Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the removal of Come Back Alive

blog.patreon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–428 of 428 posts

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#421

Post by tonyedgecombe »

coffeefirst wrote: post #193
brabel wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all I can think of... I just don't see an outcome where Ukraine receives so much support from the West that it will manage to beat Russia and make it go home without accomplishing any of its goals.... people seem to think that's a possible outcome. I wonder why when Kiev seems to already be surrounded and the USA government (who was right about warning about an imminent invasion!) has already said (correct me…

Not at all. 1. Appeasement is not an option. It just encourages them to do it again. 2. It is up to the Ukrainians if they want to fight to the bitter end. We can't make them, we can't stop them, but we can have their backs. 3. The purpose of resisting an illegal occupation is to drive up the cost of staying as high as possible. This works, even without economic sanctions. Just ask Vietnam or Afghanistan. 4. In a pro…

My argument is if all you do is extend the inevitable by a few days or weeks then what have you gained? Just more misery with the same outcome.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#422

Post by breakfastduck »

salawat wrote: post #325
breakfastduck wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I wouldn't have stopped this myself, I think its perfectly reasonable for a crowdfunding website to not want to host campaigns used to purchase military grade weaponry.

Lets be clear. There is no difference between weaponry and military grade. That people entertain the notion is a sign of the softening of language and perversion of meaning by the political classes to justify breaking their own founding document to centralize power (in the case of the U.S.) There is weaponry, and there is volume. And if you want to completely sidestep these issues, get a mill, some metal, and get fab…

Well it doesn't really matter. I can't blame them for not wanting to fund weaponry of any sort on a crowdfunding site.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#423

Post by breakfastduck »

redwood wrote: post #40
breakfastduck wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I wouldn't have stopped this myself, I think its perfectly reasonable for a crowdfunding website to not want to host campaigns used to purchase military grade weaponry.

Freedom. What is being defended here is the right to have a website like this at all. The west has a long way to go to wake up to what's at stake here.

No, it is not. Freedom != mass purchase of weapons through crowdfunding.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#424

Post by breakfastduck »

saiya-jin wrote: post #50
breakfastduck wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I wouldn't have stopped this myself, I think its perfectly reasonable for a crowdfunding website to not want to host campaigns used to purchase military grade weaponry.

Patreon hosts tons of youtube channels focused only on weapons including purely military ones, how to make guns more effective (aka better at killing), how to tweak ammo to be more destructive. That's one fucked up schizophrenic stance, especially from US company in this specific conflict. Does Trump have any influence there by any chance, given his recent statements?

I mean you've had to do some pretty serious stretching to compare the two there.

Essentially saying there's no difference between e.g. a video game store selling games that have guns in them and actual rifles. Come on. Basically the entire non US western world would find that absurd.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#425

Post by breakfastduck »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #34
breakfastduck wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I wouldn't have stopped this myself, I think its perfectly reasonable for a crowdfunding website to not want to host campaigns used to purchase military grade weaponry.

That's fine, and they're within their rights to have this policy in place, but it doesn't change the fact that they've completely fucked over the volunteers in their hour of need. "It's a violation of our policies" doesn't magically clear their conscience. It's just another way of saying "because we can". Companies do this all the time and I have no idea why we accept it.

Because a private company is perfectly entitled to NOT want their platform to be used to fund weapons. That isn't unusual and it absolutely IS perfectly acceptable.

What's the alternative exactly? Propose legislation to force websites to allow arms sales? Give me a break.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#426

Post by brabel »

jacquesm wrote: post #305
brabel wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> If the person being raped knows their attacker will kill them if they defend themselves, yes, they should stay quiet. But nobody knows that ahead of time. Your comment is absolutely revolting.

IF I tell you I will kill you if you move, and I have a knife to your throat, I think you should have a pretty clear and well formed belief that I probably mean it.

Telling victims of crime to react as you seem to be proposing is completely irresponsible. I come from a country with high crime and we know very, very well that doing that only causes more deaths - it's public policy to tell people this as many people, like you, believe they can be brave and fight back. There's no heroes. Life is not a movie.

To survive in this world, we all need to take a hit every now and then: as long as we can stand up again later, it is often the only reasonable course of action.

I am also revolted, disgusted by your suggestions that people should put their lives on the line even when they have clear indications that it may be the last thing they do. Losing your life is NEVER worth it. Please stop propagating the ideology of being a martyr or a hero as if that was a good thing. It's not, it costs real lives in the real world.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#427

Post by sam0x17 »

nurettin wrote: post #404
sam0x17 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. There are plenty of low-profile high-net-worth miners with that much. I used to hang out in the cex.io chatroom back in 2014 and there were fat cat miners in there who would say "watch this" and then the price would quickly go down by several percentage points because their entire mining pool just sold. It seems quite plausible at least to me that one of these networks might decide to donate a large amoun…

This is really cool to read, but trading volume of btc went from 20M when it was 3 years old to 170M over the years, so that happens a lot less frequently.

These days, many of these same individuals are literally buying plane-loads of chips fresh off the assembly lines in China, and have significantly scaled up their operations with their previous gains, so I wouldn't count it out.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#428

Post by 2pEXgD0fZ5cF »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #417
2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> destroy all of Europe if we need to, just so we can say fuck you Putin "just so we can say fuck you Putin"? Really? That is how you are attempting to frame the situation of a clear victim defending itself against an aggressor that has been appeased for years now? So you believe that the attacking entity should always win, no questions asked? Is conflict to be avoided at all costs ? Can I come into your home and jus…

>So you believe that the attacking entity should always win Nobody is saying that.

Unwillingness to differentiate between different types of violence (like attacking vs. defending) under any circumstance is exactly "saying that".

Depending on the topic you can easily call it victim blaming too.

Post reply on HN