4 ms·
> If "browser history" is already off your radar when responding to a claim like this, you're beyond saving. I don't subscribe to your religion, so that's ok w
by Supermancho 6y ago
> If "browser history" is already off your radar when responding to a claim like this, you're beyond saving.
I don't subscribe to your religion, so that's ok with me. I happen to think searching (and registering) social media is a progressively enlightened activity, similar to having any other record of action (criminal history) as an enduring element of identity.
> The people who say "it could be worse" are part of the problem.
Having a different standard of acceptability is not "part of a problem", from my perspective of what constitutes problems. Setting up an us vs them isn't a compelling call to action.
- scrollaway 6y ago> Having a different standard of acceptability is not "part of a problem", from my perspective of what constitutes problems. Since you're in favour of said policy, I'm going to put aside whether or not it's a good idea to do this. More simply, my point is that claiming "things could be worse" is a problem and only serves as a path for things to get worse. Politics is like a plane crash. You can choose to correct course when the sensors start pointing in the wrong direction. If you keep going, you can still try to alleviate the issues even when it's too late to prevent some kind of disaster. You can crash and maybe still salvage something. But at no point in that whole chain of events is it productive to say "things could be worse". Ok, things could be worse. Then what do you do when they do get worse?
- pjc50 6y ago> searching (and registering) social media .. says someone from an anonymous account.
- Supermancho 6y agoNot sure what you mean by anonymous (vs identifiable). If you want to claim an identity online, I'm all for it. You should be able to own it and be accountable for it.