Accusing someone of whataboutism is tantamount to accepting their accusations of hypocrisy.
There is no anchor baby clause in the 14th Ammendment. The clause says this.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Key part being... "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"... if illegals are subject to the jurisdiction, then that means that local jurisdictions have powers of establishing immigration... and as we all know... the "Federal Government" is responsible for dealing with that problem! Which is why illegals are supposed to be given to ICE when they commit a crime and not to the local authorities.
The 14th was carefully worded to make it so that anyone that was considered "property" by way of direct slavery or through "indentured" servitude... basically someone here against their will in some capacity will become citizens and grant them the rights they deserve. It does not grant people visiting the USA as a documented worker, or guest, or being here illegally.
There is more merit to claims that a person here legally having a baby while still legal at the time of delivery can produce a citizen by birth.
I personally hate the idea that where a person is born should even have any bearing upon citizenship. I think as long as one of your parents are a citizen of that country the child produced should automatically be a citizen of each nation that their 'biological' parents belong to.
Now if you think the 14th confers citizenship on any person being born on US soil then why are citizens born in US territories not automatically US citizens? Additionally, since they must be subject tot he local laws to be a valid citizen then this also means that you agree that Arizona SB 1070 is totally legal. But by all means go ahead and pick and chose regardless of what the constitution say... both sides have no problem with abusing it and ignoring it for their own ends. You will not be the first or the last to do the same or try.
You should consider picking up a dictionary or something.
Capitalism is only 1 thing. People rather than Government owns the means of productivity.
You are talking about consumerism... get a clue if you expect to troll better! Also, there will never not be a ruling class, if you want a ruling class to be gone then you need to institute complete anarchy and instantly murder anyone talking about forming government or a council or a chief, because those guys become the ruling class.
And as long as you remain ignorant like this, you will need to be ruled by someone or you will just contribute to the decay of society.
Centrist here, I see a lot of complaining about people on the right not taking their own to task while the same problem appears on the left. If you want to have standing when you call people on the right out you really need to be free of guilt yourself. If you think that what I just said is a bunch of BS then you are only going to prove that you are guilty of what I said.
As a centrist I watch both sides endlessly accuse the other of the very things they are guilty of themselves. Each time one of their own abuse the Constitution they don't care... at least they gave the other side what for... and they enjoy it too.
And you should abide your own warnings... you think the people on the left are against ripping themselves apart? Good luck, I have a sneak suspicion that the worst thing you could ever do for a lefty or a righty is to give them everything they want so you can sit back and watch them build tyrannies. A total trash nation on one hand and a complete police state on the other. It is the constant struggle between the two that I enjoy because the more time they spend fighting the less time they have to get together and scheme more liberty away.
You bet the violence is going to get worse, because like you... no one is interested in talking this out... they are only interested in talking AT people and not with them. The moment someone says something you don't agree with and all the accusations and name calling come out.
The constitution is practically ignored by both parties and no matter which rights or liberties are trashed by laws neither party works to restore those liberties, they instead try to "rewrite" the law to fit their agenda's. Kinda like how all the republican ran on the platform of repealing ACA but actually did nothing of the sort. And much like Obama's "Hope & Change" was actually just more of the same of Bush policies.
Saving a kid over the adult is not as cut and dry as it sounds. What about all the other kids that the adult may be financially supporting? Additionally, how far can that go? is it better to save an 11 year old vs a 12 year old? Can a vehicle/machine really make that evaluation correctly each time?
I agree that most people would go with the cut can dry save a kid over an adult, myself as well, but it just really is not the simple when you really start to think about it. There are all sorts of additional knock on effects that are going to be involved. People must be allowed to decide for themselves the value of their own lives and not have a machine decide that younger is more valuable than older.
that is a massively incorrect analogy. The trolley car problem is a super specific problem and morals driven by either emotional value or numerical value criteria. It also comes with the supposition that no other fallout will result from the decision. Additionally the problem does not address an "occupant" vs "external life" scenario in all cases. So in short the Trolley Car problem does not even come close to the real problem here... not by a long shot.
Self driving vehicles will be exposed to wildly dynamic conditional circumstances making any attempt to deviate from the based, stay on road, apply brakes, prioritize occupant. Once the car leaves the road, it will not be able to predict what could happen next. It can only predict beyond its first decision and will never be able to predict what other machines results are going to be.
Every person has a different impact in the world, deciding that just because someone is young/old for example could yield the disastrous result of a strong positive force in the local economy age 30 helping the homeless being killed over the safety of a 25 year old drug addict trying to commit suicide because their life sucks. Neither computer or human can predict these outcomes in split second accident situations.
But do you know what people will take into consideration? A machine that machine that does NOT prioritize the safety of its occupants over other things. If I want you dead all I need to do is throw something that can trick a machine into thinking its a human baby into the road and watch the ensuing carnage! Heck people are going to try that just for kicks... just like those asshole kids dropping bowling balls, bricks, large rocks, and other shit off of overpasses onto passing cars below killing people.
