slg

4 ms·

1.
by slg 5d ago
I'm afraid I'm still not following you. In what previous generation did conservatives support hate speech laws? Because the topic being discussed was how a position can gradually over time change from liberal to conservative or v
2.
by slg 5d ago
I guess "we better rethink how the whole criminal justice system works." The guy living in exile seems like a silly place to start that conversation rather than the millions of Americans currently in prison for agreeing to plea d
3.
by slg 5d ago
>we know that that a person released from the Polish black site were almost killed, so we can be fairly sure that a bunch of people died there This is the kind of statement that just completely undermines any possible conversation we cou
4.
by slg 5d ago
>we also don't have to flatten these historical events (snowden maybe making some mistakes vs the US government's spying) so we can pretend that they're of equal valence, scale and severity In what way do you think this wa
5.
by slg 5d ago
First, the conversation was about the DNC, so what centrist Dems think is more important than "Progressives, radlibs, and the ultra-left". But beyond that, what specific policies are you talking about? Because without naming spe
6.
by slg 5d ago
>A complete liberal from not that long ago would now be deemed a conservative by the DNC. You say this like it isn't inherent to the nature of liberalism versus conservatism. A liberal of a prior generation is almost always conserv
7.
by slg 5d ago
Once again, there was no flex. We aren't judging the morality or ethics of the situation in any direction. We are simply looking back on historical events with hindsight. We also don't have to flatten these historical events int
8.
by slg 5d ago
Your objection isn't to just Assange's case. It's with over 90% of criminal cases in the US. I was talking about a particular situation, so I'm not going to have the debate you seemingly want to have.
9.
by slg 5d ago
No one was holding them up "as a shining example of how the USA treats whistleblowers and journalists." I was holding them up as history. History will judge Snowden differently because he chose exile and didn't give himself
10.
by slg 5d ago
>Assange didn't commit a crime Assange literally pleaded guilty to violating the Espionage Act. And if we're going to pretend that plea deals are coercion than we better rethink how the whole criminal justice system works.
11.
by slg 5d ago
Manning and Assange are both free today. Isn't that proof that whether it was reasonable to believe Snowden was correct at the time, history has proved him wrong?
12.
by slg 8d ago
Sure, the engines may have died, but not only is the plane still airborne, it's even accelerating!
13.
by slg 14d ago
>Presidents and their appointees come and go. The people pushing the regulators[1] are not subject to US election cycles. While true, it’s also true that presidents and their appointees can vary wildly in their susceptibility to those “p
14.
by slg 15d ago
>"It" is having some level of military capability. I agree with Ajedi32 that not doing it is strict pacifism. >beloch and jump- advocated for some level of national defense as a practical necessity I don't think this an
15.
by slg 15d ago
You and other people who replied removed nuance from beloch's comment. The "moral grey zones" were not merely a question of working for a military contractor or not. Just from a basic grammar perspective, the use of the plu
16.
by slg 15d ago
Do you think Ukraine would have used nuclear weapons against Russia? How do you think Russia would have responded to that? Do you think that would cost fewer than a hundred thousand Ukrainian lives? Once again, nuclear weapons can only be
17.
by slg 15d ago
Here is what I responded to: > It's more like "if I don't do it then I better hope somebody else will, otherwise my whole country will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime". Basically, the question is wh
18.
by slg 15d ago
This is from the comment you replied to: >As for "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument). That's true of a lot of things, and I sleep great at night choosing not to steal from people even though I
19.
by slg 15d ago
>How is that an argument that demilitarized pacifism is a tenable national policy. I never made that argument. My original comment was refuting the idea that taking a singular option off the table is equivalent to pacifism. Ukraine did
20.
by slg 15d ago
I'll be as straightforward as possible. Ukraine does not have a nuclear deterrent and yet Russia is deterred from using nuclear weapons ergo Ukraine didn't need its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent Russia from using
21.
by slg 15d ago
>Because the normalisation of nuclear weapons has global consequences in a way conventional warfare does not. And you don't think that has any chance of applying to some hypothetical yet to be developed future military tech?
22.
by slg 15d ago
The person I replied to stated that a country refusing to develop military tech for moral reasons was destined to fall to a country that ignores morals and develops that tech. I pointed to an example of an aggressor nation that is refusing
23.
by slg 15d ago
All AI generated art feels somewhat masturbatory to me, but AI generated music is the most baffling of them all. It's like what if someone thought Muzak had too much soul.
24.
by slg 15d ago
>Nuking Kyiv and Lviv would probably force Ukraine to surrender. Or if we want to take nuclear options off the table because Russia values infrastructure, they aren't attacking population centers with bioweapons. >This is the rea
25.
by slg 15d ago
>Nobody reasonable would. Russia started a war of choice. That's the opposite of pacifism. Yes, that was my point. The person I replied to stated a nation taking actions off the table "will inevitably become subservient to a de
26.
by slg 15d ago
Would you define Russia not nuking Ukraine as "strict pacifism"? Because every modern country and army seems to have some basic standard of ethics and morals that restrict them from waging total war even if you want to argue that
27.
by slg 18d ago
>They will have post histories hidden Reddit has strangely trained me to be skeptical of this form a privacy protection in a way that I'm not on any other platforms. If someone on Reddit has one of those default two words and a num
28.
by slg 18d ago
Great, I'm sure getting more data for a complete picture of the area is a huge undertaking, but simply switching to the light map that shows the geography more clearly is a big improvement.
29.
by slg 18d ago
>The massive downzoning of the 1980s... To put numbers to this for those who aren't aware, LA was zoned for roughly 10 million people in the 1960s and by the 1980s it was zoned for roughly 4 million. It's part of the reason th
30.
by slg 19d ago
Especially with this sort of map regarding this specific city. For example, Beverly Hills is a separate municipality contained entirely within the borders of Los Angeles. It appears here like an empty black space no different from the oce

More ›