robotkilla

I will say that BF1 in-game text chat on PC can get pretty bad (reminds me of the old IRC days), however I don't see physical threats much (only one threat in the last 4 years) -- however when I played halo 2 online it was constant trash. Are your experiences with console or PC players?

I can't help but feel that pointing out that it's not "special" is the opposite of helpful.

I disagree -- I'm pointing out that the issue is not CoD or even online gaming, its a larger issue. You can't really address it on a small scale without understanding the bigger picture.

As much as I hate CoD and wish the issues you highlighted were limited to the CoD community, they are not.

The behavior you described fits many if not most online, semi-anonymous, young, male majority communities. CoD is just one community in that bucket.

Edit:

I don't know how to fix it, I don't know how you get an entire community to start treating each other like human beings -- but that's what needs to happen.

Hang out around a group of young guys and you'll realize that the groups you described are just an amplified reflection of IRL groups of similar makeup.

If you want to fix this type of behavior you have to change it at a much deeper level than online gaming communities because its a mindset.

People do it mostly for the laughs - even the extreme idiotic shit like SWAT calls... just like they do extreme idiotic shit IRL like fraternity initiations that get people killed. IMO the stuff you're describing is systemic.

He said on Morning Joe that Trump Sr was not part of this conversation and his head would be rolling for suggesting such a deal

Probably true, I didn't see the follow up.

What makes you think this is Trump Sr's style?

Nearly every solution he offers up is "I can hire the best people for the job". What is he personally going to do? What position or opinion has he personally offered up that wasn't batshit insane? He called for a "total ban on muslims", for months on end talked about deporting 11 million people, tapped an anti-gay VP. I really don't see how this man is qualified to lead a superpower.

Thus far trump has paraded Mexicans on stage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm6LGITkiz4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVAaPPXdew) while talking about building a wall between our countries, pointed out black people in the audience ("look at my african american over here" http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-trump-african-...) but wouldn't condemn David Duke's endorsement (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-declines-to-cond...) and now gets Thiel on stage after choosing a running mate who thinks conversion therapy is science.

Trumps positions seem to be pro-xenophobia, pro-racism, pro-homophobia. That is the ticket Thiel is supporting -- it is the platform Trump rode to the top. But hey.. muh tax breaks!

You could argue that having a presence at the RNC as an openly gay, wealthy and successful person could make a strong counter against the prevailing GOP beliefs on sexuality

You could also argue that he has a net worth of $2.8b and will gain massive tax cuts if trump is elected.

Thiel is endorsing the party which is well known for its racism, its xenophobic rhetoric, its hatred for gays (as evidenced by policies and actions). Trump built his platform on fear and hatred, and he chose a running mate that is known for advocating a dangerous, dehumanizing pseudo-science.

The only message I'm getting out of Thiel's endorsement is greed.

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of? “Making America great again” was the casual reply.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-...

Edit:

I don't know if this is just a gaffe by Trump Jr but it seems to be Trump Sr's style -- hire someone to do the job for you.

I really don't have a clue how Thiel can endorse a Trump / Pence ticket. Pence advocates "conversion therapy".

Edit: I realize Thiel does not "agree with every plank in [his] party’s platform" -- I'm guessing he loves the tax cuts he will gain of course (so I suppose I do have a clue how he can support the ticket after all). Unfortunately that's also going to throw our country deeper into debt.

The FBI found out his bank account information from buying ads. He probably bought something on iTunes

This actually sounds the most believable to me, excellent point.

investigator cross-referenced an IP-address used for an iTunes transaction with an IP-address that was used to login to KAT’s Facebook account

The article implies that the investigator had a FB and iTunes IP address and THEN Apple gave the rest of the user's details but that doesn't really make sense.

I'm guessing that they gag-ordered and subpoenaed FB for account info, but how did the investigator get the iTunes transaction IP address prior to getting user details from Apple?

Edit:

I think the more likely scenario is that FB was forced to give up user details and the only valid info was the IP Address, and then Apple (and probably google etc.) was forced to search through their databases and produce any records related to the IP address in question.

Or maybe the USG has a database filled with iTunes transaction information -- I really wouldn't doubt this at all. I'm sure music is a partial indicator of "dissident" level in whatever algorithm is used to assist investigators.

US as well -- I'm going to start paying more attention to sinks. Maybe I do have to stoop and I've just grown accustomed to it.

broad shoulders and something like a 50" chest

That explains the rest.. I'm a toothpick.

what country do you live in? I'm your same height and I don't really have these issues.

6'2" here. attractive females regularly select me for mating purposes and I make a large sum of money annually.

The quote is actually:

provided information on more than 12 million riders and drivers to various U.S. regulators and on 469 users to state and federal law agencies

The article title is wrong I think -- or am I confused? This sentence sounds like they gave away regulatory information as pointed out here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11484270 -- 469 users were targeted, not 12+ million.

Uber said it got 415 requests from law enforcement agencies, a majority of which came from state governments, and that it was able to provide data in nearly 85 percent of the cases. A large number of the law enforcement requests were related to fraud investigations or the use of stolen credit cards, according to the report.

