Why is it that SJW types are so quick to insult and demean anyone who disagrees with them? It's very unpleasant. Your beliefs are not the forgone conclusion you treat them as.

Is this the angle that you're coming from now? I thought that it was liberals and white knights and feminists that were so thin-skinned and sensitive?

At any rate, you've not really addressed my comment (the one you're replying to) - but I do feel as though your reply is meant to mock me, which, to my thinking, reinforces said observations. Excuse me if mockery wasn't your intention.

If Crake has such as a shallow understanding of the subject, as you say, perhaps you could enlighten all of us with your deep understanding of the subject? Merely asserting that someone's incorrect doesn't carry much weight by itself. This might lead one to think that you're unable to demonstrate the validity of your assertion by argument - i.e., that your statement is invalid.

Calling an event that is trying to integrate a community "segregationist" is about as ridiculous as it gets.

the funny thing is that you see nothing ridiculous about trying to use this as a hypothetical counterpoint.

I am having a hard time picturing exactly what that could be. Law enforcement, maybe? Romance literature?

If you have to misrepresent the views of those you disagree with in order to argue your own point, it might be the case that your own argument has no value.

Right on their front page, guy.

That said, I do sometimes write in Python and I have nothing against the language. This isn't meant to be an attack on Python.

Edit: also, the indentation in the first example is obviously just a means of illustrating that whitespace is non-significant with this project. I don't think they're suggesting code ought to be written without correct indentation.

Does anyone anywhere have a realistic example of Python's indentation system being a hindrance? To me, the complaint always comes across as "I should hypothetically be able to do things that I would never actually do or endorse doing"

And it's not like there's no flexibility for weird corner cases. I mean, all of these things are already legal Python 3:

    for i in range(10): print(i)

    # although you wouldn't actually do this
    a = 3; b = 5; # a,b = 3,5

    # and you REALLY wouldn't do this but I couldn't help coopting their example

    if foo == "bar": _=(
        print("indenation"),
     print("doesn't"),
           print("matter!")
     )

Another commenter suggests the only reason to do something like this would be "emotional attachment"; all the huffing and puffing in these comments strikes me as exactly that, but in reverse.

Are they really dumb? Is the guy in the middle of the scheme who makes out with a profit dumb? There's known risk - some will decide they'll risk it. It may not be wise (I wouldn't participate, myself), but I wouldn't be so bold as to assume they're dumb.

> But those who participate are still morally complicit.

Who are these morally complicit participants if not the "obviously dumb" persons whom you just described? Are they victims with "serious issues" or are they morally corrupt enablers?

You may mean that the morally-corrupt-enabler(s) are whomever set this up, but that's not really what's suggested by such a broad phrase as "those who participate".

You are right, there is a distinction to be made between those who created the site, and those throw money at it.

Some who throw money at the site are well off and are essentially using the scheme as entertainment. They likely would not be too upset if the money didn't come back. One could make the argument that these people are morally entangled to a degree, as they increase the volume of funds flowing through the site, which draws in additional people, and makes it more likely that someone who actually has financial or gambling problems is tempted to bet on the site. However, this is argument is somewhat weaker than the one against the actual creators of the scheme.

Are you saying that this position can simply be disregarded out of hand? That strikes me as disrespectful and self-important. If nothing else it is non-conducive to any actual discussion on the matter - unless all you want is an echo chamber to reaffirm your preexisting positions on the matter.

> The topic was the Google Doodle showing support for LGBT people

Specifically in relation to the LGBT issues surrounding the Olympics, i.e., Russia's "anti-gay" laws. The Russian laws are very much a part of this topic. You're being disingenuous.

The commenter called it "The LGBT Russia thing" and if that does not aptly sum up how trivial s/he perceives the topic to be, I don't know what does. "That human rights violation thing". Sorry, it doesn't fly with me.

I am not saying Russian laws are not a part of the topic. What I am saying is that characterizing the topic as being "overblown" by citing that paper is absolutely ludicrous.

EDIT: Wanted to add in this: How do you have 'rational discourse' when one side of the discussion is demonstrably pursuing nothing less than a human rights violation? It is like saying the Catholic church's sex scandal was 'overblown', or slavery, or any other human rights topic you can imagine. Where is the rational discourse there? How can "human rights violations" ever be an "overblown" topic?

How do you mean? I've not encountered any similar community which isn't also a political echo chamber - unless you're talking about something more specific that I'm unaware of.