BruceVC

That is a simple issue of realpolitik - everything else would be worse from our perspective. This is particularily true for Syria's regime who more or less is beset by rebels of various factions and almost all of them extremists no damn sight better. We, as "the West", just supported some of the rebels because Assad also has the support of Russia and annoying Putin is currently all the rage, which is at the end of the day just a really silly reason to do anything and doesn't help any. A few years ago we thought removing Gaddafi was a good idea. Look what that has wrought, both for Libya, the EU and the people drowning in the mediterranean sea. Iraq is a mess. Egypt peacefully removed a dictator to elect Mursi (what a laugh) only to end up under the rule of the military after even more chaos and more protests. Given all this, why would handing over Syria to religious extremists the revolutionaries be any better? It's this chaos that allowed ISIS to gain a foothold in the first place, and between them and Assad, oh, well, I don't know, I'd freaking take Assad any day. You raise some good points but I see it differently on some levels I support regime change if a leader is about to commit genocide or mass killings of his own citizens or the citizens of other countries . So for me the humanitarian precedent is what matters which is why I still support the removal of Gaddafi and would have supported the removal of Assad but the West respected the Veto of the UNSC and actually didn't help the Syrian rebels in the beginning of the civil war. Ironically its the fact that Assad wasn't removed right in the beginning of the Syrian war that has led to creation of ISIS as the war has dragged on for years. Also millions of Syrians have become refugees and other countries have had to absorb them in refugee camps so the situation is really grim And you right, we can never predict what the Free Syrian army would have done once they came to power if the West had helped them in the beginning of the civil war. But remember ISIS didn't exist in those days and the Syrian Army did seem to be moderates who wanted to align with the West..but that might just have been a facade ?

Blame her? No, why is should i "blame" her. If thats her view, fine, but that doesn´t mean that her view is right. Throughin a whole gender into one sack and treating them all the same way because of some bad experiences you had is not an intelligent, nor a sensible thing to do. That also negates the argument on how she was treated, which infact we both don´t know. Unless you mean the current reddit situation, which i think she deserved based on her actions, which were unexceptable. Why not? SJW gerneralizes all the time and so far, i have never seen a real discussion coming from them. It´s all hate, arrogance, self entitlement and cencorship. Thats not a basis to start to anything from unless your goal is to be radical. Naturally the response was the same. And nothing of this will lead anywhere, because more sensible voices will be ignored. The interesting thing here is, that they do much more harm to honest feminism and what that stands for than any man could ever do. Guys if she is really anti-men of course I don't think its right. I don't support any type of bigotry I'm just saying I can understand why under the circumstances. Fighter I am still surprised you seem shocked that she could be " anti-men " ..why? You do accept that there are men who are misogynists ? Why can't there be women who dislike me ....I'm sure most radical feminists dislike men? @ cirdanx Yes I agree, she handled the whole reddit issue terribly and she didn't deserve to be CEO But that doesn't mean she deserved to get insulted for being a women and Asian So the reality is the whole "SJW " is a term that is really a label that is meant to be an insult. So I support many SJ causes and have been called a "SJW " ...yet we have had many debates ? My point being there are millions of people who you would consider " SJW " and I can promise you they don't fit your view of "It´s all hate, arrogance, self entitlement and censorship " That's why I asked you all those questions about your past, I wanted to understand why you had a certain view about the West and was it based on some other prejudice...like maybe you were a Serb. And I have no issue with someone being "anti-Western " and I understand why many Serbs resent the West. I don't agree with it but it helps me to understand what motivates people But anyway I didnt want to assume you were "anti-Western " unless I knew ...so you should try to not assume things about SJW

Maybe? I don't know the history but I never take whatever their hourly wage is into consideration. I tip waiters ~18% of the bill, bartenders get tipped per round, and the pizza guy gets a flat fiver (to ensure no boogers in my pizza). 18 % is considered high....you sure you tip that much? Don't you mean 12 % ?

Look lets stop being condescending and dismissive to each other....so please assume I can support what I'm saying. You just need to ask what I mean and I have a reason for saying what I say Yes its possible she is resentful towards male gamers because of how she was treated...why is this so hard to understand? I assume she is annoyed because of the fact she is a mod on that forum? And I assume its got an issue with men..I may be wrong ?

