431–440 of 476 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why Altay's comment is dead. I found it interestingly and informative. Unpopular opinions reasonably expressed should not be killed.
Check the user's comment history. It's not that comment in particular. The whole account is blocked for wishing people dead, calling people scum, insulting other users and expressing sadness that a genocide program ended to early. There's unpopular opinions and there's crossing the line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real people rarely want war, they all want the same basic things: food and shelter, a good future for their kids, and to live in peace. This is universal over the whole world, unless they've had their minds poisoned by leaders with their own agendas, be it political or religious. However, most people also don't really care that much about other people, especially in other countries. So they elect people to handle tha…
> More than 63% voted yes in Germany for instance. I also was baffled about the results of the Turkish vote abroad. How is it possible that, in many EU states, they won which such a majority? I would have expected expats to be generally more liberal/globalist/progressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They weren't able to dismiss people who resisted by doing the equivalent of "unfriend"ing them. If you are in the same physical space with someone, the only way you can enforce silence (rather than just pleading for it) is to leave or compel the property owner to exert force against the other guest. In the public square, no one can exert this force over complaints as petty as "I don't like what he's saying". Some typ…
You have a bizarre picture of the past if you think that people were forced to fraternise. Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically. You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all. Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then.
I wouldn't necessarily characterize what I was discussing as fraternization, but no, I don't think that's bizarre at all when compared against today's culture of sitting indoors looking at a screen bare minimum of 8 hours per day.
>Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically.
Obviously, this is not absolute. But it is seriously limited. If you wanted to have an active discussion of policy issues, what were your options pre-internet? Three-way calling (I think this came out in the 90s anyway)? You could write letters and stuff but that's quite the lag time. Serious discussion that kept human attention spans engaged had to happen in person.
>You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all.
First, are these necessarily mutually exclusive? Second, isn't this discussion specifically about how our freedoms are jeopardized by the closed-mindedness that arises from cultural disregard for the social principle and value of free speech?
>Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then.
I'm not saying that people were more open-minded in an absolute sense, though I think it's easy to say that the mainstream political discourse was more civil. I'm saying that the way technology and telecommunication has changed our interaction is causing us to lose regard for the principles of free speech and open dialogue.
You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or maybe s/he just didn't notice the [-]
lol. changed my noscript addon and forgot to whitelist HN. thanks for reminding me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just how far are you willing to go with this? If people having opinion X, are banned on social media and no private registrar will register their website, no private search engine will index their website, no private employer will hire them, no private bank will do business with them or lend them money, no conference will invite them even for unrelated talks, no open source project will accept their contribution, no…
If people having opinion X, are banned on social media I'm not in favor of people being banned, but of ideas being flagged - not censored. For example, I don't want to do any kind of business with anyone who is advocating policies that I have a strict moral disagreement with. The nature of that moral disagreement could vary. Popular sentiment should be employed not to determine whether a given piece of media is accep…
Scott Adams himself mentions the same: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159566176596/am-i-shadowbanned-...
If you tag people with whom you have a strict moral disagreement to avoid doing business with them, this is actually what national socialists did back in the 1930s with their own Jewish community. It is a slippery rope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish I understood why there isn't a move to reinstate border checks in the Schengen area. But there is a move. In fact, multiple countries have done so, although temporarily: https://euobserver.com/migration/130260 Thing is, border control isn't free; it may not be visible for many of us, but there are a lot of people reliant on the openness of our borders for their daily lives. Imagine having to pass a border chec…
> What if those migrants just came by boat anyway? What are we going to do, let'em drown? What's wrong with rescuing them and then shipping them back to the coast they sailed off from? If they're on international waters, there are no legal obligations to treat them as asylum seekers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What if those migrants just came by boat anyway? What are we going to do, let'em drown? What's wrong with rescuing them and then shipping them back to the coast they sailed off from? If they're on international waters, there are no legal obligations to treat them as asylum seekers.
How will you tell where to ship them if they've discarded their passports?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What if those migrants just came by boat anyway? What are we going to do, let'em drown? What's wrong with rescuing them and then shipping them back to the coast they sailed off from? If they're on international waters, there are no legal obligations to treat them as asylum seekers.
Is it practical? As far as I know, unless they're citizens, the countries of such coasts aren't obligated to accept them. And it's often not clear where they're actually from. Plus, what if they're from a war zone?
The bigger picture is that these situations would very quickly stop happening if the word spread that it's not longer viable as a way to get into the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In germany, we Germans know. But as Merkel put it : erdogan is a democrat in a democracy. Nothing we can do here.
I guess that's the thing: from what I can tell, Turkey ceased being a democracy with Erdogan. I do not believe anything pertaining to votes in Turkey for some time, since the time Erdogan was first elected. That vote was suspect, and so has everything that's happened since then. In certain ways, what I find so disturbing about what's been happening in Turkey is how readily everyone seems to accept the official accoun…
I think for good reason...