@Seeker, Mr Horsley might of been right, but that was before the age of killer STDs. Keep it clean, keep it safe...

well, 5-4 isn't exactly a landside victory for the majority position. it's certainly a highly polarized and emotional topic...

haven't watced her on TV, but I read one of her books and I thought it was pretty good. it was helpful for me.

no

the iPhone wins. thanks for playing

Sorry for the boring content. It was an AdSense test and it worked!

Let's try some more: true love, cars, ferrari, sports illustrated, seattle sounders, sarah palin.

Jack Lemon and Walter Matthau did a fantastic job in this film. Go check it out on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107050/

@jeremyhogan, exactly! get these discussions out in the open so that people have access to all of the information and can make an informed decision. when you force these points of view underground, people who are easily swayed by the rhetoric are only going to hear one side of the issue. putting the conversation in the open, counter-intuitively, makes these shallow arguments more tenuous.

@jeremyhogan, true, it is not about the constituation, but it is a general principal. I'm not saying that facebook doesn't have the right to set their terms as they see fit or that the constitution protects your right to say what you want on facebook; it doesn't. all I'm saying is that we should be very careful what we start asking from these organizations.

even if facebook did forbid hate speech (maybe the even do, I haven't read their T&C), that doesn't mean you would be forbidden to deny the holocaust. these people have their reasons for believing these things. but, if we are going to ban all speech based on delusional thinking, then who's definition of delusional do we use?

if I were the authoritarin dictator of facebook, I would ban young earth creationists as well because they are obviously (to me) deluded. since I'm not an authoritarian dictator and I believe in the PRINCIPAL of free speach, not just in the constituionally guaranteed right, I would let even these deluded individuals say whatever they believe.

ultimately, I believe the markets work best when they are free and thinking works best when it is free. failed ideas, like young earth creationism and holocaust denial, cannot prevail in a free market of ideas, but they can be allowed to exist.

I'm not sure if women or men are worse offenders. I think it is true that they approach it differently.

As a soccer player, I will offer this analogy. When men play soccer, they are very aggressive when going for the ball and pushing and shoving often ensue. However, as soon as someone goes over the line in the view of another, there is usually a direct confrontation. These confrontations generally resolve the situation and, essentially, set the line that neither party is going to cross for the rest of the game.

Women players are just as competitive but the means by which they handle conflict on the field is very different. It is very rare for women to resort to direct conflict on the field. Instead, there is a oneupmanship that slowly escalates during the course of the game. Competitive female players will resort to all sorts of underhanded tricks on the field that would never be tolerated by men in a men's game.

Although this analogy doesn't relate directly to the question of bullying, I do think it applies to how competitive women often act in the work place in contrast to men. Of course, we have all met women you take the more direct approach and men who take the indirect approach. So, maybe all of these generalizing is moot. Maybe it's better just to talk about the tactics and worry less about which group uses which tactics more/less...

It will soon be a non-issue. It nearly already is. The biggest problem that gene patents face is that, soon, everyone will be able to sequence their genes for a small fee. Once that happens then there is really no way to enforce the patents. Believe it or not, this amounts to a very similar problem to the RIAA and MPAA file sharing woes. Information wants to be free. Once a technology becomes digital it can no longer be controlled by any organization, with or without a government granted monopoly (read copyrights, trademarks, patents). The old means of controlling information will not work in the future. They only partially work in the present.

none of us want the government to be censoring our speech which is why the first amendment was created. why would we expect censorship from any other organization? censorship on any one of us is an infringement on the rights of us all.

what I do appove of is having the ability to filter out things I don't want to see. let individuals choose to filter out that crap, but don't put facebook in a position of monitoring our speech. there is no clear line to draw and such behavior will ultimately result in a worse overall situation.

@thats_what_she_said: LOL

there is a cycle, but is it a virtuous cycle? it is certainly true that the press reports what people want to hear because that is why people by their publications. what isn't so obvious is whether people want to hear these stories BECAUSE the press is reporting them. in other words does the choice of story to press releases actually INCREASE the general public's desire to hear those kinds of stories?

if that is not the case, then harping on the press is pointless because the press will only change when the people change. however, if it turns out that the press' choice of topics actually modifies the desire of the public, then there is probably a good case to be made for having the press cover these less titilating subjects (e.g. violence against non-white women, children, etc.).

if the press has no real influence, then I'm afraid your choices for acting on your righteous indignation are greatly diminished. if white people are really only interested in hearing stories about white people, then that is what will get printed.