ugh

Goodbye HN. After repeatedly demonstrating your racism and sexism I just cannot take it anymore. It was nice knowing you.

Doesn’t matter. They don’t care. It’s not the reason why they support old hardware. That’s a bullshit argument.

Oh, wow. You are the false equivalency master.

The problem here is not that the bot is annoying, the problem is that the bot is sexist. Responding to sexist remarks with something that signifies that those remarks are sexist is not the same as making sexist remarks. Whether or not those two bots are annoying is a different issue that is now used as an excuse to rationalize hating on the second bot.

How can you be so blind to that? I’m sitting here in disbelief.

Apple doesn‘t have a significant revenue stream from existing devices. Why does everyone think they are making lots of money by selling apps and media? They do not.

Well, that makes perfect sense. I do not understand what’s “anti-male” about it.

When it comes to child support, who matters first and foremost is the child. That’s who it’s all about.

Is it really the case that someone has to pay child support for a child that is proven to be not theirs?

I did some superficial googling and found the case of one man who has to pay child support even though a DNA test proved he is not the father, because he missed all the deadlines for challenging the ruling. That seems like an unfortunate edge case to me, not some general pattern one has to be worried about.

I think you might be mistaken about the legal situation, but I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.

I’m honestly curious, what are your reasons for writing this comment? It seems off-topic.

As far as I know Apple has yet to use its ability to pull apps from devices. Apple said it only will do it when malware appears and that has not yet happened.

I don’t see any opinions that are criminalized, sorry. I also still don’t see the slippery slope.

Making judgement calls is a normal part of the justice system. The powers it has will let you imagine numerous slippery slopes, so that isn’t an especially convincing argument.

It’s still public speech, though, and not in any way personal. I was responding to a comment that the government reading twitter and blogs is akin to reading emails which is total bullshit.

Uhm, everyone can read tweets and blogs. They are public†.

I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense.

Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected.

Being racist while doing it: Not ok.

It’s quite simple.

—

† In most cases and in this case.

Stealing and theft is often used to refer to things that are not stealing or theft in the legal sense. This is especially prevalent when talking about ideas and designs. The speakers usually do not want laws to change, they don't want to sue.

You cannot take the use of such words alone as an indication. That just makes no sense. Stealing and theft aren’t legal terms, not first and foremost. They only happen to also refer to legal concepts.

No irony nowhere.

(It's obviously not ironic if he doesn’t call for or wants to use legal protections. Being outraged about something doesn't mean you want to make it illegal. That’s an important difference and I'm not sure why so many people are ignorant of that difference.)

If it would be simpler you would get something much more complex than this calculator and once again ask the same question.