Live data from Hacker News

Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

pta.gov.pk

191–200 of 268 posts

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#191
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's just as strong on both sides, the difference is intention and outcomes. The right uses this to reinforce their own power. The left uses it to try and correct injustices but ends up creating problems because of it. Take a look at feminism for example. It started as "hey women should have equal rights", which is good. But now we see far too many people treating men as a monolith and demonizing them. So now…

That just tells me that you follow a lot of right-wing sources. That's not a popular feminist position but it's exactly how the right-wing characterizes it to avoid honest engagement with, for example, the feminists who've written thoughtfully and compassionately about how traditional gender roles negatively impact men. The suicide rates you mention, for example, are commonly attributed to the intersection of economi…

No that's a common far-left cop-out. I don't follow many right wing sources, I closely observe how people talk and act, offline and online, and think for myself.

In-fact I follow mostly left-wing media and I consider myself a true leftist because I think everyone should be treated equally, and power dynamics aren't as simple as man = has all power, women = has no power. But that's exactly the narrative that the left is pushing. I guarantee that if you were to post online even the simplest thing like "women have some power over men" you'll get dogpiled by people calling you a rapist because they can't handle nuance.

I also call bullshit on your explanation for male suicide. Male loneliness plays a major role, and it's partly due to the fact that we collectively put women on a pedestal in our society. Which again goes back to lack of nuance. Something like 30% of men haven't had sex in the past year, and women generally find 80% of men unattractive on dating sites. There is real data backing up my position.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing happened to James Watson.

If I'm reading about the correct James Watson, this is not a fair or accurate comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_race Edit: the psychology of creating an account to make that particular comment is fascinating to me.

>Latin lover.

Ah, yes, the "Latin" skin pigment. From black in the Caribbean, to nordic White/Ginger found in Spain and Chile/Argentina. Very accurate.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People love to cite the fallacy because it’s one that’s used a lot. 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.

Drawing a downward slope is a fallacy when you have a single datapoint and you're just asserting that the datapoint exists as part of a trend. If you have more than a single datapoint, then claiming to see a trend is no longer fallacious. In the real world, there is rarely a single datapoint. In the case of religions demanding censorship, there is A LOT of data.

The real world is not a math formula. A trend can just as quickly plateau, spike, or plummet. That's the point, that none of us can predict the next step, regardless how much we think we can.

The fallacy is proclaiming that a specific chain of events will occur due to one action. Can it happen? Sure. Will it happen with 100% certainty? Of course not, so don't pretend like it will, regardless how many datapoints exist.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The death penalty is abhorrent and indefensible Believe it or not, but some places don't have the resources to hold people in jail for decades. If there was a murderer and the place had no way to actually keep the murderer away from the general population, what would you recommend? Just ask the murderer to not murder again?

What countries don't have the prison capacity for murderers? Even the bankrupt Taliban manages to keep 14k people in their prisons. https://www.voanews.com/a/taliban-refill-afghan-jails/693518... Burundi's the last on the list of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... and manages prisons, as well. They're not opting for executions for the cost savings.

"Even the bankrupt Taliban manages to keep 14k people in their prisons"

Yes, but if they actually jailed all criminals the number would be far higher.

Afghanistan's murder rate is approx 2800 people per year (6.7/100k, population 40 million). Assuming only a 10 year sentence for murder they should have twice as many people in prison -- assuming no other crimes whatsoever, which of course isn't the case.

"They're not opting for executions for the cost savings."

Don't be so sure. I agree with the above commenter - maintaining jails can be prohibitively expensive for undeveloped countries.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article https://www.geo.tv/latest/468510-pakistan-warns-blocking-wik... says depictions of Muhammad and saying this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad is a Muslim. I'm not sure if that press conference was over the 2020 issue or the current one.

They disowned their one Nobel laureate and maybe one of the greatest minds of his generation because of his Islam being different from their Islam. That place is a failed nation. Thank fuck for the internet so the people aren’t insulated from the outside world.

The Pakistani government even removed the word "Muslim" from his headstone. Sick backward country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam#Death

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#197
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just tells me that you follow a lot of right-wing sources. That's not a popular feminist position but it's exactly how the right-wing characterizes it to avoid honest engagement with, for example, the feminists who've written thoughtfully and compassionately about how traditional gender roles negatively impact men. The suicide rates you mention, for example, are commonly attributed to the intersection of economi…

No that's a common far-left cop-out. I don't follow many right wing sources, I closely observe how people talk and act, offline and online, and think for myself. In-fact I follow mostly left-wing media and I consider myself a true leftist because I think everyone should be treated equally, and power dynamics aren't as simple as man = has all power, women = has no power. But that's exactly the narrative that the left…

I get that you believe you're thinking independently here but you're doing a paint-by-numbers repetition of anti-feminist tropes here. I would strongly recommend reconsidering how objective your baseline is and, especially, checking primary sources and thinking critically about the interpretative narratives around them.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#198
The creation of Pakistan is one of the biggest mistakes in modern history. The only country created on the basis of religion, thanks to the nonsensical Two Nation Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation_theory. It was created so Muslims can be safe in their own country, but ironically Muslims in India enjoy a way better life and future prospects. As an Indian I wish the country gets rid of its weird Muslim superiority complex and adopts secular values so peace between our nations becomes a real possiblity.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#199
post #50

Previously there was a comment that was quite elucidative made by an HN user here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304824 In recent years I've come around to viewing the American ideal of absolute "free speech" as not being all that nuanced, particularly because we know know the speed at which viral false and illegitimate claims travel and the slower speed at which reasoned responses to those speech travel. I…

> I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad, even if they fall squarely under free speech, are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities of a large chunk of people that abide to certain customs and norms.

Nope. Fuck their customs and norms. Out here in the non-psychotic world, we also have "customs and norms". Those include not cutting facts out of our accounts of history, and not telling other people what they can say in general.

By the way, those exact same "customs and norms" also say that, although they can keep me from drawing some guy because it's offensive to them, I can't criticize a book that's full of literal, direct exhortations to kill a shit-ton of people, including me personally-- exhortations that have been and still are being acted upon throughout the book's history-- because questioning that book is also offensive to them. In addition to glorifying violence, that book also goes on for page after page denigrating other religions, by the way.

When you're prepared to systematically shun (at least) all Abrahamic scriptures and everybody who spreads them, along with all the other "false and illegitimate claims", and along with anything else that conflicts with anybody's "customs and norms", then you'll be in a self-consistent position. You'll still be wrong, but you'll at least be consistent. Ready to go there?

By the way, trying frame your position as something that every reasonable person obviously must already accept is a really pitiful rhetorical tactic.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#200
post #23
post #2

"Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has degraded Wikipedia services in the country on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents. Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents by issuing a notice under applicable law and court order(s). An opportunity of hearing was also provided, however, the platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared befor…

I am trying to think why Wikipedia would care about this. They offer a free service - if you don't want it that's just disappointing.

Because the law of a country (a very populated country) prohibits it.

In the same sense they supposedly would remove whatever violates hate speech laws or copyright laws in some other countries that the ones they operate in.

Post reply on HN