421–430 of 636 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a far bigger problem with adults having calls in public places with their phones on speaker... should they be "restrained" as well?
Depends on public space. Busy street, who cares. Silent intercity bus, maybe. Library, for sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was taking an intercity coach to Glasgow recently and a teenage kid was on his phone browsing social media without headphones. I made a comment that he should use headphones or turn the volume off. He got defensive and angry. I did not to escalate, and put my earplugs on. I do believe certain parcels of the society need to be restrained.
I have a far bigger problem with adults having calls in public places with their phones on speaker... should they be "restrained" as well?
Basically sometime around the 00s-10s, seemingly everyone decided to become a massive dickface with zero concept of social cohesion, and it's just me me me me me me, and fuck everyone else.
Society needs a reset, pretty much everyone has just become vile, angry and inconsiderate / extreme main-character syndrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. they always had been or at least tried, for decades by now, the only thing which had been holding them back was the EU frequently being like "no wtf UK, that is against human rights, EU law, etc." > Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things? no, and it also has a long track record of not onl…
EU is on exactly the same road, just with a (tiny) delay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Must be a truly dangerous place... I don't know if you're awaee, but the number of arrests for terrorism has skyrocketed in recent months, in the UK. Sounds terrifying, until you realise people were arrested as terrorists for holding placards. (That fact is of course terrifying, but in a chilling way).
It still arguably complies with the Paradox of Tolerance. Terrorists (as well as their supporters) are intolerant and non-pluralist. Therefore, for a pluralist society to survive, it must be intolerant of one thing- intolerance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting leap you made there. How can you do effective conflict resolution in a society where someone reads an anecdote about a rude teenager and immediately assumes the problem is multiculturalism?
Culture and race are not the same thing. Rephrased for you: If there is no dominant culture, how do you resolve conflicts like that?
I don't remember bringing up race. Another interesting leap.
But please do elaborate on what sort of 'dominant culture' you're longing for and what sort of policies you'd love to see to (re-)establish that 'dominant culture' to resolve the incredibly new phenomenon of teenagers being rude and rebelling against social norms.
Come on, don't be a coward and just drop the dogwhistling. You're bad at it.
The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?
The first time I taught, it was a rather interesting experience realizing how little capacity teachers actually have to deal with e.g. a disruptive student. Yeah you can pass them along to the disciplinarian or whatever, but in the end it's often empty threats - especially if the parents themselves don't particularly care, which in the case of highly disruptive students is nearly always the case. But if a class itsel…
It appears that the kosher way of doing this by US standards is to partner with a for-profit company(ehm Palantir, Meta, Google etc.) to do it for you or you become a surveillance state. Not saying to bash on US, it's just a curiosity of mine. In a similar way USA&UK diverge from most EU by not issuing national ID cards and not having central resident registries but then having powerful surveillance organizations tha…
This may make sense to you if you live in a big city, but luckily a lot of the US is uninhabited, especially in the western US. There’s many places you can drive hundreds of miles and not see anyone or be monitored like you would be in a large city. That’s not to say there’s no monitoring at all, but policies of uniformly tracking everyone in the US, as if big cities are the same as the middle of nowhere in South Dak…
This makes it seem like the entire UK is an urban sprawl, evenly monitored, which it isn’t.
In London you’re likely to be on someone’s camera pretty much all the time, much less so in suburbs and smaller towns. There is plenty of countryside, woodland, rural land and villages where there is no CCTV coverage at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here, if the cop sees someone overdosing, they immediately call the ambulance, not walk by and do nothing. Also if someone is overdosing, they are probably possessing. People should do it at home or somewhere else, not on the streets. I don't care if someone is consuming inside their home.
Wait, where's "here"? You just said you'd seen the police do nothing about somebody overdosing - and now you're saying that's exactly what they never do, where you are. Wherever that is.
"Here" being "Hungary".