Re: [wlug] Scam -- A Service To Scam The Scammers
When you get a scam e-mail, how about forwarding it to the Re:Scam service <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171113/02094138603/great-use-artificial-intelligence-scamming-scammers-wasting-their-time.shtml>. This activates an AI that will engage in long, fruitless conversations with the scammers--basically waste their time. And it’s run by Netsafe, here in New Zealand.
Just thought I would correct the subject line. Seems like the listserver treats the first occurrence of “Re:” as its cue to insert the list name, even if it is not followed by a space.
I'm really not a fan of Netsafe. They are a bunch of SJW. Best to just ignore spam, this bot will only make them engage more. cut their funding. cheers, william. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.nz> wrote:
Just thought I would correct the subject line. Seems like the listserver treats the first occurrence of “Re:” as its cue to insert the list name, even if it is not followed by a space. _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
this bot will only make them engage more.
That is ... well, it's literally exactly the point. Just they'll be harmlessly engaging with an AI, instead of our collective elderly grandmothers.
I'm really not a fan of Netsafe.
That's interesting. They have a very good name in the domestic InfoSec community, as well as some international acclaim. Did you have a run-in with them?
They are a bunch of SJW.
I've never understood why that's considered derogatory. I think it's great that there are people who will actually fight for social justice. E -------------------------------------------- Q: Why is this email five sentences or less? A: http://five.sentenc.es On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, at 15:45, William Mckee wrote:
I'm really not a fan of Netsafe. They are a bunch of SJW. Best to just ignore spam, this bot will only make them engage more. cut their funding.
cheers, william.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.nz> wrote:
Just thought I would correct the subject line. Seems like the listserver treats the first occurrence of “Re:” as its cue to insert the list name, even if it is not followed by a space. _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
On 11/16/2017 04:30 PM, Eric Light wrote:
They are a bunch of SJW. I've never understood why that's considered derogatory. I think it's great that there are people who will actually fight for social justice.
The top reasons that SJW carries negative connotations are: • They circumvent the *actual* justice system to perpetrate harm, both on people who have already received a fair trial, and on people who have not yet been tried. • They never seek impartial, dispassionate findings. Their modus operendi is to appeal to the public's ugliest disposition, form a hate mob, and attack anyone and anything they wish to harm, solely to advance their own power.• Never, since the inception of the term SJW, have I heard of any case where the self-identifying SJW promoted peaceful discussion or skepticism in anticipation of facts, only biased opinions and hate. • They use hate speech to label anyone who raises any concerns over their behavior, and defer to their own sexism and racism by identifying individuals on the basis of their gender, racial, and sexual orientation. Having said that, I don't know the organization in question and cannot confirm whether or not they themselves resemble any of the above.
Hi Bryan,
The top reasons that SJW carries negative connotations are:
Hey okay, that's a really good list of really good reasons to not like the phrase. That was actually great, thank you. I've ... seen behaviour like that from afar. I understood it more as the original definition: "an individual promoting socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics". A sizeable percentage of my friends meet the Wikipedia definition above - they'd be scandalised by what you've described. It's pretty stink that you've never experienced it in a positive manner :( But thanks for filling me in on the bad sides. E -------------------------------------------- Q: Why is this email five sentences or less? A: http://five.sentenc.es On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, at 18:15, Bryan Baldwin wrote:
On 11/16/2017 04:30 PM, Eric Light wrote:
They are a bunch of SJW. I've never understood why that's considered derogatory. I think it's great that there are people who will actually fight for social justice.
The top reasons that SJW carries negative connotations are:
• They circumvent the *actual* justice system to perpetrate harm, both on people who have already received a fair trial, and on people who have not yet been tried. • They never seek impartial, dispassionate findings. Their modus operendi is to appeal to the public's ugliest disposition, form a hate mob, and attack anyone and anything they wish to harm, solely to advance their own power.• Never, since the inception of the term SJW, have I heard of any case where the self-identifying SJW promoted peaceful discussion or skepticism in anticipation of facts, only biased opinions and hate. • They use hate speech to label anyone who raises any concerns over their behavior, and defer to their own sexism and racism by identifying individuals on the basis of their gender, racial, and sexual orientation.
Having said that, I don't know the organization in question and cannot confirm whether or not they themselves resemble any of the above.
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature)
On 11/16/2017 07:38 PM, Eric Light wrote:
Hi Bryan,
The top reasons that SJW carries negative connotations are: Hey okay, that's a really good list of really good reasons to not like the phrase. That was actually great, thank you.
I've ... seen behaviour like that from afar. I understood it more as the original definition: "an individual promoting socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics".
A sizeable percentage of my friends meet the Wikipedia definition above - they'd be scandalised by what you've described.
It's pretty stink that you've never experienced it in a positive manner :( But thanks for filling me in on the bad sides.
Not at all, I think I definitely have had. It was normal for me growing up through the 80's, and living through the 90's to present. Egalitarianism is deeply rooted in western society, and we've been doing it and living it. Part of the problem is that each of the ideologies of feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, identity politics encompass more then their titles necessarily promote in name alone. To then further generalize everything into SJW creates an amalgamation of unstructured, and poorly defined messages and objectives. Any figure purporting to represent any part or all of the above begins a message with, "As a member of ${ideology} I feel.." and then promotes an action based on emotional reasoning, that hasn't been thoroughly examined, and leads to fracturing within their groups, as they discover, the moniker of their ideology has a different, and often conflicting meaning from others who claim to be the same. Eg., Sex-negative feminism vs Sex-positive feminism. Speaking for myself, I must disclaim adherence to virtually any ideology, because it is inevitable that at least one version of any of them won't represent my views, or completely contradict them, or apply a blanket rule on problems that can only be decided appropriately on a case by case basis.
participants (4)
-
Bryan Baldwin -
Eric Light -
Lawrence D'Oliveiro -
William Mckee