smsm42

924 ms·

3301.
by smsm42 8y ago
I think the point is not "never ever buy a coffee again until the day you die (or retire)". The point is "examine your routine spending and see if you can cut off anything and use it as a source of money for savings". If
3302.
by smsm42 8y ago
If "living in poverty" is defined as some kind of statistical measure (which it usually is) which is defined as something like "percentage of average wage" or something like that, than lowering of average wage (due to an
3303.
by smsm42 8y ago
So, the idea of "discussing it" is to first exclude everybody who might hold an opinion different from the one you want to arrive at (preferably without even actually asking them - why bother to ask a person if she's for or a
3304.
by smsm42 8y ago
> Yes, I want a diverse set of views on such a council, representing multiple areas of the political spectrum You may want it, but a lot of googlers definitely won't. A lot of people on the far left define ideological disagreement a
3305.
by smsm42 8y ago
> Why trust Cisco or Apple or Google or Facebook or Microsoft in USA's Prism? You don't have to trust them. Definitely you better not to. But that doesn't make you to trust Huawei either. At least Google/Facebook are
3306.
by smsm42 8y ago
They already have the weaponry. They have captured the content people need to advance science and learning. That's already lost, we can't re-fight that battle. The choice now is to either use SciHub to access that content by other
3307.
by smsm42 8y ago
"Imminent lawless action" is not the same as "shouting some words". People shouted "fire" in theaters hundreds of times - e.g. during plays - and nothing happened. Only when it causes - or is imminent to cause
3308.
by smsm42 8y ago
> Some banks actually went under during that time, along with anyone's money sitting in it That's not true, unless it either a) wasn't money deposited in the bank (i.e. it was an investment in bank stock - an inherently ri
3309.
by smsm42 8y ago
So, when I was worried about Facebook censoring speech, I was told "well, this is a private company, you don't like these policies, you can make your speech somewhere else". Now what Zuckerberg is proposing is: "Internet
3310.
by smsm42 8y ago
> If their members regularly go out and start shooting people in synagogues But they do. Not all of them in synagogues and mosques of course, some of them do it on stadiums, night clubs, buses, trains, buildings, and some use explosives,
3311.
by smsm42 8y ago
> A currency that isn't used to commit fraud isn't very useful. I think the mistake here is to think about currency purely in a technological way (what can I do with it?). Money is ultimately a social phenomenon. People use mon
3312.
by smsm42 8y ago
> We are talking about Facebook here, right? No, Facebook is just one facet of it. We've seen deplatforming from every major social network, bar none, from Paypal, from Patreon, from banks, from credit card companies, from hosting p
3313.
by smsm42 8y ago
I read the actual speech: https://www.vox.com/2017/8/15/16154028/trump-press-conferenc... It says, black on white: "You had people and i'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white national
3314.
by smsm42 8y ago
Let's make it easier and less messy. Supposed there's a policy that you know for certain would harm me and certain other people, but would not produce any other effects. Let's say there's a law that says I must pay a spe
3315.
by smsm42 8y ago
So we should ban all people who have same thoughts with somebody shooting people? OK, we've just banned: Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Communists, Anti-Communists, Socialists, Libertarians, Maoists, Trotskyist
3316.
by smsm42 8y ago
> but that you also are guaranteed a place to say it and an audience who must listen to you. I never did that. There's a difference between "audience must listen to you" and "audience would want to listen to me but un
3317.
by smsm42 8y ago
Fake news much? This quote related to people defending and opposing confederate monuments, not white nationalists. If you read even one more line of the quote, it becomes immediately clear: “You had many people in that group other than neo-
3318.
by smsm42 8y ago
> we are in no way faced with a growing trend of violent leftists Ever heard of Antifa? BANM? Or maybe Red Brigades? Red Army Faction? Sendero Luminoso? BLA? Japanese Red Army? Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? There were dozens, probab
3319.
by smsm42 8y ago
> This is substantially different from what is being talked about here: censorship versus deplatforming What parent post was talking about is "free speech". The claim was that free speech is only about absence of governmental c
3320.
by smsm42 8y ago
> White nationalists and their ideology have penetrated the Senate, the White House Wait, this means Trump is now banned on Facebook? Or who in the White House is the white nationalist that will be banned on Facebook starting next week?
3321.
by smsm42 8y ago
No, free speech has to do with being able to speak freely. If you are prevented from doing that by private means, it's in no way better than if you are prevented by the government, and for exactly the same reasons. If free speech has a
3322.
by smsm42 8y ago
Does it matter what section they use to classify it? The fact is that they ban it. And many more. When important topics are debated, even the most respectfully formulated argument can be deeply hurtful to the side that is on the opposing en
3323.
by smsm42 8y ago
> Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. Raising taxes would certainly harm me. In fact, in much more direct way than impotent babble of bunch of idiots obsessed with the color of their epidermis. So I guess
3324.
by smsm42 8y ago
> This case was about a "company town", where there was very much a blending of public and private. With the pervasiveness of regulation in modern United States, pretty much everything worth mentioning now is "a blending o
3325.
by smsm42 8y ago
Legally, of course, FB is completely right. Morally - try to replace "white nationalism" with, say, "communism" (one can argue communists killed a lot of people, so why not?), "Christianity", "Islam",
3326.
by smsm42 8y ago
> And I'm unclear how banning any of those things would have made any difference at all It would not. But they could report they "done something".
3327.
by smsm42 8y ago
Well, maybe Bolt is a bad writer, but then it doesn't really matter whether 38% of his writings or 88% or just 8% are about Islam. If he's bad, one shouldn't read it anyway so how much of it is about Islam is kinda moot :)
3328.
by smsm42 8y ago
> Andrew Bolt though, no matter what your view on Islam, does it really deserve mentioning in 38% of his articles. Depends on what is his work area and interests. Journalists often work in specific segments. If somebody covers US White H
3329.
by smsm42 8y ago
The article itself mentions that even articles about Trump bombing Assad forces are counted as "negative on Islam". Also looking at the pictures of headlines they provided, only one says anything about Islam (at least in the headl
3330.
by smsm42 8y ago
And that's how we got the internet we have today - where venturing onto a random page without adblocker can consume all resources of your desktop and crash your mobile device, where browsers have to design functionality to shut up scre

More ›