I agree with you that Julian has been targeted for political reasons. I can type this on a US site with absolutely no fear of repercussions. I practice what I preach. I also think our treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners is unconscionable. I openly criticize my own government all the time. And not a single post or comment has ever been removed by that same government. By the way, here's the (uncensored) leaks from J…
Did you see the episode of South Park where the boys go to Afghanistan to return a goat and the boys there tell them that "Half the world hates America." And they're like "Why?", and the kid says "Because you don't realize that half the world hates you!"
Did you see the episode of South Park where the boys go to Afghanistan to return a goat and the boys there tell them that "Half the world hates America." And they're like "Why?", and the kid says "Because you don't realize that half the world hates you!"
No, I didn't. How does this relate to my comment ?
Did you see the episode of South Park where the boys go to Afghanistan to return a goat and the boys there tell them that "Half the world hates America." And they're like "Why?", and the kid says "Because you don't realize that half the world hates you!"
No, I didn't. How does this relate to my comment ?
It's a pretty good episode. Cartman does a whole Bugs Bunny bit with Osama Bin Ladin as Elmer Fudd. Anyway, I was trying to illustrate what I meant in my original comment.
You asked "Why does it matter to you that your sexuality is depicted on screen? Sounds like a bizarre thing to worry about."
The fact that you find it a bizarre thing to worry about could be seen as indicating that you're unfamiliar with the lives of LGBTQ people, which condition would presumably be improved by seeing more depictions of their lives in mass media.
> I’m not arguing your opinion, I’m just pointing out the established precedent and law disagrees with your opinion, so it’s going to take some work if you want the outcome you’re describing. Except for all the pre-digital precedent that informs and agrees with my opinion. > The shining light analogy is a little hyperbolic, I’m sure you know. Transcoding & streaming definitely is making a copy, because the bits exist…
Well, shoot, maybe it’s time to write your congressperson and get copyright law changed to how you think it should be! Beware of Chesterton’s Fence though; you can claim that digital distribution is exactly the same as physical, you can claim a copy should not count as a copy and that anyone who disagrees with you is a pedant (including congress, media, and copyright law itself?), and that old laws are good enough, b…
Ok.
I mean, Europe's already working on it. I think we'll get there eventually.
And I'm not claiming most of what you seem to think I am.
> Not to mention all the attempts to criminalize buying of sex, which is basically an ultraconservative position multiplied by -1. What country/party has this position? As a naive European, that sounds like you might be talking about the left in the USA that is still far to the right of the European idea of "left". (Posting from Switzerland, where not only is sex work legal, it's regulated and taxed)
> What country/party has this position? Northern Europe. In Iceland even porn is illegal.
Off-topic, but your username sounds like a standardized student login name from MFF UK, Prague.
The interesting thing is that end result seems to be a proliferation of extreme views in the US vs other similar countries, which is arguably the opposite of what you might reasonably expect from the opportunity to allow freer discussion of ideas.
FWIW, neo-Nazi marches in Europe have way more people attending them than anything that American fash have tried to cobble up to date (including the particularly infamous one in Charlottesville). Radical nationalist parties seem rather popular in Europe lately as well, to the point where they already run some countries (Hungary, Poland).
Interesting, though not necessarily indicative of anything in its own right. I'd always expect a culture of free expression of ideas and a willingness to discuss fringe viewpoints would help reduce the proliferation of violent or socially destabilising behaviour, but I'm less convinced the degree of constitutionality guaranteed free speech matters all that much.
I'd agree with those (I just don't necessarily think of them as "defaults", which implies there's no real disadvantage to adopting alternative shared cultural understandings). And I'd suggest that an aversion to talking about sex is surely the opposite of a practice assuring paternity?
Why would something being a default imply that there is no real disadvantage to adopting the alternative position? Taking other examples, if the default is for women to have sex with only a single man, why is it implied that there are no disadvantages to women having sex with many men? At least in the way I think of defaults, the value of the default vs the alternative is an entirely different variable.
It was arguably a poor choice of word. If a particular behaviour obviously has a significant selective advantage (at a cultural level) and becomes predominant it's done so on that basis. Whereas I'd think of a "default" as what would arise if you tried to start a new culture from scratch with a group of unconnected individuals with no exposure to other cultural ideas. The only defaults I'd expect to see are those driven by our biological makeup, e.g. we'd come up with a shared language that had certain basic properties, we'd adopt some sort of method of pair-bonding, we'd probably continue to have sex in private, and so forth, but to the level of specific taboos (whether it's discussion of sex, eating particular foods, wearing particular clothing etc.), I'm less convinced it makes sense to talk about defaults.
It's worth noting that American censorship in, say, 1960, was at close to the same level. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_censorship_in_the_United_...
Did the article imply somewhere that China is unique in it's censorship? I personally tire of this pattern: 1. Article submitted to an international forum about X country doing Y bad thing 2. "Well the USA is just as bad, they also did/doing/will do Y bad thing" Well yes, that is true, but people are voting up the submission because they found that X-doing-Y-today was interesting and don't care to rehash the history…
> international forum
American site with mostly American-lens topics. Maybe 50% American readers? Rest International.