HBKXNCUO

9 ms·

1.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
>At the end of the day, we all want food, shelter, safety, and some amount of personal privacy and freedom. That may be the case, but different policies and social norms will result in different people getting more or less of those thing
2.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
>My limited but non-zero experience in real-world situations has shown that "Angry Mobs" are far more likely to be armed than "Peaceful people" And my point is that it doesn't really matter that much if the angry
3.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
There is a fundamental asymmetry. Attackers only have to fight battles that they judge to be worth fighting. If they don't think their chances are good enough, whether because they don't have the right weapons or the right numbers
4.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
Or you could compare them to the partisans that conducted sabotage against the Wehrmacht in Eastern Europe, for instance. The military would grind to a halt without a functioning supply chain, and it's very difficult to protect all of
5.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
Is Singapore's political system suffering from decades of being torn apart by identity politics and being dominated by a small class of people that detests the people that constitute the bulk of the population? Because that's why
6.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
It doesn't really work both ways. Angry mobs looking for food don't need guns to cause problems for peaceful people. Peaceful people do need guns to protect themselves from angry mobs looking for food.
7.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
I don't think you could have gotten that less straight. What is convenient is that many definitions exist, so a convenient one can be chosen based on its suitability for making a particular argument at a particular time. >They cover
8.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
>Quite a few Convenient. Where do they suggest a rigorous definition of a support group in that article?
9.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
>The idea is that women have less access to various support networks that men do Source? Is there a rigorous definition of a support network, and some statistics showing that women have less access to them?
10.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
>it's strong evidence that we shouldn't be uniquely concerned over negative portrayals of trademarks. Again I'm not sure how it's evidence of that, but I agree that we should not be uniquely concerned about negative p
11.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
The plaintiff would have to show that they lost revenue as a result of the false statements, which I would think would be particularly difficult to do in that case, because portrayals made openly by a competitor are not as likely to harm th
12.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
>The fact that we don't ban deceptively positive depictions of branded products is strong evidence that we do trust consumers to know the difference between fiction and reality. I would definitely not classify that as strong evidenc
13.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
>We still allow people to publicly criticize products. Yes, but you're not allowed to harm people or businesses by knowingly making false statements about the product in your criticism. I would guess that a negative fictional portra
14.
by HBKXNCUO 6y ago
Imagine taking someone in that position at their word.
15.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
It looks like even putting it nicely did not save tasogare's comment from our most brave and wonderful moderator. Many of mine were also flagged, despite me being extremely polite.
16.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>The big issue with your reasoning: racism isn't an opinion, it's a crime. Some manifestations of it are in some jurisdictions. How is that an issue with my reasoning? >You're talking about freedom, but for good reason
17.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
It is a whole lot easier to expel immigrants than it is to expel a large chunk of the native population, but yes you are correct. Everything I have said applies equally well to immigrants, though immigrants will tend to have fewer expectati
18.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Perhaps you should consider that it does make sense, and you simply don't want to understand it. I don't think you're intellectually incapable of understanding it.
19.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>It's a really fundamental tradition of french society, going back to the revolution (or even before) that you can think how you like. That doesn't mean you have to want people who happen to think very differently to come in. Y
20.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>See I actually think that it's a good thing to call for, say , "stamp out racism". Does stamping out racism to you involve preventing people from freely and equally participating in the political process? By which I mean
21.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
The way people in a society think influences the character of that society, obviously. Do you disagree with that? If people in some society like the way their society is, more or less, why should they want to import a whole bunch of people
22.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>that didn't make any of them right. Didn't make them right about what? >The fact that millions of people are still racists nowadays doesn't mean we should accept that either. You do have to share a country with them, a
23.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
No matter where you were in the developed world, the majority in 1932 (though not necessarily the majority of the elites) would have held similar views or views that were even further away from yours. The US, for instance, had just recently
24.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Are the yellow vests looting?
25.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Which method do you think is less likely to result in flags / bans on message boards these days?
26.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
He's supposed to think the same way as them, of course.
27.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Is he wrong though?
28.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>If you run a restaurant, you can refuse to do business with anyone you choose. You will suffer legal consequences if it's determined that you refused to do business with them on the basis of certain characteristics protected by law
29.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
To get this straight, you are stating that you believe it is in your interest for certain other people who live in the same society as you to be prohibited from attempting to further their own interests by freely and meaningfully participat
30.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>You don’t You don't now. Why do successful technology companies have a right to have a proportionally large influence on the public political debate? Is it good for society to allow successful technology companies to have such a la

More ›