511–520 of 528 posts
When they locked everything down and forced you to wear masks they already told you who they are. They don't care about your freedom or you as an individual and your rights.
sorry, this is stupid. Preventing a pandemic (we failed to prevent a pandemic because large numbers of us deliberately chose not to prevent a pandemic) is not the same as the Nazis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a silly hypothetical though - the argument that some emergency measures during an international pandemic emergency are authoritarianism would only make sense if we were all still subject to the measures (like stay at home orders). The problem for your argument is that the temporary emergency measures turned out to actually be temporary. Authoritarian regimes use emergencies (often fake ones) to entrench long-ter…
I don't think so? I'll state it again - temporary and authoritarian are orthogonal. Attempting to claim that the lack of permanence demonstrates that the measures weren't authoritarian thus my claim that the two concepts are orthogonal is incorrect is begging the question (at absolute minimum). Naturally I never claimed that a dictator was attempting to take over. Merely posited that staunch resistance to such measur…
Ancient Rome would elect dictators to take control for two weeks at a time, because that was the only effective way to control a crisis. It remains a very effective way to control a crisis, but it only works if people can trust the political system because the political system is worth trusting. Especially people have to be able to trust they can unelect that guy (at least by waiting two weeks).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sorry, this is stupid. Preventing a pandemic (we failed to prevent a pandemic because large numbers of us deliberately chose not to prevent a pandemic) is not the same as the Nazis.
Sorry but you are an idiot, no one brought up the Nazis except you. It is control in the name of safety one of which destroyed many businesses.
The end of anonymity online basically means an end to the internet era itself. We will effectively be rewinding time to the 1980s, when the only news sources were controlled by oligopolies, and dissident voices were simply not given a platform. That might be fine in a world where every country is on-board, but now that the internet exists, countries with anonymous free speech will come out ahead. Here's a darker thou…
> The end of anonymity online basically means an end to the internet era itself. In no way do I support this surveillance society, or legislation, but I just wanted to make a casual point. I'm from a country where the internet first came through universities, and I was privileged to be there at the time. Those early days when it was just university students (and other staff) communicating over IRC were, nostalgically…
I don't know about you, but I think I prefer the knock-on effects of internet-for-everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yours is a disingenous argument for authoritarianism and censorship. You or your government of choice are the arbiters of truth and, of course, you wouldn't lie, only your political opponents who invent obvious malicious lies that are an immediate danger. Your actions are good or mistakes and they don't present immediate dangers, only the criticism of your actions does. In case my sarcasm wasn't obvious. A resounding…
Can you answer the question?
Give me a thousand dollars. If you don't, the country falls apart!
Disingenous to the core.
Reply to my actual point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain a little why it's obvious? Last time I checked, LFI was for and EELV against. https://mepwatch.eu/9/vote.html?v=167712&country=fr
Isn't this for the extension of the temporary measure that allowed providers to volontarily scan messages and which does not break E2E encryption?
But the current version isn't "volontarily" (you mean unpaid or self-willed ?), it's mandatory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So people should die of pandemix diseases for making sure that personal freedoms are never ever temporarily restricted, got it. This is the authoritarian mantra. Accusing others of "harming" so you get to impose your bullshit unquestioned. It's always the same strategy. It's always "temporal" and yet the precedent stays. > One side seems busy with taking democratic institutions down, I wouldn't be surprised if free…
> Accusing others of "harming" so you get to impose your bullshit unquestioned. It's always the same strategy. Pandemics do harm people and need containment. Virus don't care what we think or want.
You and every authoritarian out there thinks that just by mentioning a threat, then you get to force your "solution".
You didn't contain the pandemic, btw. Actions constituted hygiene theater just like the war on terror engages in security theater. You can do more damage with the measures to protect against something but if you don't allow discussion and frame everything as a win of course you'll claim everyone else is just crazy.
Bottom line, you're an authoritarian using the same old argument to justify it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you answer the question?
It's a faulty question. You should you give me a thousand dollars or the country falls apart. Will you? Give me a thousand dollars. If you don't, the country falls apart! Disingenous to the core. Reply to my actual point.
It's well known that countries collapsing can be a downstream consequence of speech. It very famously happened in Germany, for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a faulty question. You should you give me a thousand dollars or the country falls apart. Will you? Give me a thousand dollars. If you don't, the country falls apart! Disingenous to the core. Reply to my actual point.
So you can't answer the question? It's well known that countries collapsing can be a downstream consequence of speech. It very famously happened in Germany, for instance.
Paradox of tolerance is a bullshit proposition by authoritians. Goodbye. Learn to debate.