edbob

31 ms·

181.
by edbob 6y ago
> Native American autonomy and agency, African Americans obtaining land after the Civil War Unfortunately these were suppressed with violence, far more than mere censorship. I don't think these causes are dead at all, however. Many
182.
by edbob 6y ago
> Historically, Americans have succeeded at destroying ideologies by grossly impeding on free speech and other constitutional rights when there was political will. What is the history here?
183.
by edbob 6y ago
For context, I don't expect any government to be able to prevent violence and conflict. The best we can hope for is to keep conflict to a manageable level. We've had numerous assassinations in this country in the past, and it held
184.
by edbob 6y ago
Nothing will pour more gas on that fire than censorship. I basically agree with your analysis on that point, and I'm resentful of Trump for helping to create that problem. But I consider big tech censorship to be the first step to an i
185.
by edbob 6y ago
Similar categories are already specified in the penal code. Take a look at federal sentencing guidelines.
186.
by edbob 6y ago
You seem determined to focus only on the worst possible hypothetical downsides and not consider anything else. Of course in this case free speech will prove to be an evil that must be eliminated. You win.
187.
by edbob 6y ago
That would be very bad if it happened, although existing institutions proved sufficient to prevent this. Still, we've had many assassinations in our history, often at the presidential level. None of them were "existential threats&
188.
by edbob 6y ago
What's the worst-case scenario if they had succeeded? That they take some people hostage and have a stand-off until the FBI takes them down? There was no path to them attaining any actual power. Their actions were violent and bad, but
189.
by edbob 6y ago
What is "a credible existential threat to civilization" to you? The recent riots seem to be more than adequately handled through existing law enforcement procedures. Obviously the police can't prevent every crime, but in this
190.
by edbob 6y ago
Whenever one group accumulates too much power, that power is inevitably abused. The point of the policy is to limit the extent to which companies can control information.
191.
by edbob 6y ago
In the 1700's, people would actually read your flyers. It was relatively hot tech at the time, basically the equivalent of posting on Facebook or Twitter. You can still print flyers, but essentially no one is going to read them when th
192.
by edbob 6y ago
I don't know why some topics are flagged while others aren't, but Parler didn't commit any crimes.
193.
by edbob 6y ago
I'm aware of the wider context, and I didn't mean that in complete seriousness. I was just pointing out the extremely one-sided bias on display. We've had our cities burned down and dozens of people murdered in the name of le
194.
by edbob 6y ago
> The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindicti
195.
by edbob 6y ago
> They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form It comes off like this statement is what big tech really has a problem with.
196.
by edbob 6y ago
Thank you for the link. I've realized that I have a hunger for liberals that I can actually talk with. I like seeing new perspectives and sometimes learning things. Although these two articles are critical of other liberals, he still p
197.
by edbob 6y ago
Sorry. I wasn't aware of anything involving Parler's lawyers. The mass harassment of lawyers (leading to withdrawal) that I'm aware of involved Trump's lawyers. Perhaps they were retained by a corporation (idk), but I wo
198.
by edbob 6y ago
I agree that is a possibility, but he probably didn't mention it because it's so remote. When you have someone's laptop with a bunch of private sexual photos, reams of PII and emails, and you can verify with witnesses and cry
199.
by edbob 6y ago
If someone assaults me or otherwise violates my rights, but I can't file suit to defend my rights, then in practice I essentially don't actually have those rights. This is elementary. Read the PRC's constitution some time an
200.
by edbob 6y ago
Legal rights are distinct from ideals and principles. "Freedom of speech", for example, is primarily an ideal. It has some encoding in law because it is such a valuable ideal, but no one should conflate the two and think that the
201.
by edbob 6y ago
I'll give a few quick links, but a quick search turns up dozens and I think you're competent enough to search for yourself. You have public statements of "Yes, going after Trump’s law firms is fair game" and then you hav
202.
by edbob 6y ago
Access to legal counsel is in a special category. Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. It's extremely disturbing that political actions which may be distasteful
203.
by edbob 6y ago
> What's left after that? We're also seeing the refusal of legal representation, which seems nearly unprecedented. At some point, the only thing left will be civil death [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki&#x
204.
by edbob 6y ago
> I personally haven't seen such dumb arguments even on the internet. A Critical Race Theory lecturer teaching that "All white people are racist" and "white people are born into not being human": https:/&#x
205.
by edbob 6y ago
Blind partisan hatred is a mistake. Besides that, the people responsible for violent crimes will very likely be prosecuted and harshly punished. The message "go home peacefully" is irrelevant for those people and is probably inten
206.
by edbob 6y ago
Not everyone thinks that hatred is a moral obligation. It's okay to show compassion to people that you think are making a mistake.
207.
by edbob 6y ago
A slim majority is not "everyone else". Your rhetoric marginalizes 40-50% of the country. Why feed into the division and conflict like this? Why have this knee-jerk reaction of hateful dismissal? Don't we need some degree of
208.
by edbob 6y ago
The "base" is basically "people who don't consume as much Democrat-aligned media". It doesn't matter if Republicans try to appeal people outside the "base", because those people won't get the mes
209.
by edbob 6y ago
What do you mean?
210.
by edbob 6y ago
> On the flip side, if everyone hates you equally you're probably on the right track. This gives pedophiles the moral high ground.

More ›