421–430 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like we are at the point where it is now defensible to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, because ‘it is my constitutional right.’ A slight exaggeration.
You mean like that https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1280489063074545667 ?
It looks like Florida man was saying “I feel threatened!” to have a plausible use of lethal force to protect himself against the elderly woman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that different from the newspapers and cable news?
They are not public forums. You me and three other self-appointed bicycle fanatics are not having a lively discussion about cycling shoes in the New York Times, subject to oversight from the New York Times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I live in California, and recently had a conversation with a family member in The Hague. She was telling me about her frustrations with Anti-Maskers and Covid-deniers she has been arguing with locally. Apparently these are not just US political issues.
Honest question -- do you think that without Facebook there will be no tensions between anti-maskers and people who insist on wearing masks everywhere? Is FB really to blame here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated…
My concern with gating for votes in America is that America specifically has a very long history of gating voting in order to disenfranchise minorities from voting. We cannot trust our institutions not to use any restrictions to vote in a racist way. Without this, I can easily imagine a world where our existing disenfranchisement of minorities makes them uniquely vulnerable to being unable to acquire the education ne…
Or we could strive not to implement good policies in a bad way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the same inclinations as you. I see there are various kinds of bias from different sources, and that you have to be able to think critically in order to maintain some sort of perspective. I also think that we need a bunch of different perspectives, so in that way it's good there's a lot of people talking. But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school…
How many of the people that think the virus isn’t real are critical thinkers though (meaning Occam’s razor, the scientific method, etc)? It’s not just education per se that we need, but education in critical thinking, and also history.
You'll say that Trump called the virus a hoax, or push narratives that imply there's actually any significant percentage of people that think the virus doesn't actually exist. You treat it in black and white, and ignore all the shades of gray and all of the extra dimensions to the issue. It's either "you're with me and everything I believe about every aspect of the issue" or "you're an evil stupid virus denier".
There's so much more to the issue than that, and 99% of the people you think believe the virus isn't real DO believe it's real, they just don't agree with you on how severe it is and how it should be responded to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A specific compact form-factor and multiple rounds in a magazine that allow for more rapid fire than a bolt action rifle? I know people claim "hunting" with these rifles, but I think there's a shiny toy thing at play more than utility.
An Ar-15 is no more compact than a hunting rifle. Barrel length is restricted by law. And every gun I’ve seen with a detachable magazine comes in a variety of sizes. Hell. A Ruger 22 rifle accepts a 100 round magazine. Is that an assault rifle?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
The AR 15s come in various configurations and are quite modular from what I gather.
Collapsible stocks and vertical front handles etc. Clearly originally made for use cases that differ from hunting animals.
They look cool though!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A compelling analogy. We need tools to monitor what they put into our feeds.
I like the food analogy, let's extend it. We have ingredients lists on packaged processed food, but we have more than that: the ability to buy ingredients, learn recipes, make recipes, and cook. We should have the ability to put what we choose (and omit what we don't) in our feeds.
We should have the ability to control it all, though.
How can freedom of speech be the downfall of democracy? Surely Facebook and democracy can coexist if we get better at teaching people to think for themselves? I don’t like the idea democracy can only survive if governments censor and remove platforms for spreading information (however false that may be).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like that https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1280489063074545667 ?
I think that is different. It looks like Florida man was saying “I feel threatened!” to have a plausible use of lethal force to protect himself against the elderly woman.
I don't think it's that much different though, it's still about screaming/shouting whatever you want to get your way (either to assert dominance or to laugh).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are some pretty easy non controversial ones. Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. I didn’t agree that everyone is being manipulated, nor did you show that. There is objective truth, that is the bar for misinformation.
>Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. The details matter, but as a rule I disagree with this. Some facts are obvious, like pigs not growing on trees, but others aren't, like climate change. Science has been corrupted for decades and I don't believe it to be a proper arbiter of truth in certain areas, particularly ones that can't be tested against reality easily, such as climate change. You prob…
You are right, we won’t agree, because you haven’t got a point. What you first replied to and where you’re at now are unrelated positions.
This is a classic “bring them to your level and beat them with experience” situation. You’ve moved the goal posts to climate change now. I’m not taking up that fight.
You’ve basically just said: reason and logic have been corrupted, so we can’t agree in mere reason and logic. You’ll find your position doesn’t take you anywhere nice. But I appreciate the discussion we’ve had up to this point.