brazzy

48 ms·

721.
by brazzy 4y ago
Wrong. That is absolutely not what is happening with those laws.
722.
by brazzy 4y ago
It is in fact a very accurate description. Goebbels spelled it out quite explicitly. Another quote from him in 1928: "We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free ra
723.
by brazzy 4y ago
> Twitter is full of people claiming this or that speech is getting people killed, with absolutely no evidence. There is in fact a fuckton of evidence: https://news.yahoo.com/all-25-us-extremism-related-murders-l...
724.
by brazzy 4y ago
What you claim to be impossible is in fact routinely and successfuly done. Because the point of hate speech bans is not at all to police opinions, it's about making sure everyone can live in peace no matter what opinion anyone holds. L
725.
by brazzy 4y ago
No, that problem is quite simple to solve by designing the laws appropriately. For example, in the German criminal code, the first basic prerequisite for the applicability of the hate speech ban is that it occurs "in a manner suited to
726.
by brazzy 4y ago
I suggest you inform yourself about the meaning of that term.
727.
by brazzy 4y ago
>And we know this because we stopped anyone who disagreed with the system from talking... No, we didn't. That is a particularly silly and ignorant example of a slippery slope argument.
728.
by brazzy 4y ago
Let me guess: you've never actually been credibly threatened with serious violence? You're basically thinking like a "crunchy mom" anti-vaxxer who thinks that measles are harmless because she doesn't know anyone who
729.
by brazzy 4y ago
It's not either or, you get both. Violence often follows threats, and if threats are allowed you can force people to do whatever you want and just have to remind them of a few cases where actual violence was done.
730.
by brazzy 4y ago
Did you overlook my last paragraph? See also my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=brazzy#34950806 No, it is really not at all a slippery slope. Even if you just look at the term, it's pretty damn o
731.
by brazzy 4y ago
>How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? Parliaments and courts. See the battle-tested European hate speech laws I mentioned, e.g. section 130 of the criminal code of Germany: "Whoever, in a manner suited to causing a
732.
by brazzy 4y ago
I, on the contrary, believe that free speech absolutism is morally and intellectually lazy, naive, and wrong. Banning some speech is in fact necessary to preserve freedom. Speech has real consequences, otherwise why would you consider it im
733.
by brazzy 4y ago
twitch Sorry, but since you used a phonetic misspelling twice, I suspect it's not a typo and you could benefit from being corrected. It's copy right . The right to make or distribute copies of a work. A copywriter is someone who
734.
by brazzy 4y ago
No, that is not the definition used by historians and political scholars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire#Definition Because what some ruler calls him- or herself isn't really a useful category.
735.
by brazzy 4y ago
An empire is not defined by its internal form of government, but by having a poweful core state that keeps other territories (provinces, colonies, client states) in permanent subservience.
736.
by brazzy 4y ago
Also https://floating-point-gui.de/
737.
by brazzy 4y ago
Since the first time I read this, I've wondered what they could have done to survive once the car got stuck. The only thing I came up with is to set fire to the car and hope the smoke would get someone to come look.
738.
by brazzy 4y ago
Poe's Law.
739.
by brazzy 4y ago
Actually, we should very much avoid doing that so that we don't end up standing pretty In this dust that was a city, looking for a souvenir just to prove the world was here.
740.
Orphan Source(en.wikipedia.org)
1 points by brazzy 4y ago|0 comments
741.
by brazzy 4y ago
BTW, the person I was replying to explicitly said they're not American.
742.
by brazzy 4y ago
Which aleady suggests one thing the previous poster could actually do instead of whining: look for way to emigrate to Germany.
743.
by brazzy 4y ago
Except the above commenter shows absolutely no signs of striving , they're just complaining on a very abstract level how wrong it all is.
744.
by brazzy 4y ago
See my second-to-last paragraph. If you want a better life, find a specific and achievable way in which it can be better, and work towards that. Quite possibly involving a labor union. But don't moan poetically about how it's such
745.
by brazzy 4y ago
> Software is the language of alienation and increasingly becoming unethical, as these systems are becoming increasingly impactful on the most vulnerable with no buttresses or supports preventing this kind of malfeasance. This doesn&#x27
746.
by brazzy 4y ago
This is what we in Germany call "whining on a high level". The universe doesn't owe you a life of leasure and following your passions and lofty ideals. It doesn't even owe you a life free of starvation and debiliating si
747.
by brazzy 4y ago
Can you explain what "their value has been used up" means beyond rhetorics?
748.
by brazzy 4y ago
> It's scope that increases headcount, not users. This is obviously untrue if you want to offer and kind of support at all. I also strongly doubt it's true you can scale up your application arbitrarily without needing more peop
749.
by brazzy 4y ago
> I actually was told by someone at my last Defcon they were boycotting CCC because they allowed Nazi imagery or something to that effect, which surprisede me given... you know... Germany. Yeah, there's no way that is true. I could
750.
by brazzy 4y ago
That's a lovely bunch of non sequiturs you got there. Most primarily we're more sick than ever because of two things that have absolutely nothing to do with "curing symptoms": * We're so good at curing diseases and

More ›