comments by Patrick

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 7:34am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 1

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/04/26/milo-mocks-student-protesters-who-claim-his-presence-is-a-threat-to-their-physical-safety-at-umass/

In a packed auditorium at the University of Massachusetts on Monday night, Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos, comedian Steven Crowder, and former philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers fought off a crowd of student protesters who continuously shouted in an attempt to silence their right to speak.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Tue, 26 Apr 2016, 6:34pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

i wonder what the practical upper limit is to debt-to-gdp.

i suppose as long as interest rates remain essentially zero, there is no upper limit.

@iwog do you have an opinion on this?

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Mon, 25 Apr 2016, 5:35pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

jazz music says

please post patnet data you may already have on the percentage of patnet visitors who never post. (or almost never) It would be interesting to know just how much time they spend here lurking if that's not too much trouble.

479 users posted comments in the last year.

there are 21,824 registered users, but that's accumulated over more than 10 years.

there are normally something like 5,000 distinct ip addresses per day in the logs. a lot of them are directed here from google because of the housing crash post:

http://patrick.net/housing/crash1.html

they read it, and then go away.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Sat, 23 Apr 2016, 6:28pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 4

ok, maybe it should be possible to mark things as "off topic"

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Sat, 23 Apr 2016, 6:26pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 5

astronut97 says

Hating the different races, sexes, transgendered, Muslims, etc is not a political point of view.

i'd bet you money that if you asked the people you accuse of being "haters" they would say they don't hate anyone, and that you yourself are the one who introduced the term "hate" because it gives you an easy way to not actually listen to the points they are trying to make.

accusing people of "hate" is pretty much the same thing as accusing them of being a nazi. all rational discussion ends right there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

so there should be a corollary to godwin's law, called the "hate" strawman or something like that.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Sat, 23 Apr 2016, 6:22pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

allowing deletion of comments felt like it violated belief number 1 above: "everyone has the right to say whatever the fuck they want on patrick.net"

it just seems too much like censorship to actually delete a comment.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Sat, 23 Apr 2016, 5:55pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 7

i'm trying to maintain a coherent and fair set of beliefs. currently, they are like this:

1. everyone has the right to say whatever the fuck they want on patrick.net, subject only to the 5 disallowed categories as documented in the "about" link:

threats
child porn
spam
copyright violations (upon notice)
personally identifying information

2. everyone also has the right to ignore people they do not want to hear from

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Sat, 23 Apr 2016, 5:31pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 8

how about ignoring the people who are in the flame war?

then you won't see them.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Sat, 23 Apr 2016, 2:55pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 9

thanks @curious2 there are a lot of great links in that comment!

this book looks quite interesting:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/338086413?ref=patrick.net

Simultaneously, there arises a new, feminist-led, egalitarian, socialist opposition to meritocracy, hoping to establish a classless society.

and it looks like California in particular has exactly the kind of anti-discrimination law which we need at the federal level:

Some states, including California, have laws prohibiting employers from taking any job-related action against a worker based on that worker's lawful conduct off the job.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/off-duty-conduct-employee-rights-33590.html

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Sat, 23 Apr 2016, 2:21pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 10

astronut97 says

obviously a false dichotomy

not at all. it's a perfect analogy.

someone belonging to a different political point of view doesn't "poison the workplace" unless the other workers are political bigots and can't stand for anyone to believe differently than them and then they are the problem not the other person.

see how your own argument works perfectly against yourself?

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Sat, 23 Apr 2016, 9:16am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 11

astronut97 says

What sort of protections from firing would you like to see? Should someone be able to say absolutely anything and I still have to let them work for me even though it would now poison the workplace (i.e. the individual hates all -----s and -----s work at your company) environment?

i'd like to see employees protected while exercising freedom of speech on their own time just the same as they are protected while exercising freedom of religion on their own time.

if you want to be consistent, you should argue that employers should not have to let a jew/christian/muslim/whatever work for them, because it would "poison the workplace" as you put it.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Fri, 22 Apr 2016, 7:35am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 12

astronut97 says

workers can be let go without cause as long as it can't be proven that they weren't let go because of race, religion, sex or other protected class

so how exactly is freedom of religion different from freedom of speech?

they are both in the bill of rights. why is it that you can not fire someone because of a publicly announced religious belief, but you can fire someone because of a publicly announced political belief?

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Thu, 21 Apr 2016, 7:43am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 13

HydroCabron says

This has always been the case.

not true.

tenure was created in academia specifically to address this problem. noam chomsky can spout off on whatever he likes politically, and in theory cannot be fired for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure

we need something like this for everyone: the right to hold whatever opinion you damn well please without fear of being fired for it.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Thu, 21 Apr 2016, 7:28am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (4)   Dislike     Comment 14

ah, so companies can decide to fire all democrats, simply for no reason other than their political beliefs? or they can fire everyone who supports racial integration, or gender equality?

when you have your employer watching what you say on your own time, you in actual fact do not have freedom of speech.

almost everyone has to work for someone else. only the rich do not.

so tatupu70 and astronut97 seem to be saying that only the rich deserve actual free speech. the rest of us damn well better bend with whatever the current political winds are if we want to eat. some freedom that is, thanks very much.

patrick.net is an anonymous forum exactly because we do not yet have protection from employer or university harassment for political views. please recommend patrick.net to your friends (and enemies!)

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 7:17am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 15

I've seen different bell curves which show that women cluster much more tightly than men, and their center is higher.

So women are smarter than men on average, but the smartest and dumbest people tend to be men.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Tue, 19 Apr 2016, 7:52pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (7)   Dislike     Comment 16

i asked exactly what in specific violated their terms, and was again given a complete non-answer:

Dear Associate,

As stated in our previous communication, upon a review of your Associates account we have determined that you are not in compliance with the Operating Agreement that governs your participation in the Associates Program. We have closed your Associates account and you will not receive further payment of advertising fees.

You are not in compliance with Participation Requirement Number 1 and the Operating Agreement because the sites you are sending traffic from contain either sexually explicit, violent, libelous/defamatory materials or promotes discriminatory or illegal activities. Sites that include this content are considered unsuitable for the Associates Program.

funny they still refer to me as "Dear Associate" when i am clearly neither! lol

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Tue, 19 Apr 2016, 6:35pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

hey @rin you ever get to san francisco? i know some places you might enjoy.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Tue, 19 Apr 2016, 6:32pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

Patrick says

so if errc is ignoring ironman, then ironman should not be able to comment here.

let me test that...

the answer is that errc did not actually have ironman on ignore anymore, probably as a result of my rolling back lots of ignores after dan was playing with them.

i put ironman on ignore for errc. @errc you can unignore ironman at the bottom of your profile if you like.

so i think there is no bug. please correct me if you think there actually is a bug.

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Tue, 19 Apr 2016, 6:26pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

marcus says

Ignore must be broken then, because I think a while back, Patrick made it so that an ignored person can not see your thread and if they try to post to it they get a message denying their post. So yeah, I think it's broke, or else Patrick changed it again after that.

if you are ignoring someone, they should not be able to comment on any of your threads.

so if errc is ignoring ironman, then ironman should not be able to comment here.

let me test that...

Patrick   befriend (62)   ignore (3)   Mon, 18 Apr 2016, 6:43pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 20

Tenpoundbass says

did they mention me specifically?

sorry, no. i'd be impressed if they did. you have some tough competition on the site.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   free bumper sticker  

please recommend patrick.net to your friends