Cars must prioritize the safety of its occupants over everything else. If they do not, then people can murder others through machine logic without any hacking at all. Additionally, no computer will ever be advanced enough to know that the next decision it makes will be better or worse than just default saving it's occupants.
It is also immoral to evaluate lives based on worthless criteria like age, gender, political, racial, class, or religious ideology.
Just imagine a terrible scenario where a toddler running across a busy high speed road, every other car will prioritize the life of the toddler and potential mass murder everyone else riding in the cars in an attempt to save the toddler. A machine will never be able to predict what every other object around it is going to do in response to the decisions it makes.
Keep it simple as possible... object in path... hit the brakes... don't calculate the life values of the occupants vs road hazards. Each car behind them will do a much better job avoiding a massive catastrophe as cars try to dodge an erratic human that could be drunk, attempting suicide, acting stupid, losing their balance or falling off their bikes, scooters, or skateboards near traffic.
Car stays on road and uses brakes, One and DONE! Anything else will turn into an epic shit-show from time to time where a lot of people die in a massive logical unforeseen circumstance.
There is no service that has been created that cannot and has not been used for evil. But don't think for a moment that certain groups are not quick to recognize when one group uses the actions of the few to imply support similar desire by the whole.
It has taken some time, but many have managed to make even liberty look like it is only a tool used for oppression.... my my my how much work must have gone into convincing people that you cannot be allowed to manage yourself and must instead have your liberties managed for you. All in the name of keeping you safe.
Tyranny is usually though of as a problem brought on by Government agency... yet the control businesses have gained over our lives it has become clear that economically assaulting another group is more than enough to provide it's own form of tyranny.
Perhaps other businesses should start to refuse to do business with banks that do this as well... or do they too not fear reprisal? All it takes for a business to become suspect is by mere associate with something now... whether that associate is properly represented or not. We are only going to see more and more of this as we continue down this, "those that do not think like me are evil" path. This is the mindset that gets people to agree with mass genocide of entire groups of people and when those groups feel oppressed, no matter the form that oppression takes they will discover now that when avenues of diplomacy or discussion are taken away, they become isolated... and many unfortunately feel that violence is the final resort of regaining any attention for their cause... no matter how terrible other think of them for it.
That when the citizens get screwed Uncle Sam makes bank.
Fines are a curse upon civilization because it does not promote lawful behavior from the rich citizens, wealthy businesses, or the government and its law enforcement agencies.
He sold out to Sprint and still didn't listen to consumers and decided it was a good idea to allow a privacy faux pas. I mean, if you are looking to upset the industry you sure as heck cannot look and act just like them to do it!
I am more of a centrist. I do not agree with government imposed welfare, but I am totally on board with government establishing a maximum total income.
There is no possible good that can come from someone obtaining so much wealth that they can alter the financial landscape. There is also no possible good that can from from giving the ultra rich minority group of people in government the power to take whatever money they want and do with it as they want either.
No single individual should be allowed to posses more than 0.0001% of the National GDP during any single year. No business should be allowed to posses more than 0.01% times the national GDP in any single year and not allowed to stockpile more than 5 times its average yearly gross income averaged over 10 years or its employee wages, whichever is greater.
Anyone that goes over this should be jailed, any business that goes over this immediately gets shut down. No if's, and's, or butts.
If you want any form of fairness in the market people have to be able to earn enough to be incentivized, but you also have to explicitly prevent people from making enough to obtain so much power they can hold economies hostage.
No person can ever reasonably be productive enough to justify having billions of dollars because any system of economics that allows someone to amass this amount of wealth is also clearly written to benefit the rich, a group of people will forever be around, just like the poor!
Taxes are not voluntary, they are compulsory, meaning people with guns come for you when you do not pay them. Yes, people are in fact "taking my money". Do you know what else? The Government gets paid before I do as well. The only thing I see is how munch the government TOOK out of my paycheck before it gets deposited in my bank account.
Shopping at the grocery store is not compulsory. For now until total socialism takes total control I can still at least grow my own food.
Why is it not evil to take someones money if the government does it? Because you voted for it? Why can't people just rob the banks? They have insurance for that, no one is a victim right? It's just money!
You are evil, just like the liars and sociopaths you are complaining about... you just happen to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. The desire to take something that was not yours be it through direct violence at your own hand or through indirect violence by voting that another take it for you is envy and is evil!
If you want to stop the these evil people stop giving them the power to do it and convince your fellow citizens of the same and stand up to them in a different way. If you become evil to stop evil... what have you achieved?
"We are the Government, Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to SERVICE US. Resistance is futile."
Futile indeed, because unlike Star Trek, there would be billions of humans that would welcome the Borg, and that is seriously not a joke! Consider that for a little peace of mind!
It is astounding that someone that got something so wrong it was modded to insightful.
Libertarianism is not based on trust, it is based on "responsibility" trust is not a factor, what is a factor is "distrust" of a "rich and elite Bourgeoisie" that will specifically be created by the "ruling class" that everyone ha ha ha "elects" into power. There is no socialist state that exists without the "Bourgeoisie"... a class the socialist claim to seek to destroy as they create and install them to power.
