4 ms·

Lovely - I guess the US is moving towards the idea that we _want_ the government telling us what we should and shouldn't see instead of creating and/or using to

Lovely - I guess the US is moving towards the idea that we _want_ the government telling us what we should and shouldn't see instead of creating and/or using tools like block lists to remove what we don't want to see.

seanw444 4y ago
Liberties are being removed left and right (pun intended) in the US these days. What's sad: it's the cool and normal thing now. Hooray cancel culture, boo firearms, hooray government spying, hooray untraceable elections running on hackable machines, boo keeping to ourselves on an international level rather than being world police, boo gay people from one side - but hooray children at drag shows on the other... The really ironic thing is that there were armed guards at a children-permitted drag show, that were wearing plate carriers with LGBT flags on them. I'm all for that, man. Defend what you believe in with your constitutional rights. But what confuses me is the same people they're defending, are generally the same group of people that want to eliminate their right to own so-called "weapons of war" (which were originally engineered for the civilian market, mind you).
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I generally agree with your comment, but I think your love of guns slightly detracts from the point you are trying to make. Sure, in the US, the 2nd Amendment does relate to a right/liberty, but other countries have managed to enjoy greater liberty (in particular, fewer murders per capita) while heavily restricting the use of firearms. That doesn't necessarily mean that the US would be better if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, I'm just saying that "boo firearms" is a perfectly valid (and liberty defending) opinion for some people in the country to hold, unlike "hooray (warrantless) government spying" or "hooray hackable voting machines". Just consider what it is you are "all for". You want an environment where parents need to surround their children with armed guards in order to protect them from armed militias trying to intimidate them into not exercising their right of assembly. Does that really sound like a country where people are free?
  - gameman144 4y ago
    > other countries have managed to enjoy greater liberty (in particular, fewer murders per capita) Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're an example of a desirable outcome that some people decide outweighs the loss of liberty. To illustrate, you could also achieve fewer murders through warrantless government spying, and I think you'd agree that that proposal would be pretty hard to spin as increased liberty. > You want an environment where parents need to surround their children with armed guards in order to protect them from armed militias trying to intimidate them into not exercising their right of assembly. Do they want that? I just heard them say they respect the second amendment, nothing about allowing intimidation or making no tradeoffs to the point of requiring armed guards. This feels like a pretty big strawman to tear down the opinion above, rather than acknowledging that it's fine to prioritize safety over liberty but it's also fine to prioritize liberty over safety, and everyone is okay with different tradeoffs.
    - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
      > Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're an example of a desirable outcome that some people decide outweighs the loss of liberty. To say this another way: put everyone in a steel cage, watch your murder rate plummet. But!, hey: every life was protected.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    Something nobody seems to want to come to terms with: true freedom requires effort on your part. Wishing there will come a day where the final perfect law will be passed, or the perfect leader will come along, and you'll have liberty and freedom at last, is ridiculous. Freedom comes at a price. It always will. That means recognizing that it can put you in danger sometimes. An authoritarian regime would shut down crime much quicker than a free nation would. Does that make authoritarianism preferable? Hell no. I'd rather defend my property/person/family myself when the time comes. Because as you've probably heard countless times: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
- uncommonshaman 4y ago
  Your judgement is clouded by ideology. Libraries are being shut down for carrying the "wrong" kind of books. Teachers are being run out of the profession. Politicians are being threatened by gun shots near their home. Ostensibly, the "cancel culture" that people are concerned about (nearly entirely focused on the already wealthy and powerful, who oddly are not silenced when dominating the airwaves about their supposed cancelling) is nothing compared to the real danger that threatens real average folks in our own communities. I think you'd find that many of the people you perceive to be on the opposite side of you are concerned with the same issues that you are, and no, they do not think it's cool and normal.

seanw444 4y ago

Liberties are being removed left and right (pun intended) in the US these days. What's sad: it's the cool and normal thing now. Hooray cancel culture, boo firearms, hooray government spying, hooray untraceable elections running on hackable machines, boo keeping to ourselves on an international level rather than being world police, boo gay people from one side - but hooray children at drag shows on the other... The really ironic thing is that there were armed guards at a children-permitted drag show, that were wearing plate carriers with LGBT flags on them. I'm all for that, man. Defend what you believe in with your constitutional rights. But what confuses me is the same people they're defending, are generally the same group of people that want to eliminate their right to own so-called "weapons of war" (which were originally engineered for the civilian market, mind you).

dane-pgp 4y ago
I generally agree with your comment, but I think your love of guns slightly detracts from the point you are trying to make. Sure, in the US, the 2nd Amendment does relate to a right/liberty, but other countries have managed to enjoy greater liberty (in particular, fewer murders per capita) while heavily restricting the use of firearms. That doesn't necessarily mean that the US would be better if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, I'm just saying that "boo firearms" is a perfectly valid (and liberty defending) opinion for some people in the country to hold, unlike "hooray (warrantless) government spying" or "hooray hackable voting machines". Just consider what it is you are "all for". You want an environment where parents need to surround their children with armed guards in order to protect them from armed militias trying to intimidate them into not exercising their right of assembly. Does that really sound like a country where people are free?
- gameman144 4y ago
  > other countries have managed to enjoy greater liberty (in particular, fewer murders per capita) Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're an example of a desirable outcome that some people decide outweighs the loss of liberty. To illustrate, you could also achieve fewer murders through warrantless government spying, and I think you'd agree that that proposal would be pretty hard to spin as increased liberty. > You want an environment where parents need to surround their children with armed guards in order to protect them from armed militias trying to intimidate them into not exercising their right of assembly. Do they want that? I just heard them say they respect the second amendment, nothing about allowing intimidation or making no tradeoffs to the point of requiring armed guards. This feels like a pretty big strawman to tear down the opinion above, rather than acknowledging that it's fine to prioritize safety over liberty but it's also fine to prioritize liberty over safety, and everyone is okay with different tradeoffs.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    > Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're an example of a desirable outcome that some people decide outweighs the loss of liberty. To say this another way: put everyone in a steel cage, watch your murder rate plummet. But!, hey: every life was protected.
- seanw444 4y ago
  Something nobody seems to want to come to terms with: true freedom requires effort on your part. Wishing there will come a day where the final perfect law will be passed, or the perfect leader will come along, and you'll have liberty and freedom at last, is ridiculous. Freedom comes at a price. It always will. That means recognizing that it can put you in danger sometimes. An authoritarian regime would shut down crime much quicker than a free nation would. Does that make authoritarianism preferable? Hell no. I'd rather defend my property/person/family myself when the time comes. Because as you've probably heard countless times: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
uncommonshaman 4y ago
Your judgement is clouded by ideology. Libraries are being shut down for carrying the "wrong" kind of books. Teachers are being run out of the profession. Politicians are being threatened by gun shots near their home. Ostensibly, the "cancel culture" that people are concerned about (nearly entirely focused on the already wealthy and powerful, who oddly are not silenced when dominating the airwaves about their supposed cancelling) is nothing compared to the real danger that threatens real average folks in our own communities. I think you'd find that many of the people you perceive to be on the opposite side of you are concerned with the same issues that you are, and no, they do not think it's cool and normal.