401–410 of 479 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With one hand they do so much to protect consumer rights for us citizens, but with the other hand they build a survailance state. The US is doing that too, and has been pretty open about it for years.
The us is working to protect consumers too? Or just the surveillance bit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We’re just as upset by these idiots The former soviets were upset with their empire, and got rid of it themselves. Is there any reason you all would not be capable of doing what they did?
There's no mechanism for the people to remove the president. You can't have a loss of confidence vote that every eligible voter can partake in. There's no coalition system where one part can pull out and essentially dissolve the sitting coalition. No snap election. By now it should be clear to anyone that the only way to remove the president, by lawful means, is to impeach and remove him. But with politicians choosin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you are no longer liberal - hence the paradox. It seems you define liberal in a rigid way. What I tried to convey is that for any Tolerance to exist, it has room to tolerate anything except Anti-Tolerance, as part of its essence . Paradox isn't a contradiction ("you are no longer liberal"), it is something that might seem like a contradiction. But maybe we agree about that and my wording was confusing.
Let's leave "liberal" definition aside. I agree it's not well defined - I only used, because you said "maximally liberal". A dilemma is a hard choice. A paradox is a principle that undermines itself when applied consistently. It doesn't "seem" like it - it is. In this case, if you stop intolerant ideas, you are no longer tolerant. That's quite simple, and Popper named it correctly as such. Now, if I put my 2c on it,…
Besides, Popper isn’t a god nor is he the only one with an opinion on this problem. Rawls for instance thought that only in exceptional circumstances should intolerance be suppressed. Popper’s paradox also isn’t anything special, literally every theory of human rights can be attacked by finding specific cases in which exceptions must be made for self protection. These exceptions do not invalidate those rights nor the necessity for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europeans are generally okay with bullying and harassment being illegal.
We should not mix random unknown person being bullied online with VIPs or politicians being made fun of. Even during the Roman Republic people could make fun of or heavily insult politicians, and also with ugly things that we could never say today. Even Julius Caesar was mocked heavily (the famous "every woman's man and every man's woman") ...unsurprisingly, this changed when the Republic ended and the Empire started…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US hasn't provided anything, except some intel, the last year. Maybe you should get up to speed with reality.
US provides credible deterrence because the US can more or less take on all NATO adversaries at the same time, while Europe alone cannot really take on even one NATO adversary on its own. US also shown willingness to use forc, which European nations have not shown it. In negotiations with Ukraine, one of the major sticking points is that Ukraine wants security guarantees and peacekeeping forces on the ground, and Eur…
It is not about what US is not doing but about threats Trump/Vence made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm entering the US for work in a few weeks and I plan on taking burner devices.
Isn't that highly suspicious? Or are you preparing burners with years of alternate social profiles activity? Because blatantly lying to the authorities is not something I'd take easily...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm entering the US for work in a few weeks and I plan on taking burner devices.
Isn't that highly suspicious? Or are you preparing burners with years of alternate social profiles activity? Because blatantly lying to the authorities is not something I'd take easily...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think if Greenland was actually part of Denmark, it too would be part of EU, as I don't think you can selectively "unmark" specific territories in a country to not be in EU if the country itself is in EU. Yes, you can. Plenty of overseas territories span the complete gamut between autonomous regions outside the EU and overseas EU regions. Each one is a special case and has specific reasons why there are inside or…
Maybe I worded it poorly, or someone of us must misunderstand something. Are you saying there are regions that are outside of Europe-the-continent, but that are a part of EU, as it belongs to a country that is within EU too? Which one(s) are those, if so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a lot of sympathy for the American people, and many personal American friends. Still, in a democracy everyone is collectively responsible for the government. "It’s not us, it’s our government" only work for so long.
That's assuming that the population has any power, which in pretty much all countries in the world is not true. "Democracy" isn't just a value to behold, if the population has no power, it has no power and a country can't be called as such out of nowhere. Now, the people might have no actual power, but it's in their hands to get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but 2/3rds of 330 million people is not 75 million votes It was a remembered stat, and there were more than 75,000,000 who “ either directly voted for it or sat on their elbows and let it happen”. A quick check of official stats: The turnout of 64.1% and 49.1%/49.3%/1.9% “of the vote” figures means: ~32% rep ~31% dem ~ 1% other ~36% did not vote So 68% voted for it or sat on their elbows. Pretty close to my half-re…
The biggest problem here isn't the numbers, but the usual manipulative rhetoric of putting people who "voted for it" and those who "sat on their elbows" into the same bucket, to vilify them together. I'll skip the philosophical argument for the absurdity of this view in general, because the numbers you provided speak even louder. Consider that both big parties got pretty much the same amount of votes[0] - so whether…
Not complicit villains, it isn't as black and white as that, but those who don't engage and then complain are pretty close. After the brexit vote a number of people said things along the lines of “if I'd know it would matter, I'd have bothered”, which is something I find difficult to respond to in a polite manner.