861–870 of 891 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Behind” implies that they’re following and moving in the same direction. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s the case.
The incarceration rate of the US in 1960 was about 225/100K, and in China it's currently around 120/100K, so China is doing a little better than we were 60 years ago. Of course our incarceration rate now has nearly tripled to 640 /100K, so thank God they're not following us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is network television in the US obligated to show Russian propaganda?.
I haven’t seen the film and don’t intent to watch it. It is it Russian Propaganda? I thought Oliver Stone is an American. No, we are not obligated to show Russian propaganda in network television.
He may be an American but it sure sounds like he's on the payroll of the Kremlin. His son works for RT ever since 2015 and he has neatly parroted most Kremlin talking points regarding Ukraine up until the war itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not inverting is meaning, I just have a broader definition of what things constitute violent acts of suppression of beliefs. I see this misunderstanding constantly online, that hate speech, *phobia, and *ism is an expression of belief rather than an act of violence that suppresses the speech of the group being targeted. Here, let’s talk about the person who literally replied to your post. Quoting it since I’m sur…
How does the comment that you reference suppresses the speech of the group being targeted, in and of itself?
> answer me: would you be comfortable if a MAN who says he thinks he is a woman went to the same toilet as your teenage daughters!? cowards downvote, if you are right, come debate me.
Let’s break it down, the imagery here is pretty simple. In both comments “neo-trans man” and “MAN” are front loaded and used with a lot of emphasis, they’re trying prime an image in your brain of a big scary hulking man and trying to get you to associate that image with trans women. Trans women are scary, trans women are dangerous. It’s a cute trick, because it’s actually misandry leveraged against trans women.
Next, “thinks he’s a woman” is also pretty simple. Using “he” in this context serves to keep the previous image fresh in your mind, remember we’re taking about a bad bad man here. And the whole thing characterizes trans women as delusional, unhinged, or “mentally ill.” Just like the first one, this actually leverages ableism against trans women.
And “same toilets as your teenage daughters”, hopefully this one is obvious. Now that we’ve established that trans women are mentally unstable dangerous hulking men we need to paint a picture of the consequences of that. Our victim, someone small, young, weak, defenseless and sympathetic (relying on misogyny here). Our location, somewhere people feel vulnerable and exposed in just the manner that points to sexual assault. Finally! We have an instance of direct transphobia — the fear that trans women are rapists dressing up as women to attack them when they’re vulnerable, and that they’re pedo groomers. Two for one special!
So let’s circle back, how does this suppress speech. Because it’s not a gun pointed at someone with the threat of pulling the trigger if they speak. It’s suppressing speech by way of character assassination and marginalization. The former is a way of discrediting anything they say because who would take anything a mentally unhinged monstrous rapist says seriously when they ask for “equal rights” — “yeah equal rights to diddle kids you sick freak.” And the latter by way of reach. Speech is pretty ineffective when you have no one to speak to and nobody wants to associate with monsters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it. The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance. When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop other…
I’m not inverting is meaning, I just have a broader definition of what things constitute violent acts of suppression of beliefs. I see this misunderstanding constantly online, that hate speech, *phobia, and *ism is an expression of belief rather than an act of violence that suppresses the speech of the group being targeted. Here, let’s talk about the person who literally replied to your post. Quoting it since I’m sur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why are you all so hell-bent on glorifying Popper (pooper). He was just a moron with an agenda. Btw, tolerance, like democracy is just a bulls$##t concept. Would you like to be tolerant of the neo-trans man going to the same toilet as your teenage daughters???
answer me: would you be comfortable if a MAN who says he thinks he is a woman went to the same toilet as your teenage daughters!? cowards downvote, if you are right, come debate me.
P.S. the reason people don't bother debating people like you, is that it's usually like playing chess with a pigeon and they know this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taken to it's logical extreme though, such a service could easily render copyright effectively useless. Break the movie into 10 second clips, "rent out" each of those clips during the 10 seconds they're being viewed and automatically return them after. There, you can now "legally" stream 720 concurrent copies of a 2 hour movie at once in perpetuity for near zero marginal cost. The only reason rentals worked was becau…
That's not really a "logical extreme", that's a straw man and an obvious ploy to do something you're not supposed to be able to do. I think a reasonable person would see that what you describe is an attempt to make an end run around both the spirit and letter of the law. But what VidAngel was doing was "one copy = one view", which is IMO entirely reasonable. There is zero moral difference between mailing someone a Bl…
Streaming is making a copy of the contents, which, if done without a license, usually violates the content owner’s copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually agree, but I got the sense that the company being mormon was meant to bias the reader of that comment towards thinking that the company was in the wrong. I hoped to drive the conversation past that prejudice by conceding and dismissing it rather than pushing back against it, because I felt that on this forum pushback would likely prompt a religious flamewar rather than a discussion about digital rental. Us…
Mormons have a well-documented refusal to assimilate while concurrently using devious and mono-social-mind power to cheat the systems they benefit from and complain about frequently. If there’s one home grown US group that embodies “have their cake and eat it too” it’s culturally ingrained in the definition of being a practicing Mormon. Now if you object, replace the word Mormon with Skinhead regarding mentality of o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not arguing your opinion, I’m just pointing out the established precedent and law disagrees with your opinion, so it’s going to take some work if you want the outcome you’re describing. Saying it could work in theory if people just transcode on the fly and self-limit the rental rate isn’t particularly convincing, fwiw. The shining light analogy is a little hyperbolic, I’m sure you know. Transcoding & streaming de…
> I’m not arguing your opinion, I’m just pointing out the established precedent and law disagrees with your opinion, so it’s going to take some work if you want the outcome you’re describing. Except for all the pre-digital precedent that informs and agrees with my opinion. > The shining light analogy is a little hyperbolic, I’m sure you know. Transcoding & streaming definitely is making a copy, because the bits exist…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The United States government does not employ censors to remove portions of shows What? Yes it does - the FCC has been doing this for a half-century at least.
I noted that in my comment: > We ban pornography on public airwaves (but not on streaming or cable or satellite, or Blueray). And the FCC has a very narrow scope. I also happen to disagree with their prudishness (Janet Jackson, 2003). It does not back the argument that we're "honestly no better".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me make this simpler. The 100 most popular movies produced in China are completely fine to stream in the US. Not a single scene or phrase is removed by our government before allowing us to watch them. Same with music, TV, books, and art. The reverse is not even close. Can you give me a Western example that is analogous to Tank Man, or to Winnie the Pooh?
I don't think Julian Assange among other whistleblowers who are punished for speaking out about the Western hegemony's actions care too much about the Big Bang Theory's episodes in China...same with most of who are censored by YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc for political reasons. Practice what you preach or what you preach has no credibility. The global south & many westerners are tired of the lectures coming from t…