641–645 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious in what country you live in that sees "Defund the Police" as mainstream.
A number of countries have ripped up their police force and started again, to greater or lesser degrees, in the last few decades. The RUC would be a mild case, the Stasi an extreme one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you feel about the perspective that democracies allow the majority (or plurality) to force their values on the rest of us? Better than a warlord forcing their values on us, even if the majority often seems lacking and with the exception that you are the warlord. I agree that governments could do a better job at letting people pick their values themselves, especially with the current Victorian approaches edit…
> Better than a warlord forcing their values on us, even if the majority often seems lacking and with the exception that you are the warlord. I agree that its better. Would you say its a coincidence that if that question was posed to the warlord he would give a similar answer? "better than starving to death, growing up in a chaotic anarchistic hellhole with no stable values imposed, or being murdered by a warlord bec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Better than a warlord forcing their values on us, even if the majority often seems lacking and with the exception that you are the warlord. I agree that its better. Would you say its a coincidence that if that question was posed to the warlord he would give a similar answer? "better than starving to death, growing up in a chaotic anarchistic hellhole with no stable values imposed, or being murdered by a warlord bec…
One thing can be better than another, even if that other thing is better than something else. What point are you trying to make?
One can advocate for terrible things by comparing them to even worse things. That doesn't make it ok to violate people's rights, it just means we can find even worse examples in history. Here we have an example of a democracy violating people's rights. Someone said government nowadays is unaccountable. I suggested that government has always been largely unaccountable. Someone said I was cynical and that democracy was good because that allows us to wrest control back from the elites. I suggested (in the form of a question) that the people in a democracy are just as capable of violating our rights as the elites. Someone else pointed out that's better than a warlord. I observed that the warlord is also better than what he replaced. Certainly we can agree that violating people's rights is bad, and just like we came up with something better than a warlord, we ought to be able to come up with something better than a democracy.
> One thing can be better than another, even if that other thing is better than something else.
We can keep coming up with better things.
If we are going to have an honest conversation about censorship in the United States, we must call out the political left as the principal perpetuator. Whether it's college campuses violently protesting conservative speakers (e.g. Ben Shapiro), tech platforms banning and labeling speech they disagree with (e.g. Twitter, YouTube, Reddit), or corporate America demonizing those whose speak the truth and/or hold differin…
Have you read James Damore's essay? If you look at only the abstract theory, there wasn't a whole lot of 'think differently' or rebellious points of view in there. Totally identical mindset to the status quo establishment. He just decided to be rude while presenting his arguments using non-technical language, and pointing out things about people that they're powerless to change. That's what makes it scary. For exampl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe they are saying that it happened in 2018, not today. It's possible that it was a mistake, and corrected, but it should still concern you that it was done to begin with. Telecoms should not be the arbiters of what content you view.
I'm pretty sure it never happened. This would have been big news here. The technology press went ape when thepriatebay.org was added to a DNS blocklist. I have searched around and can not find any references to hrw or match being blocked by accident or not. Either the article writer is confusing Norway with another country or this is just "Journalistic flair" i.e. a lie.
Why do you say this journalist is lying, but lack of evidence from other journalists must mean this one is wrong?
Pirate Bay is a big site, and journalists and the population would notice. But they might not know to look for other sites being censored. Just food for thought. I don't know whether to believe it either, but I'm willing to leave it to others to fact check more rigorously.
A perfectly reasonable explanation that obeys all the facts could be that a single telecom blocked access for a short time by mistake, was alerted, and silently fixed it before journalists noticed. I doubt many people are visiting hrw.org on a daily basis, and an outage like that could be mistaken for temporary website issues. A journalist would probably not assume it was a country-wide block and so wouldn't think to write an article about it.