banads

12 ms·

61.
by banads 6y ago
>But institutions have the ability to enforce behavior in that group. You dont think communities of people have the ability to enforce or influence behavior of the people in their community? If you watched the video I posted, or knew any
62.
by banads 6y ago
That's not what were talking about here. Were talking about indiscriminate hacking/doxing of police, and the people who are cheering that on. How is that going to effectively address the root causes of police militarization?
63.
by banads 6y ago
This is the same pathos parroted by bigots.
64.
by banads 6y ago
Agreed! That still doesn't mean Collective Punishment is ethical https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment
65.
by banads 6y ago
So what? Institutions are made of people.
66.
by banads 6y ago
When two things are directly interrelated (attitudes among police and attitudes among criminals), are we not allowed to discuss them both? Why not? Seems like you're trying to purposefully shun context, which isn't a practical way
67.
by banads 6y ago
>not reporting, fiercely defending, or even lying to provide cover for the bad ones. And at that point, every person who tolerates the bad behaviors ends up enabling them, and therefore become complicit in them. Precisely the same mental
68.
by banads 6y ago
I too dislike hyper aggressive militarized police who act above the law. But anyone who makes facile generalizations about entire groups of people is merely mirroring the problem, not helping it. Edit: "populations" -> "gr
69.
by banads 6y ago
Can you elaborate?
70.
by banads 6y ago
Just study history, information is power. Data harvesting and processing technologies were what enabled the efficiency of the holocaust. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
71.
Ask HN: Best books on getting started with renewable energy and solar power?
4 points by banads 6y ago|2 comments
72.
by banads 6y ago
>That sounds like a monopoly problem Okay let's follow that logic: precisely at what point does that become a monopoly problem?
73.
by banads 6y ago
>> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line >Yes, this h
74.
by banads 6y ago
Thought experiment: if a single corporation owned a website within which 100% of public speech was conducted, would you still be so eager to defend their "right" to control the thoughts and words of the entire world?
75.
by banads 6y ago
It's silly to think money is literally the only form of power and persuasion. As Alvin Toffler wrote in Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, and as evidenced by GOOG and FB, information and atten
76.
by banads 6y ago
>Should I be expected to read all the laws Congress is not even required to read the bills they vote on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act
77.
by banads 6y ago
>You cannot conflate persuasion with "buying votes". You don't think money is persuasive? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
78.
by banads 6y ago
>Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa). Watch The Great Hack. It's not about targeting people who
79.
by banads 6y ago
Are you implying a corporation should be in charge of critical thinking for a society; a corporate ministry of truth?
80.
by banads 6y ago
>fundraising is only useful if the people that ultimately vote for you feel as though you are meeting their needs. No amount of money can convince a voter to vote for someone with whom they don't align ideologically. False, see Camb
81.
by banads 6y ago
>It was a long time ago, but I recall reading once that in some cultures the voices and delusions of schizophrenics tend to be of a more positive nature. In our culture they tend to be almost entirely menacing, paranoid, accusatory, etc.
82.
by banads 6y ago
I should have stated earlier that I agree with the theory that the true primary cause of crime/murder is poverty. >Why do you think I brought up all of the "killed by a stranger" and "familial" homicides if I was
83.
by banads 6y ago
Then why are IT professionals so eager to hide that word from themselves, when there are more people living in slavery now than ever before?
84.
by banads 6y ago
>Black Americans are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a criminal. According to what data? In 2017, 223 black people were shot/killed by police in the US[1], while 2,627 black people were murdered by black people in
85.
by banads 6y ago
By what percentage should we split our efforts between these two problems? Perhaps these 2 issues are together creating a positive feedback loop
86.
by banads 6y ago
>maybe I'm missing something here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott#Notable_boycotts You're right that boycotts without leverage experience little success, but wrong if you think they are never success
87.
by banads 6y ago
Why should we ban the word "slave"; aren't there more people living in slavery now, than ever before in history? Seems like if anything we should be raising awareness about that, not hiding it literally.
88.
by banads 6y ago
>"May I see it?" Given what we've seen from the likes of Cambridge Analytica, this seems like a question of national security.
89.
by banads 6y ago
>Moral obligations, almost by definition, do not exist ... >The question is clearly, what moral obligations _should_ they have? I'm confused. If moral obligations do not exist as you claim, why should we pretend they should exist
90.
by banads 6y ago
>what moral obligations do corporations have beyond following the law and trying to provide the optimal product to their consumers? Corporations have no such morals. They are profit seeking social constructs. Breaking the law is often a

More ›