It's not magic: Given a large, random sample of self-identified 'men' and 'women', pitting them against each other in one-to-one unarmed combat, the men will win an overwhelming majority of the time.
I enjoy working with women who are trained in self-defense - I have a female friend who has a devastatingly strong and quick round kick to the jaw. However, as with most people, most women aren't.
This is a great organization mobilizing around this topic (although their website is sorta crap): http://www.2asisters.org/
There's "misogyny", and then there's gross ignorance of human physiology. Unless you deny that compared to men, women have substantially less muscle mass and therefore in combat are severely disadvantaged, "relatively" less "strong", when denied a weapon that doesn't depend on that?
Which all things being equal, if you care about effectiveness, is limited to a firearm.
Well, if women are leaving faster than men and often cite reasons of being bullied or otherwise forced out by men... why would women desire to enter that workforce?
You're reading way too much into my analogy. The point is just that lifting up someone who's been pushed down does not also require you to lift up someone who's doing just fine in order to be "fair." This applies whether the disadvantage is due to outside bullying (as in the case of feminism and affirmative action) or an actual disability (it's not "unfair" to make special allowances for an autistic office worker, for example).
What you are missing here is that the trolls friends still show up in the original persons mentions. So rather than the troll disappearing and interacting stopping it allows the abuse to spread.
The new system put the onus on the person being abused to keep blocking, whereas the old one general just stopped it.
Yeah Houston (I'm assuming you are talking about Houston) is a really progressive place. I do love Austin (its a young city and I'm a young person) but its not some shining light in the center of Texas. It's really not that different than any other big city in Texas.
Houston was just about split in the last election (Obama won Harris County by 585 votes). Austin went heavy for Obama (60.2% to 36.2% or just under 100k votes). Houston has quite a ways to go before being liberal. The hispanic vote makes Texas as a whole pretty interesting though.
I don't care if Houston is 'Liberal'. I prefer pragmatic and reasonable. If the two go hand and hand, so be it, but I don't think that's always the case.
So wait, this guy was smoking some weed (I assume) in the middle of a con and got banned. Why is this even questioned? Whether you agree with smoking weed or not, he committed a crime during a PyCon event.
I'm questioning it. The behavior in question seems alcohol-spawned. If alcohol is tolerated it seems bizarre to treat cannabis draconianly.
If cannabis use is legal in the state, there is no prosecutable crime. Federal cannabis drug law is not enforced against cannabis users, only those who sell it and thereby more directly touch on interstate commerce.
If breaking unenforced federal law is ban-able behavior, then better ban everyone.
I think the unfortunate thing is that we all break federal law every day. (Most of us at least violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Ever made a GET request potentially in violation of an API's ToS?) Scary thing is, the feds actually prosecute under the CFAA.
Isn't this more the arena of a procedural than federal law? This definitely seems more feel good than reality. I believe the court precedent is called "legislative entrenchment"[1] which seems to prevent Congress from passing these laws that "bind" future Congresses.
So, to answer the Representative's question, it would appear that courts would hold this bill unconstitutional.
Just what citizens need: a the government watching everything you do! Regardless of how you feel about pornography or other "obscene" content, this kind of power will be abused. Even if Iceland, arbiters of good taste, manage to use it entirely within the given bounds, that kind of information could be pilfered and used by more malicious people. Even big tech focused companies are not immune to data theft, so why would Iceland do any better?
As the saying goes: let's collect data on how everyone in Iceland browses the web; what could possible go wrong?
While I happen to agree with you, I'm trying to make the point that even people emotionally invested in their hatred of pornography should see that this law is faulty. Even if we happened to disagree on the specifics of obscenity, this law is wrong.
> Great. Then the relatively physically weak, the infirm, the elderly, the women, will be at the mercy of the strong
as if women are somehow magically incapable defending themselves.