Is this a serious question? Yes ...you guys seem surprised that people would get resentful when attacked and insulted on a daily basis I am not saying its right but its just the result of how she was treated ...if its true

I agree 100% with you there. Netanyahu wouldn´t sacrifice his own troops, he would try to trick the US into doing it. It´s not that difficult honstely. The gap between operating a power plant and being able to construct a bomb are huge. Not to mention they have been observed in the past and the new contract gives access to every sight, including secure military bases. I would be, and i am, more worried about Israle who clearly has nuclear bombs (illegaly) and no one does anything about it, despite their history of expansion with military means. Iran? Iran has not fought in an agressive war for hunderts of years, i´m not worried. Yeah I agree. I have actually changed my mind about the best way to achieve stability in the ME. I use to believe that the best way to achieve this was through the traditional allies of the West, the Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and UAE but they have proven ....disappointing. Iran needs to be incorporated back into the global community I know they support Assad and fund certain terrorist groups that have killed Western troops over the last 15 years but we need to see the big picture. Iran is not just a country of religious hardliners...there are moderates and those are the people we need to reach out to. Which the West has been doing obviously Suddenly compared to ISIS and its brutal ideology Assad doesn't seem that bad ...now the enemy is ISIS But we need to be aware that there are several factors that seek to destabilize the negotiations...like Israel and certain Republicans. So Obama must just stay the course Also I hope this is the last time people dispute the notion that sanctions don't work ...clearly they do. They just take time For who exactly is Assad a problem? Syra and it´s people are behind him or the war would have been lost. Turkey doesn´t like him, but Erdogan and Assad were friends until Erdogan backstabed him. Assad really blocked only the gas pipe the Saudis wanted to build (and the US backed) thus...war..that is a geopolitical war and nothing else. Assad is not the big evil in this world or some new Hitler Volo we need to stop seeing this whole Iran issue in black and white,,,there are grey areas What would you prefer ? For the USA to bomb Iran ...maybe send ground troops Israel would need the USA to effectively attack Iran ...and thats not going to happen Never say never, there are always different sides. You can bet the military industry would love a war, thats billions of money for them. Netanjahu would love it, being the extremist he is and he clearly has a lot of leverage in the US, but thank god not as much as he thought, otherwise we might look at a different scenario. Still. This agreement stinks, it´s very hypocritical when it comes to the sanctions that were imposed on Iran in the first place. Assad is a brutal dictator who instead of making political changes that large numbers of his people wanted when the Arab Spring first swept through Syria he resorted to use his army and security forces to brutally crush the political dissension. I cannot understand why you would support him or think he has done nothing wrong ? I don't ever support any dictator who stays in power through military means He is only still in power due to the support from Iran I believe Netanyahu sees this in ideological terms...he only cares for the Jewish state. I can't expect him to see the big picture and frankly that's his issue. The USA and others see the benefits of negotiating with Iran and thats all that matters

Patriotism just clouds the view in my opinin " "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything "

Why do some of you keep acting as though reddit has "free speech"? It doesn't: every subreddit is moderated by a different team of moderators who set rules and guidelines for their subreddits, and if you don't follow them, either the users downvote you to oblivion or the moderators delete your posts. That's about as much free speech as you can get here: less, in fact, because people can downvote posts they just don't care for, even if they're perfectly within the rules. If we were discussing the topics we have on Reddit instead of here, I would pretty much guarantee that some posters would never see the light of day: people like Volourn (among others) would never be able to post the posts they do without their posts disappearing from everyone's sight because of the downvotes. Based on what you're saying, I would think you would prefer that over the virtual free for all here, Bruce: these forums are probably some of the most "free speech"-y I've ever seen, where the moderators don't seem to give a hoot about most anything anyone says outside of a very few subjects: never mind if people are going off on rants with personal attacks and trolling and whatever else - just don't try to circumvent the swearing filters, . It's certainly "better" in that regard than Reddit, anyways. Barti I meant to tell you I am sorry for criticizing Reddit. It was uncalled for and unnecessary...as I said I need to work on not being so sententious about websites that I actually not only don't care about but also I believe they have there purpose on the Internet

It´s not exactly news that she is/was a more, well radical feminist. And while i think she drags the meaning and good cause behind the word "feminist" into the dirty, like all self proclaimed SJW´s, she is not worthy of attention anymore because she lost a good part of her influence. Who knows what she really thinks about men...but would you blame her if she was anti-men? After the way she was treated cirdanx you shouldn't generalize about SJW ...also how do you know she was a radical feminist ?

