The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
i think the best counter-example is the goatmon debacle from a year or two back
goatmon was basically an inoffensive poster, slightly annoying, but just kinda blended in. then he made some unpopular remarks or something and somebody went and dug up the fact that he was a bit of a furry (probably teefs). two years on, people are still making fun of him for that
this is when non-privacy and sharing things on the internet isn't a good thing. it's also a prime reason why this is not a non-judgmental environment
That is an example of when one party had their privacy removed and while others had it intact though. In that kind of situation the lack of privacy is damaging. Should everyones preferences be known to all there would be much less judging and humiliation going on.
Backwards is right in this, and I cannot comprehend how you guys can continue to attack something that so easy to see. Privacy is merely a way in which we control others perceptions, that is it, the end.
Whether this is good or bad would be the area of debate, not whether or not it is true.
Why do people keep saying this? What evidence is there of this?
Bigots aren't gonna be change their minds just because everyone knows everything about everyone
Hell, we all pretty much know each others' races and there is still plenty of racism
Ubik on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
How is "I'm not gonna be racist because other people know I'm a furry and will judge me on that" a proper solution?
Why is it not.. "I'm not gonna be bigoted because being a bigot is wrong"
Bname was arguing that people staying closeted out of fear is wrong
Why is "everyone not being a jerk based on fear of others being a jerk to them" any less terrible?
i think the best counter-example is the goatmon debacle from a year or two back
goatmon was basically an inoffensive poster, slightly annoying, but just kinda blended in. then he made some unpopular remarks or something and somebody went and dug up the fact that he was a bit of a furry (probably teefs). two years on, people are still making fun of him for that
this is when non-privacy and sharing things on the internet isn't a good thing. it's also a prime reason why this is not a non-judgmental environment
That is an example of when one party had their privacy removed and while others had it intact though. In that kind of situation the lack of privacy is damaging. Should everyones preferences be known to all there would be much less judging and humiliation going on.
Backwards is right in this, and I cannot comprehend how you guys can continue to attack something that so easy to see. Privacy is merely a way in which we control others perceptions, that is it, the end.
Whether this is good or bad would be the area of debate, not whether or not it is true.
Why do people keep saying this? What evidence is there of this?
Bigots aren't gonna be change their minds just because everyone knows everything about everyone
Hell, we all pretty much know each others' races and there is still plenty of racism
Well, if bigotry was the majority of society then you would be right, bigotry would persist.
However if it were not, and others preferences, deeds and actions were an open book, bigotry would die as it would not be sustaining. Think about if you knew everyone who was racist, how would you treat them? How would the majority treat them? It wouldn't work out well for them. Bigotry exists because communities and cultures that support it persist, if those cultures and communities were shut off, they would die out.
How is "I'm not gonna be racist because other people know I'm a furry and will judge me on that" a proper solution?
Why is it not.. "I'm not gonna be bigoted because being a bigot is wrong"
Bname was arguing that people staying closeted out of fear is wrong
Why is "everyone not being a jerk based on fear of others being a jerk to them" any less terrible?
yeah it does rather seem to be a case of treating the symptoms and not the disease
bongi on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
i think the best counter-example is the goatmon debacle from a year or two back
goatmon was basically an inoffensive poster, slightly annoying, but just kinda blended in. then he made some unpopular remarks or something and somebody went and dug up the fact that he was a bit of a furry (probably teefs). two years on, people are still making fun of him for that
this is when non-privacy and sharing things on the internet isn't a good thing. it's also a prime reason why this is not a non-judgmental environment
That is an example of when one party had their privacy removed and while others had it intact though. In that kind of situation the lack of privacy is damaging. Should everyones preferences be known to all there would be much less judging and humiliation going on.
Backwards is right in this, and I cannot comprehend how you guys can continue to attack something that so easy to see. Privacy is merely a way in which we control others perceptions, that is it, the end.
Whether this is good or bad would be the area of debate, not whether or not it is true.
Why do people keep saying this? What evidence is there of this?
Bigots aren't gonna be change their minds just because everyone knows everything about everyone
Hell, we all pretty much know each others' races and there is still plenty of racism
Well, if bigotry was the majority of society then you would be right, bigotry would persist.
However if it were not, and others preferences, deeds and actions were an open book, bigotry would die as it would not be sustaining. Think about if you knew everyone who was racist, how would you treat them? How would the majority treat them? It wouldn't work out well for them. Bigotry exists because communities and cultures that support it persist, if those cultures and communities were shut off, they would die out.
This doesn't make any sense
People ALREADY know who is racist
You can tell because they ACT LIKE RACISTS
How is "I'm not gonna be racist because other people know I'm a furry and will judge me on that" a proper solution?
Why is it not.. "I'm not gonna be bigoted because being a bigot is wrong"
Bname was arguing that people staying closeted out of fear is wrong
Why is "everyone not being a jerk based on fear of others being a jerk to them" any less terrible?
yeah it does rather seem to be a case of treating the symptoms and not the disease
Personally I think bigotry and racism and all that comes in as a defense mechanism, without any privacy protection by classification would not come into play at all. Essentially you would know everyone, and be able to judge them based solely on them and not individual recognizable traits.
Jigrah on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
How is "I'm not gonna be racist because other people know I'm a furry and will judge me on that" a proper solution?
Why is it not.. "I'm not gonna be bigoted because being a bigot is wrong"
Bname was arguing that people staying closeted out of fear is wrong
Why is "everyone not being a jerk based on fear of others being a jerk to them" any less terrible?
yeah it does rather seem to be a case of treating the symptoms and not the disease
I would argue that removing privacy would not end bigotry
Ending bigotry would lead to more people being comfortable sharing details more freely
Even if bigotry were non-existent, however, it would still not be okay for society to compel someone to "come out" or do anything in their private lives if they aren't harming other people
Ubik on
0
FramlingFaceHeadGeebs has bad ideas.Registered Userregular
i think the best counter-example is the goatmon debacle from a year or two back
goatmon was basically an inoffensive poster, slightly annoying, but just kinda blended in. then he made some unpopular remarks or something and somebody went and dug up the fact that he was a bit of a furry (probably teefs). two years on, people are still making fun of him for that
this is when non-privacy and sharing things on the internet isn't a good thing. it's also a prime reason why this is not a non-judgmental environment
That is an example of when one party had their privacy removed and while others had it intact though. In that kind of situation the lack of privacy is damaging. Should everyones preferences be known to all there would be much less judging and humiliation going on.
Backwards is right in this, and I cannot comprehend how you guys can continue to attack something that so easy to see. Privacy is merely a way in which we control others perceptions, that is it, the end.
Whether this is good or bad would be the area of debate, not whether or not it is true.
Why do people keep saying this? What evidence is there of this?
Bigots aren't gonna be change their minds just because everyone knows everything about everyone
Hell, we all pretty much know each others' races and there is still plenty of racism
Well, if bigotry was the majority of society then you would be right, bigotry would persist.
However if it were not, and others preferences, deeds and actions were an open book, bigotry would die as it would not be sustaining. Think about if you knew everyone who was racist, how would you treat them? How would the majority treat them? It wouldn't work out well for them. Bigotry exists because communities and cultures that support it persist, if those cultures and communities were shut off, they would die out.
What?
If everyone knew who was racist, everyone who wasn't racist would always be haranguing them and hassling them, and they'd just get even more embittered. They'd seek out all the other racists, because we'd all know who they were, and they'd form communities of racists, like they do today, except they'd be even more insulated than they are now. They'd never change, because they'd never be exposed to what they hate.
This is a good idea?
Framling on
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
fuuuuuuuuuuuuck is jigrah sort of agreeing with me
alright
pack it in folks
turns out I was on acid the whole time or something
too late, you are now branded
"friend of Jigrah"
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Backwardsname on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
I remember Backwardsname; him and his best pal Jigrah were nigh inseparable. Those two little scamps always running around the forums, causin' a ruckus
I remember Backwardsname; him and his best pal Jigrah were nigh inseparable. Those two little scamps always running around the forums, causin' a ruckus
backwards is talking in clinical terms about things people don't think of in basest terms
i disagree with most of his ideas of privacy and individual freedoms but i do leave the door open for him to articulate what he thinks because at least i can think critically about my own ideas and ideals
backwards is talking in clinical terms about things people don't think of in basest terms
i disagree with most of his ideas of privacy and individual freedoms but i do leave the door open for him to articulate what he thinks because at least i can think critically about my own ideas and ideals
Posts
Shut up you blithering goose.
who didn't follow the regulations
Why do people keep saying this? What evidence is there of this?
Bigots aren't gonna be change their minds just because everyone knows everything about everyone
Hell, we all pretty much know each others' races and there is still plenty of racism
Why is it not.. "I'm not gonna be bigoted because being a bigot is wrong"
Bname was arguing that people staying closeted out of fear is wrong
Why is "everyone not being a jerk based on fear of others being a jerk to them" any less terrible?
Well, if bigotry was the majority of society then you would be right, bigotry would persist.
However if it were not, and others preferences, deeds and actions were an open book, bigotry would die as it would not be sustaining. Think about if you knew everyone who was racist, how would you treat them? How would the majority treat them? It wouldn't work out well for them. Bigotry exists because communities and cultures that support it persist, if those cultures and communities were shut off, they would die out.
yeah it does rather seem to be a case of treating the symptoms and not the disease
This doesn't make any sense
People ALREADY know who is racist
You can tell because they ACT LIKE RACISTS
And they are shunned and scorned and penalized
Personally I think bigotry and racism and all that comes in as a defense mechanism, without any privacy protection by classification would not come into play at all. Essentially you would know everyone, and be able to judge them based solely on them and not individual recognizable traits.
I would argue that removing privacy would not end bigotry
Ending bigotry would lead to more people being comfortable sharing details more freely
Even if bigotry were non-existent, however, it would still not be okay for society to compel someone to "come out" or do anything in their private lives if they aren't harming other people
What?
If everyone knew who was racist, everyone who wasn't racist would always be haranguing them and hassling them, and they'd just get even more embittered. They'd seek out all the other racists, because we'd all know who they were, and they'd form communities of racists, like they do today, except they'd be even more insulated than they are now. They'd never change, because they'd never be exposed to what they hate.
This is a good idea?
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
alright
pack it in folks
turns out I was on acid the whole time or something
Twitter Steam
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
too late, you are now branded
"friend of Jigrah"
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
P-O-S-T-I-N-G
brb
where's the wikihow on noose tying
Only if the white man in question in hot. Otherwise, do we really want to?
So Using this crazy moon theory do celebrities also have a right to privacy?
Satans..... hints.....
no matter what the situation
this is always the answer
i disagree with most of his ideas of privacy and individual freedoms but i do leave the door open for him to articulate what he thinks because at least i can think critically about my own ideas and ideals
ya'll dudes irascible
anjin are you gonna make it to PAX dogg
i probably will be broke as fuck but just in case
man fuck medical bills
i even have insurance but motherfuckers still charge me extra
I only have about $800 and I'm hoping to bargain it down, see if I can get my insurance to sack up and cover it, so I shouldn't complain too much
but still
fuck 'em
saturday night
been working all day
pretty much tired as fuck and decided not to go to a party
ain't know what to do with my saturday night
basically want to play starcraft II but my key won't arrive 'til monday
haven't felt this much like a basement nerd in a while