Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 499 posts

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#481

Post by zozzle »

Defletter wrote: post #477
zozzle wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point is that second-wave feminism, and radical feminism in particular, centred on recognising sex as the basis of women's oppression under patriarchy. This led to advocacy for women-only spaces to protect against male violence and predation. Which is what JKR's position is: a continuation of second-wave radical feminism.

Partially correct but you are conflating the movement fighting for biological rights (eg: reproductive rights) as it being bio-essentialist. And there certainly was infighting about trans people within second-wave feminism (eg: feminist sex wars), but then there's also intersex people. Second-wave feminists more generally did not have the kind of one-drop rule towards womanhood as you do, where someone could have liv…

Second-wave feminism explicitly challenged and rejected biological essentialism, which is the misogynistic belief that women are biologically suited to roles like housework, taking care of a husband, raising children and so on, and should do that instead of making any other choices in life. If you are familiar with JKR's feminist views you should know that she isn't bio-essentialist. Very much the opposite.

Also, you're responding to an argument I didn't make. I said nothing about intersex people or any "one-drop rule". My point was that second-wave radical feminism centred sex as the basis of women's oppression under patriarchy, leading to advocacy for women-only spaces. Which is exactly what JKR is defending.

That is the continuity I'm highlighting. It was in response to your earlier comment:

> Second-wave feminists would deplore her bio-essentialism. She is an anti-feminist.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#483

Post by konmok »

zozzle wrote: post #481
Defletter wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partially correct but you are conflating the movement fighting for biological rights (eg: reproductive rights) as it being bio-essentialist. And there certainly was infighting about trans people within second-wave feminism (eg: feminist sex wars), but then there's also intersex people. Second-wave feminists more generally did not have the kind of one-drop rule towards womanhood as you do, where someone could have liv…

Second-wave feminism explicitly challenged and rejected biological essentialism, which is the misogynistic belief that women are biologically suited to roles like housework, taking care of a husband, raising children and so on, and should do that instead of making any other choices in life. If you are familiar with JKR's feminist views you should know that she isn't bio-essentialist. Very much the opposite. Also, you…

> Also, you're responding to an argument I didn't make. I said nothing about intersex people or any "one-drop rule"

@Defletter can see your comment history, as can I!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46176554

When I noticed you gave up on our argument, I thought I'd see what else you were up to. It seems your only goal on this site is to defend JKR. Unfortunately, JKR's views don't actually make sense, which explains why none of your arguments in defense of her make sense either.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#484

Post by zozzle »

konmok wrote: post #483
zozzle wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second-wave feminism explicitly challenged and rejected biological essentialism, which is the misogynistic belief that women are biologically suited to roles like housework, taking care of a husband, raising children and so on, and should do that instead of making any other choices in life. If you are familiar with JKR's feminist views you should know that she isn't bio-essentialist. Very much the opposite. Also, you…

> Also, you're responding to an argument I didn't make. I said nothing about intersex people or any "one-drop rule" @Defletter can see your comment history, as can I! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46176554 When I noticed you gave up on our argument, I thought I'd see what else you were up to. It seems your only goal on this site is to defend JKR. Unfortunately, JKR's views don't actually make sense, which expl…

I was rate-limited so didn't reply. And when I went back to that thread the next day and remembered you were pretending not to know what the male sex is or human sex development works, decided not to bother wasting any more time.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#485

Post by Defletter »

zozzle wrote: post #481
Defletter wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partially correct but you are conflating the movement fighting for biological rights (eg: reproductive rights) as it being bio-essentialist. And there certainly was infighting about trans people within second-wave feminism (eg: feminist sex wars), but then there's also intersex people. Second-wave feminists more generally did not have the kind of one-drop rule towards womanhood as you do, where someone could have liv…

Second-wave feminism explicitly challenged and rejected biological essentialism, which is the misogynistic belief that women are biologically suited to roles like housework, taking care of a husband, raising children and so on, and should do that instead of making any other choices in life. If you are familiar with JKR's feminist views you should know that she isn't bio-essentialist. Very much the opposite. Also, you…