"Both the market and the state have particular natures that simply don't work for solving certain problems."
You mixed in a lie with a truth... yes "the state" always has a particular nature of moving towards tyranny. But you are greatly mistaken that a "market" has a nature. The nature of the market is created by it's participants and your attempts to turn a non-living system into a beast that thinks and moves on its own is not a good sign of knowledge. The market has no life, it is a pure product of science... "Cause and Effect at chaos math levels" with so many interactions & variables involved that a person of lesser intellect will confuse as being alive because they lack understanding of it.
"The government is terrible at the things that Socialism says it can magically fix," yes this is true... but again you get the next part wrong... very wrong!
" and the market is terrible at resolving the negative externalities that Capitalism says will be resolved by market incentives that arise from them."
Capitalism is NOT the market, Capitalism is just one component of it. Capitalism is ONLY the idea that private ownership of production is a principle. You are erroneously conflating "Capitalism" with "Free-Market". Not only that you are attributing another fallacy to "Free-Market" as you mislabel it as though the market is responsible for resolving the negative externalities... this is a lie tirelessly pressed by Republicans.
The balance in free-market is supposed to come NOT from the market but from the "consumers" in the free market willing to "spine up" and stand against letting businesses get big enough to gain a monopoly and control the market unfairly. The problem with "Free-Market" is that it requires a self controlled and responsible people consuming its resources... and we all know that in this age of "consumerist fault/blame shifting" by all of the "victims" that a "free-market" will only die... to be replaced with socialism as the people call out for politicians to become their voices and to take the place of their responsibility in the market.
It is also amazing to me that people think the "Democracy" can work but "free-market" cannot because "Free-Market" is the purest form of "Democracy" possible.
If there is one thing I have learned these days it is... Blame something else for your own shortcomings and never accept the responsibility you yourself have to help make the world a better place. You know... that change that has to start first with the "person in the mirror"? Michael Jackson sung a song about it... I notice a lot of people have forgotten this and seek to "change someone else" to make the world work they way they want it.
Good luck with that... you gain enough power, ignorant, resistant, and malicious compliance will soon follow and the moment people are able to break free... blood will be spilled... just like Venezuela right now!
The internet has grown like a weed while it was totally free-market and without a bunch of government regulation to "protect everyone" now as more and more regulations are setting in along with more calls for regulation, along with more giant monolithic companies like google have set in, whom also now call for regulation... we are going to lose the internet because everyone decided "collectively" that they have no responsibility and someone else, like government, needs to fix the problem. And we all know that government will require it's pound of flesh as well... often right off the backs of the very people that called on government to protect them.
And then they turn around and see it not working and there will be fleeing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, just like Venezuela.
You can't have unbiased media, the idea is a sign of ignorance. In fact the pursuit of it creates an even more false narrative.
Let's analyze your bias. You think the media is right... this means you are likely "extreme left" because to a person at the fringe sees even light handed leftist as being right.
I see see the media as majority Left for most of world TV, I view Fox and very few others as being Right, and most of Radio in the US seems Right to me as well. This means I am likely more right than left since I do see more left bias out there but since I see some balance between them I have a chance of being centrist also.
Your claims about which side is lying more... well do you have the numbers? I have seen so many lies on both sides that the only thing I can tell you is this. Both lie so much that it is not even possible to call out which side lies more and any attempt to do so is tantamount to admitting ignorance and bias.
The problem is so bad that in my opinion, trying to keep to either of these parties indicates that you mean to support the lies you like and only complain about the lies you hate. And if you are okay with your side lying because it advances the agenda then you lose any moral right to complain about the other side lying.
And if you don't think that your side is lying to this degree, then you are indoctrinated to the point that you are not likely able to be reasoned with. The only chance of you seeing the lies of your party will only be when you "personally" face the fallout of such lies in your everyday life in a way that it forces you to face reality. And I say chance of that because there are lots of people suffering under the ideas of the people they elected into office but still support those that have harmed them as they say... maybe we will do better next time as they keep taking campaign donations from places you sometimes know and most times don't.
Centrist here as well, though very slightly right and south of center.
Just because bias is present and on open display does not mean it will be successful. Additionally since America is not a Democracy despite mass confusion is it impossible for the Majority to always get their candidates into power. Which is why Hillary lost and Trump won.
And if you word it like "Victim Party" I would be tempted to call into question your actual "centrist" claims.
The words "Victim Party" is a claim often lobed at Democrats not Republicans because they are accused of attracting votes by offering sympathy for people that feel like victims and propping up their victim hood.
"The biggest problem with attempting to be even-handed is that you full into the trap of lending credence to arguments that are not worth listening to simply because they are built on a house of falsehoods. And yet ignoring falsehoods creates a trap where one side believes that the only reason why those arguments aren't being aired is due to biased media."
You got it pretty much wrong and here is why.
It is a fallacy to assume that being even-handed is the same as "lending credence" or "falling into a trap" and pretty much colors you as an oppressive person unwilling to listen to others. Meeting with people you disagree with is not some ridiculous approval of who or what they are. I remember republicans pulling this baloney on foreign leaders and the democrats "correctly" calling the idea out. Now I see the roles reversing where democrats are now supporting the idea of doing the same in vain attempts to silence people they hate. Hint, it does not work, I didn't work and R's did it and it will work just as well for the D's as they start to do it.
Ignoring falsehoods also does not specifically or necessarily create a trap to color anyone's bias either, it can do that, but it is hardly a majority reason for it either. You can air them all day long and people will still feel that bias because they are being distorted, which is common on both sides of the isle and to very hypocritical degrees.
In short, there are multiple reasons for why people become biased and feel biased against. But there is always one universal truth that has stood the test of time. You either let people air their grievances in the warm open light of day, or they sharpen their axes in the cold closed in darkness until there are enough of them that you no long have the "luxury" of ignoring them. You will always alienate people by trying to shut down their voices until you have added enough enemies to your list you no longer have any friends and down you fall!
If the CoC are a problem just create a new community and work on the kernel separately.
The CoC is a contradiction in and of itself because you can't kick people out of the community without accusing them of something that CoC says you are not allowed to accuse people of. The CoC is nothing more than a document designed to create Gatekeepers where they can steal the work and effort of others then kick them out of the community while standing up on the work they created. If these guys deserve to be removed... remove their code too! Because if you don't then you are making a contradictory statement that says, assholes are not good enough to be in our community but their work sure is good enough to KEEP and use for ourselves!
Hypocrisy is the entire point of the CoC because it and its members are breaking their own rules!
It never ceases to amaze me at how people often times create and support the very institutions that wind up oppressing them, while they develop Stockholm syndrome and refuse to push off the oppression they must suffer out of fear that something worse could happen.
If you are willing to make multiple deals with a lot of devils, maybe you should not complain so much and wonder at which point you caused this problem for yourself.
What's that? Everyone else is doing it? You don't have a choice? Yes, neither did every other person that risked everything to change the world huh?
The change in the world starts with you, when they are ready they will stop buying John Deere and stop giving this corrupt institution their money. Rip it to pieces and build a new that one still cares and when that one stops caring you rip it down and build a new one again.
The price is "Eternal Vigilance" and for some reason people think they can solve a problem once and for all, well you just can't.
No, the government is purposefully designed to not work fast or frequently, this is not the same thing as being purposefully designed to not work very well, and why there are a lot of working parts. Though, you are right that most of the bad laws come from the people shouting we have to do something, anything. Most times, nothing is the proper course of action. People just do not understand why, but the Declaration of Independence has something to say about that.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
A rapidly changing government executing laws as fast as we are now is going to doom the nation.
"what you describe is an unfortunate result from government having too much power and the incentivation to hold/wield power."
You could not be more wrong. These things are never missing from any power structure and are inherent... though the excuse does make for a good scapegoat.
If the idea is democracy or republic, then a well informed and well intentioned electorate would demolish that problem. People can recall folks if they like, the problem is that everyone is too lazy to care and so socially weary and self defeating.
This is why democracy does not work. People would rather offload that responsibility than to tend to it. Why else do people like to call it victim blaming one someone wanders along and says... "it's your government, do something about it". We won't be doing anything about nothing... we are just going to vote on ideas, and no matter how many times the politicians lie, they remain secure in their seats... and THIS is why parties are there... to help keep those seats, because many would rather have a corrupt liar doing what they do like politically than risk having that other sides corrupt liar doing things they do not like politically. Parties keep this problem entrenched and difficult to solve.
This is a failure of the legislature which has the power to strike these courts down when they make stupid rulings like this. American citizens are grossly ignorant of how much the American Government no longer works properly. But we intentionally ignore the legislatures at the state and federal levels and instead focus on individuals. This unhealthy focus creates "king complexes" where people continue to invest power into a single individual until a despotism forms.
The people are broken and therefore our government is broken.
Because it is okay when we do it, just not okay when those other guys do it. The cornerstone of the us vs them political party system.
I wish people would view political parties with the same disdain that racism should be viewed. At the end of the day, the entire purpose of a political party is to keep the us vs them mentality going under the guise of strength through unity. What good is that strength when those divides create war? People die instead, wiping out any benefits gained!
If you want unity, you have to get rid of identity entirely, especially group based identities. But the tribalism inherent to the nature of humans makes this nearly impossible.
I know right? I was talking about my subscription but everyone assumed "entire MS network". I keep forgetting that folks like you are so stupid that you read one thing and think something else entirely. I have to S P E L L I T out so that it is ELI5 quality verbiage.
I guess I should have clarified, I am talking about my subscription/account getting hacked.
Microsoft decided the punishing me was the resolution to the problem. I could not play any games that required xbox live except as a guest, so I decided that Microsoft does not give enough of a shit to care, so around that time I decide I will no longer be buying any more consoles and just stick to playing PC games. Larger library and less trouble over all.
Slashdot Mirror
Accusing someone of whataboutism is tantamount to accepting their accusations of hypocrisy.
There is no anchor baby clause in the 14th Ammendment. The clause says this.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Key part being... "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"... if illegals are subject to the jurisdiction, then that means that local jurisdictions have powers of establishing immigration... and as we all know... the "Federal Government" is responsible for dealing with that problem! Which is why illegals are supposed to be given to ICE when they commit a crime and not to the local authorities.
The 14th was carefully worded to make it so that anyone that was considered "property" by way of direct slavery or through "indentured" servitude... basically someone here against their will in some capacity will become citizens and grant them the rights they deserve. It does not grant people visiting the USA as a documented worker, or guest, or being here illegally.
There is more merit to claims that a person here legally having a baby while still legal at the time of delivery can produce a citizen by birth.
I personally hate the idea that where a person is born should even have any bearing upon citizenship. I think as long as one of your parents are a citizen of that country the child produced should automatically be a citizen of each nation that their 'biological' parents belong to.
Now if you think the 14th confers citizenship on any person being born on US soil then why are citizens born in US territories not automatically US citizens? Additionally, since they must be subject tot he local laws to be a valid citizen then this also means that you agree that Arizona SB 1070 is totally legal. But by all means go ahead and pick and chose regardless of what the constitution say... both sides have no problem with abusing it and ignoring it for their own ends. You will not be the first or the last to do the same or try.
You should consider picking up a dictionary or something.
Capitalism is only 1 thing. People rather than Government owns the means of productivity.
You are talking about consumerism... get a clue if you expect to troll better! Also, there will never not be a ruling class, if you want a ruling class to be gone then you need to institute complete anarchy and instantly murder anyone talking about forming government or a council or a chief, because those guys become the ruling class.
And as long as you remain ignorant like this, you will need to be ruled by someone or you will just contribute to the decay of society.
Centrist here, I see a lot of complaining about people on the right not taking their own to task while the same problem appears on the left. If you want to have standing when you call people on the right out you really need to be free of guilt yourself. If you think that what I just said is a bunch of BS then you are only going to prove that you are guilty of what I said.
As a centrist I watch both sides endlessly accuse the other of the very things they are guilty of themselves. Each time one of their own abuse the Constitution they don't care... at least they gave the other side what for... and they enjoy it too.
And you should abide your own warnings... you think the people on the left are against ripping themselves apart? Good luck, I have a sneak suspicion that the worst thing you could ever do for a lefty or a righty is to give them everything they want so you can sit back and watch them build tyrannies. A total trash nation on one hand and a complete police state on the other. It is the constant struggle between the two that I enjoy because the more time they spend fighting the less time they have to get together and scheme more liberty away.
You bet the violence is going to get worse, because like you... no one is interested in talking this out... they are only interested in talking AT people and not with them. The moment someone says something you don't agree with and all the accusations and name calling come out.
The constitution is practically ignored by both parties and no matter which rights or liberties are trashed by laws neither party works to restore those liberties, they instead try to "rewrite" the law to fit their agenda's. Kinda like how all the republican ran on the platform of repealing ACA but actually did nothing of the sort. And much like Obama's "Hope & Change" was actually just more of the same of Bush policies.
Saving a kid over the adult is not as cut and dry as it sounds. What about all the other kids that the adult may be financially supporting? Additionally, how far can that go? is it better to save an 11 year old vs a 12 year old? Can a vehicle/machine really make that evaluation correctly each time?
I agree that most people would go with the cut can dry save a kid over an adult, myself as well, but it just really is not the simple when you really start to think about it. There are all sorts of additional knock on effects that are going to be involved. People must be allowed to decide for themselves the value of their own lives and not have a machine decide that younger is more valuable than older.
that is a massively incorrect analogy. The trolley car problem is a super specific problem and morals driven by either emotional value or numerical value criteria. It also comes with the supposition that no other fallout will result from the decision. Additionally the problem does not address an "occupant" vs "external life" scenario in all cases. So in short the Trolley Car problem does not even come close to the real problem here... not by a long shot.
Self driving vehicles will be exposed to wildly dynamic conditional circumstances making any attempt to deviate from the based, stay on road, apply brakes, prioritize occupant. Once the car leaves the road, it will not be able to predict what could happen next. It can only predict beyond its first decision and will never be able to predict what other machines results are going to be.
Every person has a different impact in the world, deciding that just because someone is young/old for example could yield the disastrous result of a strong positive force in the local economy age 30 helping the homeless being killed over the safety of a 25 year old drug addict trying to commit suicide because their life sucks. Neither computer or human can predict these outcomes in split second accident situations.
But do you know what people will take into consideration? A machine that machine that does NOT prioritize the safety of its occupants over other things. If I want you dead all I need to do is throw something that can trick a machine into thinking its a human baby into the road and watch the ensuing carnage! Heck people are going to try that just for kicks... just like those asshole kids dropping bowling balls, bricks, large rocks, and other shit off of overpasses onto passing cars below killing people.
No questionnaire can resolve this problem.
Cars must prioritize the safety of its occupants over everything else. If they do not, then people can murder others through machine logic without any hacking at all. Additionally, no computer will ever be advanced enough to know that the next decision it makes will be better or worse than just default saving it's occupants.