Volo we need to stop seeing this whole Iran issue in black and white,,,there are grey areas What would you prefer ? For the USA to bomb Iran ...maybe send ground troops Israel would need the USA to effectively attack Iran ...and thats not going to happen

Yeah I agree. I have actually changed my mind about the best way to achieve stability in the ME. I use to believe that the best way to achieve this was through the traditional allies of the West, the Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and UAE but they have proven ....disappointing. Iran needs to be incorporated back into the global community I know they support Assad and fund certain terrorist groups that have killed Western troops over the last 15 years but we need to see the big picture. Iran is not just a country of religious hardliners...there are moderates and those are the people we need to reach out to. Which the West has been doing obviously Suddenly compared to ISIS and its brutal ideology Assad doesn't seem that bad ...now the enemy is ISIS But we need to be aware that there are several factors that seek to destabilize the negotiations...like Israel and certain Republicans. So Obama must just stay the course Also I hope this is the last time people dispute the notion that sanctions don't work ...clearly they do. They just take time

Yeah, I saw that But I'm not too concerned about what Netanyahu thinks. He has always wanted a military solution but its not his country that has to do the fighting. I say lets give the negotiations a chance....what do you guys think ?

Do you have some valid links that suggest the Greeks are the hardest working in Europe ? I find that extremely hard to believe....I would have to see the context as well If the Greeks were that hard working they wouldn't be in the situation they in In statistics they have most clocked workhours, but that don't necessary mean that they are most productive with their hours. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17155304 Also it should be noted that all the numbers in statistics in this subject comes from national statistics and surveys, and that there isn't some common methods or standards in how this are or should be done. Thanks for the link, I read it in detail. Its interesting but not absolute in its view as you pointed out There are many variables that come into the equation

Do you have some valid links that suggest the Greeks are the hardest working in Europe ? I find that extremely hard to believe....I would have to see the context as well If the Greeks were that hard working they wouldn't be in the situation they in

What about a traffic cop who brings you a fine ....do you tip him

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/14/opinions/glaser-logan-iran-nuclear-deal-positive/index.html Guys this is a big story, much more important than people may realize Anyway well done Kerry and all the other negotiators who spent months patiently getting to this point. I'll comment on this later but this outcome is much better than the suggested military option from some

Doesn't seem like much fun, but that is a good approach for PR. Wonder if they have that here, though with our cops I figure it would be so blatantly staged. Maybe women cops aren't insecure hard types like the male ones I know. Malc why do you think it would be staged? How do you think your cops behave off the public limelight?

They did to some degree. There were less people with anonymous nicknames (but they did exist, like the guy I mentioned up-thread). I think that people were less inclined to be asshats in public with a real name associated with it but even that wasn't a guarantee. But as time went on more people created anonymous IDs or alt IDs and some of the alt. newsgroups (alt. hierarchies had a lower threshold to create and would often be abandoned and then repopulated by squatters) became the home of people who'd assail those who stumbled across their private clubhouse. And towards the end of the time I was there, the Discordians loved trying to wreck the hierarchy in general by randomly cross-posting across hierarchies and staging "invasions" and such. And there were console wars in the games newsgroup like clockwork every couple of months. When you say ID do you mean people had there first names or there surnames included ?

Yeah that doesn't surprise me at all...but he must realize he contributed towards this mess so he needs to accept his share of responsibility