> Second-wave feminism explicitly challenged and rejected biological essentialism

Exactly, hence why JKR's depraved dogma is anti-feminist: the idea that women can be disqualified from their womanhood for not being biologically pure enough is aggressively bio-essentialist. See JKR's disgusting reaction to Imane Khelif where mere rumour was enough for JKR to disqualify her womanhood entirely and call her a "a man beating a women in public for entertainment". And as konmok as said in their comment: you were all too willing to do the same in another comment thread. This is exceedingly cruel, hateful, anti-feminist, and not worthy of respect within a civil and democratic society. I will no longer be responding to this level of inhumanity.

EDIT: Sidenote, you claiming to have been rate-limited despite having a pretty sparse profile is very funny and implies that you're either running multiple accounts (probably to defend JKR and her cronies) or because you're thrumming the API like nobody's business trying to find any criticism of JKR. Or both. It could be both.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#486

Post by zozzle »

Defletter wrote: post #485
zozzle wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second-wave feminism explicitly challenged and rejected biological essentialism, which is the misogynistic belief that women are biologically suited to roles like housework, taking care of a husband, raising children and so on, and should do that instead of making any other choices in life. If you are familiar with JKR's feminist views you should know that she isn't bio-essentialist. Very much the opposite. Also, you…

> Second-wave feminism explicitly challenged and rejected biological essentialism Exactly, hence why JKR's depraved dogma is anti-feminist: the idea that women can be disqualified from their womanhood for not being biologically pure enough is aggressively bio-essentialist. See JKR's disgusting reaction to Imane Khelif where mere rumour was enough for JKR to disqualify her womanhood entirely and call her a "a man beat…

That's not what bio-essentialist means.

Khelif is male, and that was already known when JKR made her remarks, which were accurate. It is certainly not anti-feminist to be opposed to males in women's sports, especially not a sport where they get to repeatedly pummel female competitors.

If you want to see cruel and hateful, perhaps consider your complete lack of empathy for the women adversely affected by this. I suppose in your mind, the fact they are female means they are of no importance. Same as your miserable attitude towards feminist women as demonstrated in your comments above.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#487

Post by JumpCrisscross »

subscribed wrote: post #391
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The proscription is ridiculous They broke into a military base. If that was sanctioned by the organisation, they should be shut down.

The same PM who proscribed PA defended in court a woman who did exactly what PA was doing, painting warplanes in protest.

> The same PM who proscribed PA defended in court a woman who did exactly what PA was doing, painting warplanes in protest

Out of curiosity, who?

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#488

Post by drnick1 »

immibis wrote: post #436
drnick1 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true, just see what happened to the Graphene project recently. They were approached by the French government for a backdoor, threatened when they refused, and left the country in fear.

That is not what happened to the Graphene project recently. Basically, there have been a string of anonymous secure phones designed and marketed directly to high-ups in organised crime. Encrochat, Sky ECC, Anom, Phantom Secure, probably more. Their plausible deniability is thin - an undercover government agent goes to the creators and basically says "I'd like to buy 30 of these for my drug-dealing empire" and the cre…

It looks like French authorities did more than than and the Graphene devs were explicitly asked to decrypt devices and threatened with arrests:

https://nordictimes.com/tech/grapheneos-exits-france-after-t...

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#489

Post by immibis »

complianceowl wrote: post #364
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that same logic you could describe hitler as just a man concerned about the economy of his country.

The fact that you're linking my logic to Hitler is representative of how lewd your thinking has become.

[flagged]

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#490

Post by immibis »

impure-aqua wrote: post #16

Requiring me to upload my ID to invoke ssh with the -D flag should certainly be a top legislative priority of the United Kingdom

It's worse than that - it's totally illegal to invoke scp with the argument of naked_kids.jpg. The horror!
Post reply on HN