My math might be off, but I'm pretty sure 415, 469, and 12m+ are three separate figures... and I'm also pretty sure there were not 12m+ requests for cases related to uber fraud.

rather than terrified of our future as human batteries in The Matrix

Humans make terrible batteries, therefore its more likely we'll just be exterminated.

This one is listed as 1963 but should be 1863:

http://dbpedia.org/page/Morgan's_Raid

5) Chuck Norris sort

i thought it was more like:

  def sort(x):
    if x == gay || x == intelligent:
      return hate()
    elif x == president:
      return question_birth()
    return 1

What on earth would be a less misleading progress? This comment seems to imply that separate but equal is a better solution.

I think that many people have confused "changing minds and hearts" with "forcing the public to accept and integrate". The laws and regulations I'm referring to are about enforcing rights, often times basic human ones.

not really -- isn't that like wondering if your wallet is fat enough to get noticed and pick pocketed?

Logged in to say the same thing I've said in other threads: mindful meditation works for me. Had some overwhelming stress over the last couple of years which lead me to learn and attempt mindful meditation - works very well for me.

Same boat thanks for the tips (you and everyone else in this thread).

interesting concept, but I'm always worried that submitting ideas to a site like this will result in the good ones being stolen, if not by the website owner then by the users.

Holding the government to such optimistic standards is blatantly a straw man

No, it isn't. From wikipedia:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics

I'm arguing for government regulation -- I agree that regulating yourself is an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of anitbiotics, as is discontinuing the consumption of meat for the same purpose.

Shaming isn't necessary

Again, the same thing I'm saying -- glad we could agree with each other.

Do you realize that there are several religions that hold this exact tenet? And that it's one of the central tenets of Rastafari?

A central tenet of rastafari is to abstain from antibiotic raised meat? Can you cite a source on this?

Even if this is true, why do you think that the religious beliefs of this or other religions holds any sort of sway over people who are not in those religions? For example, you do realize that it is a core religious tenet of the Westboro Baptist Church and many other Christian religions that homosexuals will burn in hell, but this doesn't mean it is true... in fact most educated people would argue that hell doesn't even exist.

Maybe these people all live their lives based on a logical fallacy, but I don't think it's so far wrong

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point then.

Go propose a talk at any Black Studies department in the country with this as your thesis and let us know how it goes.

So the progress we've made in the United States through laws and regulations regarding race and gender is a lie then? Those laws exist because of special interest groups, protesters etc. sure -- but you do realize that laws surrounding these issues exist now that didn't exist before, don't you?

This is a very foolish argument and I have no more to say on the matter.

Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one

Now government regulations placed on the agricultural industry are idealistic?

dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution

I am strongly encouraging the more realistic solution, not dismissing or discounting it. How is expecting an impactful number of people to discontinue antibiotic meat usage more realistic than expecting government to step in?

absolving oneself of personal responsibility

As I stated above, I personally avoid antibiotic raised meat, but I simply don't think shaming or blaming low income families is the right move here.

personal responsibility is the basis of good society-wide behaviour

I actually agree with this statement, however the problem of cheap meat can't be solved with good societal behavior unless its enforced on a global scale starting with the united states and that's simply not going to happen unless it is enforced by regulations placed on the out of control agricultural industry.

shaming individuals (which is what the original parent thread was all about) isn't a good plan -- it won't work.

I'd like to preface this response by making it clear that I personally avoid eating animals that were raised on antibiotics, however the argument that the onus must be placed on the individual is absolutely ridiculous.

Even though this is a "hot button topic", I don't think eating meat that you can afford (IE antibiotic raised meat) can possibly be compared to race or gender inequalities.

Eating a factory cheeseburger is akin to racism? Seriously? This is a logic fallacy.

Racism comes from the individual. It stems from stupidity and hatred and is directed against people who don't have the same nationality or skin color as you. Eating an antibiotic laden slab of beef due to lack of finances cannot possibly be placed on the same level as this.

I'll also point out that the only way to real change in gender and race inequalities have come about is through government or self-regulation in industries... the same thing I'm arguing for when it comes to the agricultural industry.

Go ahead and switch to all natural blah blah blah... you can now sleep at night knowing you're no longer part of the problem. But when you wake up in the morning, the problem is still there. You have accomplished nothing. But hey, when the world burns at least you can say "I told you so".

It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill

I'm very confused by your plan of action... shame the general public until they stop eating meat saturated by antibiotics?

In your plan, how many people will you need to deter in order to make a difference? Will the agricultural industry suddenly stop using antibiotics because a hundered thousand people stop eating at McDonnalds? Two million people?

Will your plan be able to get enough people to stop eating meat so that the agricultural industry notices and stops deforestation or other unethical practices? If they do, will it happen before global warming (caused mostly by the agricultural industry) becomes irreversible?

My comment might read like an excuse to you, but to me your comments read like someone who is very naive to the ways of the world.

regulations through government. remove agricultural lobbyists from washington. raise awareness and turn it into a hot button topic that people in the US government have to address. fine the hell out of agricultural companies who have ruined our planet and stop putting the onus on individuals.

I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame the agricultural industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for deforestation or lack of fresh water every time I eat a cheesburger, nor am I going to assume blame for pollution when I drive my car. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change.

Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely).