Slashdot Mirror
Domain: extranewsfeed.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to extranewsfeed.com.
Comments · 7
-
The "movement" is two guys
Paul Preston and Tom Reed are two cranks who have been at this game since the early 90s. If you go to their "movement's" website you will find that their various "regional committees" are almost completely made up of Paul Preston and Tom Reed. Their previous efforts consisted entirely of raising money.
The funny part of this story is that Russian bots were pushing the story on Twitter and Facebook that this "New California" officially seceded from the rest of the state. Scamsters selling swag quickly got in on the fun:
https://twitter.com/GrantJKidn...
State secession has long been a favorite trope of the Russian bots. I'm sure you remember this story about how they pushed for Texas to secede. Turns out their Facebook page was run by the "Internet Research Agency" run out of St Petersburg, Russia.
https://extranewsfeed.com/how-...
https://washingtonmonthly.com/...
No collusion...
-
"Rise your hand"
My favorite Russian Facebook accounts are the ones promoting the secession of Texas. Seriously, they're hysterically funny.
https://extranewsfeed.com/how-...
They even paid for a pro-secession delegation from Texas to go to Russia, where they could learn about true political freedom.
-
Re:In the words of Trump
You're already doomed then. Free Speech—even in America—is and always has been a limited right.
(Exceptions to free speech in America.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And on top of that, being intolerant of intolerance is entirely consistent. It is necessary for a tolerant society to push back against that which would undermine it.
(Tolerance is not a moral absolute.) https://extranewsfeed.com/tole...
(Paradox of Tolerance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...So no, we don't have to let hateful organisations say whatever they want; the act of speaking such things is itself a kind of violence to our society. This doesn't mean that we should ban speech that makes us uncomfortable, or is unpopular. It DOES mean that speech that implicitly or explicitly advocates for genocide or violence is not worth protecting and is in fact speech that we should be actively attempting to limit by whatever means we can.
"Not every peace is better than the war it prevents." There's a certain peace to permitting all speech, even the worst kind of speech, but it's not worth it.
-
Re:In the words of Trump
Yes, actually, it is. Nazis deserved to be silenced, and more.
Toleration is not a moral precept. It's a peace treaty. it's an agreement to live and let live...but when you are part of a group that explicitly calls for the destruction of other human beings because of their race, you are breaking that peace treaty, and should be dealt with force, if necessary. Fuck this guy.
-
Re:Buckle up
Social Justice Diversity Warriors have to be some of the least tolerant people on the planet.
You seem to misunderstand tolerance. Tolerance is a peace treaty not a suicide pact. Once one side breaks the peace, it's gone.
-
Re:Need to put an end to climate change denialIf you'd written your comment ten years ago, it would be very timely. Two years ago, many would agree. But recently there has been a breakthrough in solar energy prices, one that people might have seen coming if they had been familiar with the solar equivalent of Moore's law.
It does amaze me how people can cheer whenever a nuclear plant closes while also saying climate change is an urgent problem. But just as deniers use myths to ignore science, some environmentalists believe myths that greatly exaggerate the danger of nuclear energy - perhaps thinking The Simpsons' nuclear plant is an accurate model of real life? The irony is that opposition to new plants has kept the oldest, least safe reactors running longer.
But most of the objections to "nuclear power" are actually objections to solid-fuel reactors. There is a new kind of nuclear plant, the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR), which solves almost all the problems with traditional reactors. Some call it "generation IV" but this is a misnomer - it's Gen I on a completely different technology track based on liquid fuel. MSRs, and an ideal version of the MSR called LFTR (Liquid-fueled thorium reactor), has a slew of advantages, most notably:- "Walk-away safe": relies mainly on passive safety, assured by physics, not pumps, not control systems, not human operators. Some designs don't even need coolant water.
- Absurdly high fuel density: a lifetime supply of thorium fits in the palm of your hand.
- Very low toxic waste: can produce 200+ times as much energy per kilogram of fuel compared to conventional LWRs, and the miniscule amount of remaining waste is a radiation hazard for 300 years instead of 3000. Not only that but some MSRs can actually burn existing waste stockpiles as a fuel.
- Economy of scale - reactor units are small, and can be built in a factory or shipyard and shipped to where they are needed. High-temperature operation means smaller, cheaper turbines.
-
Re:Wow!
However, for the most part, the party/ideology from the left in the US that promotes itself as the party of diversity and tolerance, is ONLY tolerant of viewpoints they hold and not only will put you down for what you think
Ah, the old intolerance of intolerance argument. The paradox of tolerance is that if society is tolerant of intolerance, you ultimately allow that intolerance to destroy tolerance in that society. Ultimately tolerance is useless without the right to not tolerate the intolerant. (you might need more than two hands to count the double negatives there)
Yonatan Zunger has an interesting take on this question. He argues that the apparent paradox stems from a misunderstanding of why tolerance is good. If you view tolerance as a moral precept, meaning that tolerance is a characteristic of good/moral people, then it's difficult to explain why this should not include tolerance of intolerance. Zunger suggests instead that we view tolerance as a mutual non-aggression pact, not a moral imperative.
If you are tolerant, you should expect tolerance in return. If you are intolerant, you should expect intolerance.
Put that way, the paradox disappears and with it any obligation to tolerate intolerance... and it also makes abundantly clear the value of being tolerant. Unless, of course you're in such a powerful social position that you can simply squash any intolerance of yourself. When we think about people in that position, then we begin to see the moral aspect, which is that those in power should not abuse it.