121–130 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're comparing a group chat to an encyclopedia...
I'd describe Twitter as closer to a news site in the modern era. There are a lot of journalists and other important public figures sharing information there, and that's especially true for important live news events like earthquakes. (Twitter is the first place I check if I feel the house shake, for example.)
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not nationalism, but fairness. If nationally you can't just work people all week, then an american company with unlimited VC money, selling its user data to everybody and working its workers to death will absolutely crush any local or neighboring competitor. There must be limits, because as we have seen, globalism as its currently is basically american everything.
> There must be limits There are limits. There is no unlimited VC money, and America's a crazy place to give an example of as having no workers' rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the last decade would lead you to believe the slippery slope is a fallacy? It's less a slope than a cliff.
People love to reference the logical fallacy[1] as though there have been no instances where momentum builds from a series of decisions and cascades in a massive shift. But then again, thinkers like these are happy to comfortably think about the past while many suffer, instead of applying realism towards the future. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Sure, momentum builds. Sometimes. But the fallacy is proclaiming with 100% certainty both that the momentum will build, and the specific way it’s going to roll.
We don’t know the future. We can’t claim with certainty that something will happen as a result of another action. Claiming anything otherwise is falling right into the fallacy.
I'm starting to view more and more things as nationalism vs globalism. E.g. multinational corporations vs national tax laws E.g. global internet services vs national privacy laws E.g. global internet services vs national decency laws (the posted issue) I'm starting to realise this mismatch is where a lot of friction is and will continue to be.
individual humans vs the collective groups which we come together to form;
like employees vs their own company
humans vs corporations but corporations are made (in part) from humans.
heck, it's like we're having some kind of an autoimmune reaction: the cells in a single individual human fighting against the individual human.
...but hey, for most of my life people chose to say I'm crazy and ignore what I say.
I can hardly imagine an idea more ridiculous than "blasphemy". The G-d is not a psychologically immature human being easy to offend. Nothing a human might possibly say can change the state of G-d from perfect harmony to anything else.
Why are you selfcensoring "God"?
I can hardly imagine an idea more ridiculous than "blasphemy". The G-d is not a psychologically immature human being easy to offend. Nothing a human might possibly say can change the state of G-d from perfect harmony to anything else.
I don't think they are afraid of offending their god. I think they fear their human worshippers devolving into worshipping the person rather than following their religion. In other words they want to avoid the historical person superseding their god.
[flagged]
It is power and the drive to preserve power that is behind much of this. Religion is a convenient scapegoat in the case of islam because much of the islamic world is some combination of poor and lacking freedom. Islam is also in the relatively unique situation of mixing religion with politics that leads to the power struggle in the first place.
God never talks to anyone directly - there's always some human who conveniently relays god's message. Usually an authority figure, like a parent or a priest. It's just a tactic they use to reinforce their authority and help them control other people.