It is also immoral to evaluate lives based on worthless criteria like age, gender, political, racial, class, or religious ideology.
Just imagine a terrible scenario where a toddler running across a busy high speed road, every other car will prioritize the life of the toddler and potential mass murder everyone else riding in the cars in an attempt to save the toddler. A machine will never be able to predict what every other object around it is going to do in response to the decisions it makes.
Keep it simple as possible... object in path... hit the brakes... don't calculate the life values of the occupants vs road hazards. Each car behind them will do a much better job avoiding a massive catastrophe as cars try to dodge an erratic human that could be drunk, attempting suicide, acting stupid, losing their balance or falling off their bikes, scooters, or skateboards near traffic.
Car stays on road and uses brakes, One and DONE! Anything else will turn into an epic shit-show from time to time where a lot of people die in a massive logical unforeseen circumstance.
There is no service that has been created that cannot and has not been used for evil. But don't think for a moment that certain groups are not quick to recognize when one group uses the actions of the few to imply support similar desire by the whole.
It has taken some time, but many have managed to make even liberty look like it is only a tool used for oppression.... my my my how much work must have gone into convincing people that you cannot be allowed to manage yourself and must instead have your liberties managed for you. All in the name of keeping you safe.
Tyranny is usually though of as a problem brought on by Government agency... yet the control businesses have gained over our lives it has become clear that economically assaulting another group is more than enough to provide it's own form of tyranny.
Perhaps other businesses should start to refuse to do business with banks that do this as well... or do they too not fear reprisal? All it takes for a business to become suspect is by mere associate with something now... whether that associate is properly represented or not. We are only going to see more and more of this as we continue down this, "those that do not think like me are evil" path. This is the mindset that gets people to agree with mass genocide of entire groups of people and when those groups feel oppressed, no matter the form that oppression takes they will discover now that when avenues of diplomacy or discussion are taken away, they become isolated... and many unfortunately feel that violence is the final resort of regaining any attention for their cause... no matter how terrible other think of them for it.
That when the citizens get screwed Uncle Sam makes bank.
Fines are a curse upon civilization because it does not promote lawful behavior from the rich citizens, wealthy businesses, or the government and its law enforcement agencies.
He sold out to Sprint and still didn't listen to consumers and decided it was a good idea to allow a privacy faux pas. I mean, if you are looking to upset the industry you sure as heck cannot look and act just like them to do it!
Not a republican.
I am more of a centrist. I do not agree with government imposed welfare, but I am totally on board with government establishing a maximum total income.
There is no possible good that can come from someone obtaining so much wealth that they can alter the financial landscape. There is also no possible good that can from from giving the ultra rich minority group of people in government the power to take whatever money they want and do with it as they want either.
No single individual should be allowed to posses more than 0.0001% of the National GDP during any single year. No business should be allowed to posses more than 0.01% times the national GDP in any single year and not allowed to stockpile more than 5 times its average yearly gross income averaged over 10 years or its employee wages, whichever is greater.
Anyone that goes over this should be jailed, any business that goes over this immediately gets shut down. No if's, and's, or butts.
If you want any form of fairness in the market people have to be able to earn enough to be incentivized, but you also have to explicitly prevent people from making enough to obtain so much power they can hold economies hostage.
No person can ever reasonably be productive enough to justify having billions of dollars because any system of economics that allows someone to amass this amount of wealth is also clearly written to benefit the rich, a group of people will forever be around, just like the poor!
"No one is taking your money,"
can you at least not blatantly lie?
Taxes are not voluntary, they are compulsory, meaning people with guns come for you when you do not pay them. Yes, people are in fact "taking my money". Do you know what else? The Government gets paid before I do as well. The only thing I see is how munch the government TOOK out of my paycheck before it gets deposited in my bank account.
Shopping at the grocery store is not compulsory. For now until total socialism takes total control I can still at least grow my own food.
Why is it not evil to take someones money if the government does it? Because you voted for it? Why can't people just rob the banks? They have insurance for that, no one is a victim right? It's just money!
You are evil, just like the liars and sociopaths you are complaining about... you just happen to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. The desire to take something that was not yours be it through direct violence at your own hand or through indirect violence by voting that another take it for you is envy and is evil!
If you want to stop the these evil people stop giving them the power to do it and convince your fellow citizens of the same and stand up to them in a different way. If you become evil to stop evil... what have you achieved?
Just change "The Borg" with "government"
"We are the Government, Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to SERVICE US. Resistance is futile."
Futile indeed, because unlike Star Trek, there would be billions of humans that would welcome the Borg, and that is seriously not a joke! Consider that for a little peace of mind!
It is astounding that someone that got something so wrong it was modded to insightful.
Libertarianism is not based on trust, it is based on "responsibility" trust is not a factor, what is a factor is "distrust" of a "rich and elite Bourgeoisie" that will specifically be created by the "ruling class" that everyone ha ha ha "elects" into power. There is no socialist state that exists without the "Bourgeoisie"... a class the socialist claim to seek to destroy as they create and install them to power.
