Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Creating new accounts? (Score 1) 338

Why do you think it is about detecting people hopping accounts to evade bans? Just because they say so? Ha!

No, this is just pre-justification for banning anyone they want, for any reason, at any time. Post supporting President Trump? Banned! - you are obviously just a sock puppet of someone they already banned that said something similar. What are you going to do? Sue to get your account back?

Comment Easy solution for twitter (Score 0, Flamebait) 37

It doesn't matter who the CEO is. He's not the one killing Twitter. SJW convergence is the cancer eating it from the inside, and it needs to be cut out promptly to save the patient.

1) Print up flyers for a huge social justice meeting.
2) Fire everyone that shows up.
3) Undo everything that any of those people initiated.

Comment Re:"...which begs the question..." (Score 2) 341

I stand by my assessment. This usage is wrong.

Like it or not, right or wrong, people judge you by how you write and speak (and look). If you have good ideas and want them to be heard, the very last thing you should do is hinder that effort by allowing yourself to sound (or look) like an uneducated moron.

Comment Re:"...which begs the question..." (Score 4, Insightful) 341

No matter how many people use literally to mean figuratively, no matter how many dictionaries take note of the inverse usage, it is still wrong, and anyone trying to avoid looking like a moron would be wise to steer clear of incorrect uses. Ditto "begging the question".

Comment Re: Judge should learn the law (Score 1) 476

Shall we see what Black's has to say on the matter?


[B]y allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence. Carlisle v. U. S

Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like Black's is on the same page as whoever wrote 8 USC 1408, and neither of them would not recognize the definition that you just pulled out of your ass. Have these "green card holders" renounced their other citizenship by some open and distinct act? Have they sworn an oath of fidelity and obedience to the United States?

No, of course not. The only people who are nationals by 8 USC 1101.a.22.B are the descendants of other nationals still living in overseas holdings. The only people who become US nationals after birth become Citizens at the same time.

Comment Re:Judge should learn the law (Score 1) 476

Not even close dude.

Although all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, the reverse is not true. As specified in 8 U.S.C. 1408, a person whose only connection to the U.S. is through birth in an outlying possession (which is defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island (which is administered as part of American Samoa)), or through descent from a person so born, acquires U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship. This was formerly the case in only four other current or former U.S. overseas possessions.[31]

Comment Re:LOL (Score 3, Insightful) 899

Marx wanted to end history - he wanted to end differences between people so that there would be no conflict. To that end, he devised an economic system that would grind people down to a uniform miserable paste. Naturally the people who ran with it wanted to be the grinders, and not the paste.

After the Russian revolution set the example, they expected the west to follow along. We didn't. A group calling itself the Frankfurt School got together to figure out why the west didn't jump in, and what they could do about it. They identified our cultural institutions as our defense against Marxism and started working on ways to weaken us. Gramsci is notable here. Search ESR's blog for "Gramscian damage".

If you look at the current left in America, you will see that the one and only one unifying factor among the factions is a desire to destroy western traditions and institutions. What else do homosexuals and femenists have in common with Islamists who kill homosexuals and mutilate women? Why else would BLM unite with pro-immigration activists to invite in millions of central Americans who hate blacks?

The left in America is chasing after Marxist objectives in order to bring about a Marxist endpoint. Now that they are emboldened, they are even using the same violent Marxist street tactics from 100 years ago. The only difference is the strategy - today the institutions are targeted for destruction as an intermediate goal, instead of the economy.

So, yeah, I'm going to keep calling them Marxists.

Globalism just isn't a valid axis in America. Sanders campaigned as an anti-Globalist Marxist, and almost all of the Republicans candidates were pro-Globalism. In the long run, that distinction may grow to become the most important and the spectrum the parties align on, but it is not today.

When institutions stop doing what they were created for, they need to go away. The rarely do so willingly, so sometimes we need to break out the torches. I'll take your word for it that the current unions were created to fight against globalism, but they certainly are not doing so today.

Slashdot Top Deals

Memory fault -- brain fried