ygaf

>You reference those things as if they are a "bad thing"

More accurately, as if they are not obviously noble, since you conflated everyone to have been called SJW with someone brave and insightful. But yeah I do think those things are intrinsically wrong.

Democracy requires authority.

He prefers to live where people actually are tolerant.

Which staff specifically? (the cashiers, etc) Although it's bad in all cases.

Music to my ears. HN officialy doesn't like topics derailing.

Don't confuse people "who dared ask, "why are we doing this?"" with people who want reparations, affirmative action, etc. And that's just a second definition I've thrown out there, alongside yours, when there's many more.

That definition of hate is a very recent construct, and trying to sweep the regular meaning under the rug makes you the disingenuous one.

Well, online recreation is as real as online discussion. There's people on the other end etc. On the other hand, if a kid spoils a game in a real-world playground, we don't give criminal records for that. On the other other hand, a game company is being harmed when you spoil their games.

Do we need digital signing on every image/video in the news?

Agreed that any special divergence between types of crimes is wrong.

But I can get behind the use of judge discretion.

Do you believe languages are meant to live forever?

My bad; that's social media 101.

Fair enough, although I'm entitled to interpret posts in the pure context of their parent.

>The social network had even kept a permanent record of the roughly 100 people I had deleted from my friends list over the last 14 years, including my exes.

How useful is the info one can even get from this?

I mean even if you interpret unfriending as enemying (which is a leap), possibly revealing interests you don't have, associations you don't have.... it's a lot weaker (to advertisers) than positive information.

It's all about whether you've played the game. I can watch the movie knowing/accepting what the plot is (there's a tournament, people have to fight - just sit back and watch shit go down) and the characters (there's going to be a humanoid reptile etc).

Not sure why this is downvoted. If you don't have a videogame source material it's not going to have whatever problems a videogame movie has.

>no one with a "D" after their name asking Zuckerberg a question today

I can't even see where the goalposts have gone.

It feels like a decade ago now, that FB and Google had data deletion buttons that were protected by how bad the interface was to find them.

I feel for you, out of curiosity did you create your profiles and sites purely to displace the bad results or did you also try to engineer your content to refute them?

In the former example you have so much power that whatever cause you had to denigrate them no longer matters to you, but that is neither the common case nor principled.

In other words, you're blind as to whether denigration is justified.

You're right, I don't know what actual skill I had in mind there (one are you are no longer trained in but still use). I meant to say, even when a kid is wise to the danger of not taking lessons, they don't know what subjects are best for them or how many different ones must be pursued.

You ultimately have to want the skill. The gp would have noticed his skill gradually waning, not suddenly when it had gone, yet as a kid he didn't care for it.

"The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner"

No doubt about that. They'll obsess over whatever they enjoy. And the following line that "all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents" implies that your average person's creative ouput is important or even worthwhile to society.

I'm not banned? I had the thought that jonathanyc was an actual HN admin.

Either way, having thought I was walking into a ban, I'm shaping up and won't simply contribute negativity. (I still believe HN threads aren't supposed to derail in topic, unless an actual admin conveys otherwise)

This is hilarious. When whataboutism is convenient to the self-righteous, what then exists is "reverse whataboutism".

>Your use of the term “soapboxing” to describe what was reasonable argument

You conspicuously failed to substantiate his "misconception".

>It has been shown time and time again black Americans are disproportionately arrested and sentenced.

I could not in all charitability/good faith (all your efforts to troll noted btw) extract a relevant point here. If they are disproportionately arrested having committed a crime, that has nothing to do with allthenew's whole post. If one charitably adds the context that in america you can also be arrested for committing no crime at all, then you've switched a basic premise of his post in 'arguing' it.

Regarding doctored images, I had a sense of dread (way back when the internet was new) that the world would soon advance to being able to doctor videos. I thought ingenuity and advancement were limitless, the rest is just writing bytes to file. But it feels like it still hasn't happened yet.

>You also are repeating a common misconception when

It's a misconception that you could avoid being in the felon caste by not breaking laws? That's what he said. He didn't say "if you want to gamble with not joining the felon caste, you have fair odds". Lots of soapboxing ITT, threads should decapitate at the first post with 'systemic' in.

That's an abuse of flagging. Assume good faith in the gp. Be happy with your reply.