Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Calling all IT Pros from Canada and Australia.. we need your help! Support our site by taking a quick sponsored surveyand win a chance at a $50 Amazon gift card. Click here to get started!


Member Since 03 Jul 2003
Offline Last Active Aug 25 2015 11:45 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The new 'Disallowed topics' rule

13 August 2015 - 09:36 AM

The thing is you can find a source for any position on any topic on the internet that claims to be definitive, and people will just devolve to insulting other sources.

Let's be very clear that when I say "sources", I generally mean either peer-reviewed publications, or publications widely regarded for their journalistic integrity. Not some crackpot webpage on the interwebs (and I'm including sensationalist news sources in this category: the Inquirer, the Daily Mail, Fox News, etc).

However, discussing the veracity and provenance of sources is the essence of intellectual discourse. If you have a bunch of sources supporting your position, I'm happy to dispute them on their relative merits - even crackpot sources are a sight better than having to dispute someone's half-formed opinions.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, are you saying that viewpoints and observations that are not US-centric are "uninformed opinions" and that a user need "consult sources" on the particular ways in which sexism and racism manifest in American culture before posting on GDNet?

I don't know where you got the idea that my views are US-centric (I live here at present, but I'm not from here, and my views don't align, for the most part, with those of americans).

But no, I'm saying that if you are stating opinions, without ever bothering to go read the relevant literature (be that for your own locale, fine), then you are indeed uninformed.

I raise this very specifically, because of the extra credits racism thread. You will note that many of the respondents were posting under the implicit assumption that the US population is majority white-male. Which should be obviously bunk to anyone who stops and thinks about the math, but it wasn't until I posted a graph demonstrating this on the second to last page, that everyone stopped and thought about it...

In Topic: The new 'Disallowed topics' rule

12 August 2015 - 10:49 PM

do you censor someone because their view point or observations do not match the often US-centric nature of this forum?

Moderators (and likely anyone carrying a rating in the thousands) are, like it or not, held to higher standards than regular community members, and their voices carry weight, even when they don't intend them to.

We clearly take issue with a user who routinely posted incorrect technical information, due to not having consulted sources. Why then would we not apply the same standard to political and social discussion?

In several of these threads I have successfully disputed the opinions of pillars of the community, by referencing the first five results of a google search. In any of our technical forums, that would result in a chorus of LMGTFY, and derision. Yet somehow, when it comes to sexism or racism, expounding uninformed opinions is ok?

In Topic: The new 'Disallowed topics' rule

12 August 2015 - 10:39 PM

Perhaps a limit of some sort on posts ... so that no one view is allowed to dominate and push minorities out.

Yes, this is the key point.

When Oluseyi is our token diversity in these conversations, it's a little hard to watch the other side rack up twenty posts before a single response is marshaled.

In Topic: The new 'Disallowed topics' rule

12 August 2015 - 02:03 PM

Again please note: it is the lack of civility that caused the issue.

I'm not sure we have widespread agreement on that point. Apart from the GG troll who came in from outside, most of those discussions were quite civil, as lounge threads go.


On the other hand, we had quite a few members, moderators included (with great civility, I might add), expounding dubious opinions supporting various forms of discrimination. That's far more problematic to my mind, than a few bruised egos over impolite posts.

In Topic: Windows 10 Privacy Concerns

12 August 2015 - 01:52 PM

Did you read the MSDN article I linked? Because Microsoft themselves said you can't disable their telemetry data collection unless you're running windows server, or enterprise in their documentation.

But what does 'telemetry' actually encompass?


I'd hazard a guess that this clause is mainly present because Windows 10 is also a mobile operating system, and they need to transmit some non-identitying data (wifi fingerprints, for example) to fulfil legal and/or contractual obligations (geo location for 911 calls, primarily).


If you can demonstrate that 'telemetry' encompasses actual user data, I'd be interested to learn details.