You see the problem is there is a sense of impunity on Reddit where people can say what they want and insult who they want without moderation...so it reminds me of the whole GG saga. A few people were able to give the entire GG movement a bad name as far as the media and many others were concerned ( you notice GG got mentioned in the video...your infamy outlives you ) So even though you say that sexist element shouldn't matter unfortunately they do matter because of the bad perception it creates for Reddit And that's fine....I'm done fighting battles over places like Reddit. I have no issue if millions of people love Reddit and enjoy its moderation policy, they are entitled to post on any website they want and I know there are many interesting debates on Reddit . I wont support it and as Ms Lacy said people need to realize it will be difficult for it to become this huge financial success through the various ways websites generate revenue on the Internet See I absolutely and vehemently disagree with that. Those people did not give GG a bad name. People of your persuasion did by disproportionately amplifying what a minority of people have said so you can use it as a crutch to ignore and shut out opinions you don't like. It is a perception that exists not because it is objectively true but because it is what you choose to see. As far as Reddit and moderation in general. It is pretty simple really. 1) Freedom of speech (like any other freedom) comes at a price. You can say whatever you like. The price you pay is that people will say what you do not like. 2) Any law or rule or moderation policy is an extremely tricky thing. It can be too blanket or too vague and open to interpretation or abuse. And arguably in one way or the other always will be. The risk of that will always be present. Many people believe that in a place like Reddit the responsibility to seethe through the content, to deal with the possibility of seeing what you don't like, to guard your own feelings, is your own. If you can't, if you need someone else to protect your emotions, then it's not for you and that's ok. That is the price paid for complete freedom, for seeing humanity as is and not just a fake avatar, for never dealing with the possibility of chilling effects increasing moderation may have on free speech. The truth is nobody trusts social justice types to moderate fairly. Gamer Gate was the perfect example when thousands of posts were deleted completely regardless of their individual content. There is a fear that people who see racism in barbecue (yes this is for real) and sexism in any display male sexuality will get to be in charge of places like Reddit. Sure, I don't disagree with everything you are saying. You make some valid points but the reality of the reasons for the perception of GG is much more complex and nuanced than just people like me somehow amplifying the GG vitriol and misogyny that was real from some GG sectors. The mainstream media has also been critical about GG and you know the media loves to jump on a good SJ story...especially when there is some truth to it. So surly this should add some credibility to the overall validity ? But the issue about Reddit is not so much about free speech for me but rather how people use that free speech...so if you think free speech in respects to Reddit means you can insult people in anyway without consequence that's fine we can agree to disagree. Also another issue about Reddit was she attacked not just because she was a bad CEO, and all evidence points at the fact she wasn't that great, but she was attacked because she was a women and Asian. That's the issue I have

Depends on where you were at, of course. There were a lot of civil discussion, but it had its dark side too. One of the News Groups I followed, for example, had a guy who if you disagreed with his position in an argument would start a thread with the title being something like "<person-he-disagreed-with's name>is a child molester". And most people had their real names on their IDs (weirdly, this was one of the reasons that message boards were seen as great - the ease of being anonymous). A female writer had a falling out with a female fan who became an eStalker. There was an upper-line of admins for USENET (the USENET "gods") but for the most part they didn't intervene in the affairs of the board from a content perspective, but mostly was involved in propagating news groups, making sure votes for new groups was legit and the like. But it had its positive side as well, I interacted with writers, artists and game makers. And there were the great eccentric posters to read and good friends to talk with. That makes sense, there will always be a certain level of questionable behavior amongst any group of people. That is basic human nature But at the moment you get people who are truly professional Internet trolls, cyberbullies and enjoy antagonizing people and basically live to create Internet strife. Thankfully they get banned from most websites so we don't get exposed to there toxicity. It doesn't seem like that specific group really existed on USENET or if they it did it was very rare?

Reminds me a lot of USENET. Which was one of the problems (and features) of USENET1 and why many people went to message boards. 1I'm aware that USENET had moderated groups; they were not the norm though in my experience. What was USENET like? I always considered it the vanguard of Internet forums but it was more about intellectual debates and there was less general bad posting behavior like trolling and bigotry? Or do I have the wrong idea?

You see the problem is there is a sense of impunity on Reddit where people can say what they want and insult who they want without moderation...so it reminds me of the whole GG saga. A few people were able to give the entire GG movement a bad name as far as the media and many others were concerned ( you notice GG got mentioned in the video...your infamy outlives you ) So even though you say that sexist element shouldn't matter unfortunately they do matter because of the bad perception it creates for Reddit And that's fine....I'm done fighting battles over places like Reddit. I have no issue if millions of people love Reddit and enjoy its moderation policy, they are entitled to post on any website they want and I know there are many interesting debates on Reddit . I wont support it and as Ms Lacy said people need to realize it will be difficult for it to become this huge financial success through the various ways websites generate revenue on the Internet

No that's a good point...she must have misspoke? Aye. That's exactly what we do here with the romance threads. Yeah but it makes sense..its not like you guys are being unreasonable You can't have every discussion being impacted by Romance debates. Even BSN has rules about this

Yes I do, absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be elements on Reddit that will resent the fact there is an Asian women in charge or trying to change things Yes there are sexists and misogynists on Reddit, of course this doesn't apply to most of you guys. But it would be silly to suggest that view doesn't exist on Reddit