YoureWrong

I don't care about the difference between $89 and $120 in the cost of a tool.

I do care about the difference between license and have it to use indefinitely and continually having to pay to use the product.

Notice how your comparison isn't apples to apples, because the one price is in dollars and the other is in dollar years.

Well, I for one used those links to navigate between Google properties: from Gmail to YouTube, for instance.

Now I just don't go to YouTube when something on Gmail piques my interest.

That one click was a huge amount of effort for casual browsing, and forces a re-evaluation of idle browsing between properties.

> 'It is entirely possible that, even if plaintiffs are granted discovery, the government may refuse to provide information (if any exists) that would further plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs’ claims may well founder in that event. But such is the nature of the government’s privileged control over certain classes of information. Plaintiffs must realize that secrecy is yet another form of regulation, prescribing not “what the citizen may do” but instead "what the citizen may know."'

If secrecy is another form of regulation, then any such regulations must be subservient to the fact that a citizen is entitled to due process and to protection against their affects being seized.

This means that the government asserting state secret to block the judicial review of a case about them failing to uphold the constitution is a breach of the constitution, and subservient regulations like state secrecy must be set aside to uphold constitutional obligations.

Or at least, that's what my lawyer would probably say on appeal.

> Placing the burden of proof it on the person making the claim simply prioritizes the status quo, which may or may not be what you want. Given our status quo is the product of proven, vicious discrimination against women, protecting the status quo through allocation of the burden of proof is the opposite of what we want.

Except that presuming the opposite allows us to flap around on the whims of opinion, unsupported by factual evidence, and thus allows us to do things that are massively harmful to the long-term well being of women (such as raising a generation of men after the inflection point on gender issues which faced institutionalized discrimination in places such as universities), and thus undermine our own end-goals through emotive decisions rather than rational ones.

The problem with the current approach is that you can't continue it long enough to cause the necessary change to restabilize the social trends, because the accumulated backlash of your intentionally inflicted injusticed builds faster than your positive social change, and you've simply entrenched a good reason to retaliate (they were intentionally discriminated against by a group who had previously suffered discrimination and knew what they were doing), and have already entrenched that intentional infliction of injustice is the means of correcting past injustices.

Far from changing the underlying social dynamic, the intentional discrimination against men actually reaffirmed the status quo one meta-level up from where your concern was: women will be just as sexist towards men as men were ever to women, given the chance, and even when they are personally "concerned" with the topic of discrimination.

Because it failed to use science in developing its methods, recent feminism has been a massive failure: far from standing against discrimination, modern feminism has demonstrated that women believe gender relations is a game of tit-for-tat, and they should be positively discriminated against by men looking for retaliation over their intentional discrimination anywhere that feminism has acted in excess.

This is a destabilizing force in gender relations, and should be set aside as an immature view. Instead, we should look honestly at the situation and develop a stance from actual ethics, rather than emotions.