"Both the market and the state have particular natures that simply don't work for solving certain problems."
You mixed in a lie with a truth... yes "the state" always has a particular nature of moving towards tyranny. But you are greatly mistaken that a "market" has a nature. The nature of the market is created by it's participants and your attempts to turn a non-living system into a beast that thinks and moves on its own is not a good sign of knowledge. The market has no life, it is a pure product of science... "Cause and Effect at chaos math levels" with so many interactions & variables involved that a person of lesser intellect will confuse as being alive because they lack understanding of it.
"The government is terrible at the things that Socialism says it can magically fix," yes this is true... but again you get the next part wrong... very wrong!
" and the market is terrible at resolving the negative externalities that Capitalism says will be resolved by market incentives that arise from them."
Capitalism is NOT the market, Capitalism is just one component of it. Capitalism is ONLY the idea that private ownership of production is a principle. You are erroneously conflating "Capitalism" with "Free-Market". Not only that you are attributing another fallacy to "Free-Market" as you mislabel it as though the market is responsible for resolving the negative externalities... this is a lie tirelessly pressed by Republicans.
The balance in free-market is supposed to come NOT from the market but from the "consumers" in the free market willing to "spine up" and stand against letting businesses get big enough to gain a monopoly and control the market unfairly. The problem with "Free-Market" is that it requires a self controlled and responsible people consuming its resources... and we all know that in this age of "consumerist fault/blame shifting" by all of the "victims" that a "free-market" will only die... to be replaced with socialism as the people call out for politicians to become their voices and to take the place of their responsibility in the market.
It is also amazing to me that people think the "Democracy" can work but "free-market" cannot because "Free-Market" is the purest form of "Democracy" possible.
If there is one thing I have learned these days it is... Blame something else for your own shortcomings and never accept the responsibility you yourself have to help make the world a better place. You know... that change that has to start first with the "person in the mirror"? Michael Jackson sung a song about it... I notice a lot of people have forgotten this and seek to "change someone else" to make the world work they way they want it.
Good luck with that... you gain enough power, ignorant, resistant, and malicious compliance will soon follow and the moment people are able to break free... blood will be spilled... just like Venezuela right now!
The internet has grown like a weed while it was totally free-market and without a bunch of government regulation to "protect everyone" now as more and more regulations are setting in along with more calls for regulation, along with more giant monolithic companies like google have set in, whom also now call for regulation... we are going to lose the internet because everyone decided "collectively" that they have no responsibility and someone else, like government, needs to fix the problem. And we all know that government will require it's pound of flesh as well... often right off the backs of the very people that called on government to protect them.
And then they turn around and see it not working and there will be fleeing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, just like Venezuela.
You can't have unbiased media, the idea is a sign of ignorance. In fact the pursuit of it creates an even more false narrative.
Let's analyze your bias. You think the media is right... this means you are likely "extreme left" because to a person at the fringe sees even light handed leftist as being right.
I see see the media as majority Left for most of world TV, I view Fox and very few others as being Right, and most of Radio in the US seems Right to me as well. This means I am likely more right than left since I do see more left bias out there but since I see some balance between them I have a chance of being centrist also.
Your claims about which side is lying more... well do you have the numbers? I have seen so many lies on both sides that the only thing I can tell you is this. Both lie so much that it is not even possible to call out which side lies more and any attempt to do so is tantamount to admitting ignorance and bias.
The problem is so bad that in my opinion, trying to keep to either of these parties indicates that you mean to support the lies you like and only complain about the lies you hate. And if you are okay with your side lying because it advances the agenda then you lose any moral right to complain about the other side lying.
And if you don't think that your side is lying to this degree, then you are indoctrinated to the point that you are not likely able to be reasoned with. The only chance of you seeing the lies of your party will only be when you "personally" face the fallout of such lies in your everyday life in a way that it forces you to face reality. And I say chance of that because there are lots of people suffering under the ideas of the people they elected into office but still support those that have harmed them as they say... maybe we will do better next time as they keep taking campaign donations from places you sometimes know and most times don't.
Centrist here as well, though very slightly right and south of center.
Just because bias is present and on open display does not mean it will be successful. Additionally since America is not a Democracy despite mass confusion is it impossible for the Majority to always get their candidates into power. Which is why Hillary lost and Trump won.
And if you word it like "Victim Party" I would be tempted to call into question your actual "centrist" claims.
The words "Victim Party" is a claim often lobed at Democrats not Republicans because they are accused of attracting votes by offering sympathy for people that feel like victims and propping up their victim hood.
"The biggest problem with attempting to be even-handed is that you full into the trap of lending credence to arguments that are not worth listening to simply because they are built on a house of falsehoods. And yet ignoring falsehoods creates a trap where one side believes that the only reason why those arguments aren't being aired is due to biased media."
You got it pretty much wrong and here is why.
