41–50 of 75 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about static content here. I'm asking to read a document, not execute a program.
You've apparently missed the last 10-15 years of web development. The web is no more about static content these days as cars are about horses. If you want static documents, I recommend pdfs?
Which of course aren't viewable in a terminal.
The Web is about the interchange of documents, and documents are text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't remember the last time the teams I've worked on ever mentioned making the site usable for people without JS and people with disabilities. "It's not in the scope!" Ugh.
I work for a public university, so when we make new sites or webapps we are obliged to make them usable for people with disabilities and we have at least one person who focus only on testing this... but without javascript? That is not even considered. The web IS javascript driven
S = 'N';
s = s + 'o';
s = s + ',';
s = s + ' ';
s = s + 'n';
s = s + 'o';
s = s + ' ';
s = s + 'i';
s = s + 't';
s = s + ''';
s = s + 's';
s = s + ' ';
s = s + 'r';
s = s + 'e';
s = s + 'a';
s = s + 'l';
s = s + 'l';
s = s + 'y';
s = s + ' ';
s = s + 'n';
s = s + 'o';
s = s + 't';
s = s + '.';
$("comment_field").innerText = s>> [Church Asylum] surprisingly survived (in a much changed form) into the 17th century. Longer than that. There was a case this year in Denver where an illegal alien was given sanctuary in a church to prevent his deportation. After nine months, a deal was worked out and he was allowed to leave without fear of deportation. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26803443/man-facing-deport... And of course the other big Asy…
I suspect you're just trading on the multiple meanings of "sanctuary" to inject your political views into this conversation. The modern practice bears only superficial similarities with the medieval practice. Yes, people use the word "sanctuary" to describe the practice explained in the article, and also to describe modern U.S. localities' policies of selectively enforcing federal immigration laws. (I say "selectivel…
The Denver church instance bears a very strong resemblance to the mediæval practice, as did the time when the Vatican gave sanctuary to Manuel Noriega.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To point out that there is a modern practice that is similar is relevant to the conversation and not particularly inflammatory. The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police. Unless the comment is clearly WAY over the line, like if it were full of racial slurs. This case is not at all like that. These kinds of speech police comments---and th…
The speech-police impulse must truly be powerful, because apparently even you have been unable to resist it! Or is speech metapolicing somehow more valuable? A wise person once told me that "The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police." But I digress. To your point: I think you'll find that I did primarily address the content of the commen…
It's exactly like one person saying "Criminals use guns to rob people" and another person saying "But police use guns, too, so they're just as bad as criminals." The proper distinction is that criminals use guns to rob, and police use guns to protect.
There is a technical name for this trick, "equivocation." It's equating things that are different in essence by referencing superficial similarities.
And you've added a helping of sarcasm on top of that, which is never germane to making a rational argument.
> I can't quite see that you've given me the same courtesy, though.
If I'm standing up for someone who is being "attacked" (for lack of a better term), I can't exactly be courteous to the attacker in the sense you are asking, which is "not disagreeing." Which is not the normal sense of the word "courteous." In the normal sense of "courteous," I have been courteous. The post I made doesn't even reference you personally. This is another equivocation on your part---equating actual courtesy and "not getting called out."
Now, I'm going to end this conversation before someone who actually "works at" HN has to come along and ask us to stop. I hope somebody has learned something about equivocation from this comment, which is my intention. Otherwise it would be pointless and I would not post it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To point out that there is a modern practice that is similar is relevant to the conversation and not particularly inflammatory. The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police. Unless the comment is clearly WAY over the line, like if it were full of racial slurs. This case is not at all like that. These kinds of speech police comments---and th…
Are you really making the argument that people who are liberal with regard to migration are the inverse when it comes to speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The speech-police impulse must truly be powerful, because apparently even you have been unable to resist it! Or is speech metapolicing somehow more valuable? A wise person once told me that "The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police." But I digress. To your point: I think you'll find that I did primarily address the content of the commen…
Opposing "speech policing" is standing up for open speech. It is not a variant of "speech policing." To claim that it is is just nasty verbal trickery. It's exactly like one person saying "Criminals use guns to rob people" and another person saying "But police use guns, too, so they're just as bad as criminals." The proper distinction is that criminals use guns to rob , and police use guns to protect . There is a tec…
But there was also a point buried in there: I think it is clearly not contrary to the ideals of free/open speech to also hold the view that not every comment is productive or welcome in the context of every conversation given the prevailing community norms. This is why it is typically considered rude to bring up religion, politics, or sex at a dinner party, to take just one example.
What is going on here is merely that you think that comments suggesting that other comments are a bit out of bounds are themselves out of bounds. Clearly, therefore, we both believe that a conversation ought to have some subject matter limits, so I don't think its fair to suggest that I am somehow anti speech, while you are just here to defend others' rights. We just disagree about what the proper limits of an HN discussion are, nothing more.
After all, my original comment was itself speech, speech that, apparently, you would oppose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also apparently a de facto right in Germany (but not a de jure right). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenasyl We (Denmark) also had a case in 1991/1992 where hundreds of (criminal) rejected asylum seekers occupied a church for a long time, in full cooperation with the priest and plenty of left-wing politicians and musicians. It ended with a special law that granted them asylum -- whereupon most of them conti…
hmmm...I think calling anti-fascists that are trying to protect migrants from fascist violence is a pretty large inversion of terms given the original black and brown shirts.
In his biography of Charlemagne, historian Richard Winston advanced the idea of sanctuary and similar privileges being granted to the clergy to give them a useful function to native Pagan populations (Frankish -- modern day France and Germany) that would otherwise be hostile to clergy. Charlemagne also used monks and priests in something that looks like a proto-civil service role... the registry of births, deaths, sa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do like me and turn off JavaScript by default. The more people we are, the greater the chances that the web remains usable without JavaScript.
I can't remember the last time the teams I've worked on ever mentioned making the site usable for people without JS and people with disabilities. "It's not in the scope!" Ugh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect you're just trading on the multiple meanings of "sanctuary" to inject your political views into this conversation. The modern practice bears only superficial similarities with the medieval practice. Yes, people use the word "sanctuary" to describe the practice explained in the article, and also to describe modern U.S. localities' policies of selectively enforcing federal immigration laws. (I say "selectivel…
To point out that there is a modern practice that is similar is relevant to the conversation and not particularly inflammatory. The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police. Unless the comment is clearly WAY over the line, like if it were full of racial slurs. This case is not at all like that. These kinds of speech police comments---and th…
You mean assholes, insecure in their convictions?
I don't know that liberals are any more guilty of wanting to restrict speech than anyone else. I do know that, whenever liberals raise issues of free speech, an awful lot of politically-conservative trolls (on this very board! posting in this very thread!) like to come out of the woodwork and bleat on about how free speech was not violated, after all, since Congress passed no law about it, which is all the 1st amendment to the US constitution mentions. As though any violation of free speech requires a literal act of Congress.
So no, despite your hint I'm not totally clear on which part of the political spectrum you're referring to.