Not sure what Edge is but clearly it’s a deeply unserious organization that uses memes to respond to serious (and absolutely worthy of debate) requests.
Why did you post the same comment as by user kajal7052?
I didn’t read the comments.
Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
91–100 of 104 posts
Re: Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
#92Re: Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t read the comments.
So "not reading the comments" caused you to post the same comment twice, using different usernames?
'kajal7052 looks like it was a bot that was posting comments it copied from existing ones.
The id of kajal7052's comment is 30407693, which is after Waterluvian's (30407636).
Re: Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
So "not reading the comments" caused you to post the same comment twice, using different usernames?
'kajal7052 looks like it was a bot that was posting comments it copied from existing ones. The id of kajal7052's comment is 30407693, which is after Waterluvian's (30407636).
Interesting. Haven’t seen that kind of garbage on HN before.
Re: Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer to store my money with an institution that follows the laws of my country. That seems pretty sensible.
What would you want your institution to do when the government decides that your money is no longer yours because you supported somebody they don't like? That is what is happening here. A government attempt to silence dissidents.
[dead]
Re: Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are able to freeze assets suspected of being used to fund criminal activity. This only applies to the corporate accounts of the owners of the trucks and the millions of dollars raised by mostly US-based anti-vaxxers. If Antifa activists were to recieve 6 figures from mostly Chinese communists with the express intent to use those funds to cause economic damage, some of the commentators here might react differentl…
I don’t actually care which country wants to fund anti-facism. If you’re not anti-fascism, you’re the problem. And before anyone hit’s the “i’m not anti-anti-fascist, i’m anti-antifa” there IS no antifa. You can’t join antifa, you can’t donate to antifa, they don’t give out member cards. It’s just a name people who are anti-fascism apply to themselves.
You can be opposed to fascism and be opposed to antifa, and opposed to the actions people-who-say-they-are-antifa take during their riots
Re: Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if their protest escalates into significant economic damage or other types of harm. That's when it graduates from protest to terrorism. First of all, look up the definition of terrorism. It’s not “thing you think is bad”. Pretty integral to terrorism is violence. No violence or threat of violence, no terrorism. Second, all protest causes economic harm - successful protest causes significant economic harm. Your line…
When I said "other types of harm" I basically meant violence which is why I said that that constitutes terrorism. Regarding economic harm, I agree that this isn't terrorism. But there is clearly a limit beyond which the protestors need to be arrested. They cannot be allowed to block trade between two countries, for example. We should make a distinction. Is the point to cause economic harm (e.g blocking a trade route)…
So was it wrong for the Montgomery bus boycott to intentionally cause economic harm? Was it wrong for gandhi to break the salt monopoly, causing economic harm? It seems like either you’re applying different standards because you feel different about the causes - or you oppose the actions of some of the most celebrated icons of the past 100 years of social change - unless there’s a third position i’m missing
Re: Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
What on earth does naval security have to do with banking laws? Take your argument a few steps further. Because of the naval security, should the US have the right to restrict abortion elsewhere in the world because a large portion of its population feels religiously inclined to enforce this? My point is: Countries are supposed to be sovereign. Canada has no more right to enforce these laws beyond its border than the…
You should read up on the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. It doesn't matter what's fair It doesn't matter what's hypocritical. "Sovereign rights" don't matter. The only thing that matters is your ability to project power. China has it. America has it. Canada does not.
See that’s right. But all those nations have agreed not to act this way on the world stage.
Re: Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer to store my money with an institution that follows the laws of my country. That seems pretty sensible.
What would you want your institution to do when the government decides that your money is no longer yours because you supported somebody they don't like? That is what is happening here. A government attempt to silence dissidents.
Take a chill pill. The money is frozen, not seized.
Re: Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I said "other types of harm" I basically meant violence which is why I said that that constitutes terrorism. Regarding economic harm, I agree that this isn't terrorism. But there is clearly a limit beyond which the protestors need to be arrested. They cannot be allowed to block trade between two countries, for example. We should make a distinction. Is the point to cause economic harm (e.g blocking a trade route)…
So was it wrong for the Montgomery bus boycott to intentionally cause economic harm? Was it wrong for gandhi to break the salt monopoly, causing economic harm? It seems like either you’re applying different standards because you feel different about the causes - or you oppose the actions of some of the most celebrated icons of the past 100 years of social change - unless there’s a third position i’m missing
I don't think it was right or wrong. That is the wrong lens. I just think we need to arrest them after a certain threshold of harm. Here's a reductio ad absurdum of the position that all economic harm should be tolerated: Should we allow a small group of 5 protestors to blockade the tarmac of an international airport and shut it down for 10 years? On what principle would you prevent that if you have declared support for protest irrespective of economic harm? Clearly this rule of yours doesn't work. The protestors need to get arrested at a certain threshold of economic damage and every thinking person should agree with that.