It is a fallacy to assume that being even-handed is the same as "lending credence" or "falling into a trap" and pretty much colors you as an oppressive person unwilling to listen to others. Meeting with people you disagree with is not some ridiculous approval of who or what they are. I remember republicans pulling this baloney on foreign leaders and the democrats "correctly" calling the idea out. Now I see the roles reversing where democrats are now supporting the idea of doing the same in vain attempts to silence people they hate. Hint, it does not work, I didn't work and R's did it and it will work just as well for the D's as they start to do it.
Ignoring falsehoods also does not specifically or necessarily create a trap to color anyone's bias either, it can do that, but it is hardly a majority reason for it either. You can air them all day long and people will still feel that bias because they are being distorted, which is common on both sides of the isle and to very hypocritical degrees.
In short, there are multiple reasons for why people become biased and feel biased against. But there is always one universal truth that has stood the test of time. You either let people air their grievances in the warm open light of day, or they sharpen their axes in the cold closed in darkness until there are enough of them that you no long have the "luxury" of ignoring them. You will always alienate people by trying to shut down their voices until you have added enough enemies to your list you no longer have any friends and down you fall!
If the CoC are a problem just create a new community and work on the kernel separately.
The CoC is a contradiction in and of itself because you can't kick people out of the community without accusing them of something that CoC says you are not allowed to accuse people of. The CoC is nothing more than a document designed to create Gatekeepers where they can steal the work and effort of others then kick them out of the community while standing up on the work they created. If these guys deserve to be removed... remove their code too! Because if you don't then you are making a contradictory statement that says, assholes are not good enough to be in our community but their work sure is good enough to KEEP and use for ourselves!
Hypocrisy is the entire point of the CoC because it and its members are breaking their own rules!
It never ceases to amaze me at how people often times create and support the very institutions that wind up oppressing them, while they develop Stockholm syndrome and refuse to push off the oppression they must suffer out of fear that something worse could happen.
If you are willing to make multiple deals with a lot of devils, maybe you should not complain so much and wonder at which point you caused this problem for yourself.
What's that? Everyone else is doing it? You don't have a choice? Yes, neither did every other person that risked everything to change the world huh?
The change in the world starts with you, when they are ready they will stop buying John Deere and stop giving this corrupt institution their money. Rip it to pieces and build a new that one still cares and when that one stops caring you rip it down and build a new one again.
The price is "Eternal Vigilance" and for some reason people think they can solve a problem once and for all, well you just can't.
No, the government is purposefully designed to not work fast or frequently, this is not the same thing as being purposefully designed to not work very well, and why there are a lot of working parts. Though, you are right that most of the bad laws come from the people shouting we have to do something, anything. Most times, nothing is the proper course of action. People just do not understand why, but the Declaration of Independence has something to say about that.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
A rapidly changing government executing laws as fast as we are now is going to doom the nation.
Guess you never heard of RINO's and DINO's.
"what you describe is an unfortunate result from government having too much power and the incentivation to hold/wield power."
You could not be more wrong. These things are never missing from any power structure and are inherent... though the excuse does make for a good scapegoat.
If the idea is democracy or republic, then a well informed and well intentioned electorate would demolish that problem. People can recall folks if they like, the problem is that everyone is too lazy to care and so socially weary and self defeating.
This is why democracy does not work. People would rather offload that responsibility than to tend to it. Why else do people like to call it victim blaming one someone wanders along and says... "it's your government, do something about it". We won't be doing anything about nothing... we are just going to vote on ideas, and no matter how many times the politicians lie, they remain secure in their seats... and THIS is why parties are there... to help keep those seats, because many would rather have a corrupt liar doing what they do like politically than risk having that other sides corrupt liar doing things they do not like politically. Parties keep this problem entrenched and difficult to solve.
This is a failure of the legislature which has the power to strike these courts down when they make stupid rulings like this. American citizens are grossly ignorant of how much the American Government no longer works properly. But we intentionally ignore the legislatures at the state and federal levels and instead focus on individuals. This unhealthy focus creates "king complexes" where people continue to invest power into a single individual until a despotism forms.
The people are broken and therefore our government is broken.
Because it is okay when we do it, just not okay when those other guys do it. The cornerstone of the us vs them political party system.
I wish people would view political parties with the same disdain that racism should be viewed. At the end of the day, the entire purpose of a political party is to keep the us vs them mentality going under the guise of strength through unity. What good is that strength when those divides create war? People die instead, wiping out any benefits gained!
If you want unity, you have to get rid of identity entirely, especially group based identities. But the tribalism inherent to the nature of humans makes this nearly impossible.
"Yes you very much should have clarified."
I know right? I was talking about my subscription but everyone assumed "entire MS network". I keep forgetting that folks like you are so stupid that you read one thing and think something else entirely. I have to S P E L L I T out so that it is ELI5 quality verbiage.
But you can be hostile as you want, Mr Butthurt!
I guess I should have clarified, I am talking about my subscription/account getting hacked.
Microsoft decided the punishing me was the resolution to the problem. I could not play any games that required xbox live except as a guest, so I decided that Microsoft does not give enough of a shit to care, so around that time I decide I will no longer be buying any more consoles and just stick to playing PC games. Larger library and less trouble over all.