate is that they introduce breaking changes so often that it's easier for vendors to just upstream their patches. And it's worked pretty well, allowing breaking changes in the bsd kernel helps keep the OS free of cruft (cough linux), and I haven't heard any cases of project snatching under BSD licenses either.

Backlash

The misery of the modern workplace is oftentimes compounded by the architecture and furnishings that characterize these spaces. In all of my previous positions I have seen the same pattern of dark floors, off-white walls, and light gray furniture. Furthermore, as one inspects the plan of these spaces, it becomes dreadfully obvious that they were designed with the singular purpose of cramming as many workers into one space as management would allow. Windowless rooms are common, the lighting is scarce, and the little illumination that does exist usually resembles the cooler hue projected by the midwinter's sun. Rather unwelcoming, if I do say so myself.

These are not spaces conducive to creativity, work, or even basic human existence. It's no wonder that the only way the employing-class goads us to spend time there is by making the alternative starvation.

« Previous Page Next Page »