rscoots

5 ms·

1.
by rscoots 5y ago
Edit: never mind, there is a slight difference there. Twitter also annoyingly crops image previews. Car appears to be the same if you click.
2.
by rscoots 5y ago
This has always really mystified me. So many 4:3 shows are rendered unwatchable by these companies, most of which fancy themselves as having a cutting-edge tech stack. You’re telling me no one at Netflix can build a toggle option allowing t
3.
by rscoots 5y ago
>it's no more "might-makes-right" than the original theft/"sale" was, and is arguably less so Clearly the specifics matter, but it gets more interesting when these 2 ‘sides’ have equally tenuous claim to the
4.
by rscoots 5y ago
You would rather not be able to tell who is and isn’t racist in your society? If someone is prone to racist remarks that should be noticed and their thought process/moral failings should be addressed. If you simply threaten reprisal in
5.
by rscoots 5y ago
> a national museum in the country where the artifact originated seems like a reasonable first-blush recipient. Wouldn’t this boil down to a might-is-right approach in almost all cases? Don’t really see how a contemporary government anne
6.
by rscoots 5y ago
What are the contemporary moral considerations for who gets to ‘own’ ancient artifacts like these? The government currently controlling the surrounding land? Ethnic tribalism? Genetic essentialism? Protection of the artifact? Exposure/
7.
by rscoots 5y ago
> > One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article >Of course I am. To me it doesn’t make a difference if you’re legally allowed to say something but then immediately face legal consequences f
8.
by rscoots 5y ago
What precisely was the point of your original post then? To assert a concept that has nothing to do with the article and that no one disagrees with? One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article (not
9.
by rscoots 5y ago
It is legal in the US to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is not legal to intentionally create a false emergency situation, verbally or otherwise. Similar to threats, it’s not the speech that is illegal but the intent to commit a crime. L
10.
by rscoots 5y ago
I’ll decide what’s ‘novel’ and ‘of value’ for myself thanks. Which will require the right of ppl to express their conscience. Don’t need Boris Johnson’s (or anyone else’s) govt deciding this for me under threat of jail time.
11.
by rscoots 5y ago
Threats are prosecuted as intent to commit another crime, not ‘u said a naughty word.’ That’s why slogans such as “kill all men” would never lead to legal conviction in the US (they might in the UK!) More importantly, the laws in this arti
12.
by rscoots 5y ago
Lol what did I say that was ‘heated’? Your first reply to me was a defense of street violence against me. Threatening violence is a whole different topic and these laws encompass a lot more than “imminent violence” so not sure why you’ve br
13.
by rscoots 5y ago
Exactly, the ‘freedom’ to know what other people actually think about you is essential. By silencing others you’re simply depriving yourself of your own right to hear them out.
14.
by rscoots 5y ago
The article is about government legislation.
15.
by rscoots 5y ago
Sounds kind of racist to imply minorities will attack me with street violence if I say words they don’t like. I’ll have to report this to the authorities mate, hope you’re not a big football fan. Edit: you stealth edited your post to includ
16.
by rscoots 5y ago
It actually does precisely mean freedom from legal consequences, yes.
17.
by rscoots 5y ago
That or the fact that google massively profits off the presence of ads in mobile apps.
18.
by rscoots 5y ago
And yet we’re left to guess exactly what Twitter deemed us unworthy of reading. The opaqueness of the censor is a feature not a bug.
19.
by rscoots 5y ago
>The problem isn't that "problematic" content exists but... Then you'll be disturbed to learn that members of the team are literally government operatives lobbying for more censorship on Facebook: https://n
20.
by rscoots 5y ago
Note the author's subtle toggling between denying a phenomenon exists, and then smugly implying that it does and should. >The Economist cites the case of Colin Wright, a post-doctoral student who had difficulty finding a job after p
21.
by rscoots 5y ago
By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state. >DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn&#x27
22.
by rscoots 5y ago
Could be a good trade for making DC part of Maryland, thereby giving DC statehood.
23.
by rscoots 5y ago
>Among 13-year-olds, in 1984, 8 percent said they never or hardly ever read for fun, rising to 22 percent in 2012 and 29 percent in 2020. http://archive.today/2021.10.14-112558/https://www.washingto...
24.
by rscoots 5y ago
I assume they'll use a lightweight trap cage loaded with food that's laced with some kind of tranquilizer. Then after the cage is dropped just come back and fly it out. Anything else seems pretty risky to me.
25.
by rscoots 5y ago
Glad you agree you and Mounk have both made assumptions u can't back up.
26.
by rscoots 5y ago
I was rate limited. You brought up timeframe (and many other conditions) as a rebuttal to the author. I'm just pointing out that you can't be sure that any of those considerations even entered the minds of MIT's admins. I h
27.
by rscoots 5y ago
That's what you think, but I'm asking who at MIT has taken that position re timeframe that you have evidence of?
28.
by rscoots 5y ago
You seem to be adding in additional, somewhat frivolous conditions that none of the parties involved even alluded to. So yes that might drive down the number to a conveniently hard-to-research amount. Let's start with your "2 mont
29.
by rscoots 5y ago
You'll admit that the category of 'anyone who has compared mainstream American politics to Nazism in a published article' is a pretty wide net though? Although we find it distasteful it seems to be a pretty common refrain&#x2
30.
by rscoots 5y ago
How would you respond to this point then by the author? >If every cringeworthy analogy to the Third Reich were grounds for canceling talks, hundreds of professors—and thousands of op-ed columnists—would no longer be welcome on campus.

More ›