I don't know why people would even be talking about UBI in the US right now, it's pointless. What are we going to do, do nothing on healthcare, give people $500/month, and then say great, you went to the hospital, here's your $15,000 bill? We need to make education and healthcare free for anyone who needs it before even considering anything having to do with UBI, and if we can conquer the education and healthcare problems then we'll be dealing with a substantially different economic situation that our current arguments probably wouldn't even apply to. It might also be the case that if everyone is able to remain healthy and get an education, they don't need UBI.
He's not suggesting that the entire money is spent on dinner. Scale it up. If one person has $10,000 and the other $0, only one person buys dinner. He's not buying a $10,000 dinner, it's just a regular dinner. If 2 people have $5,000 each then they both buy dinner. Again, not $5,000 dinners.
Boeing spent close to $30 billion to design the 787.... None of those costs would be justifiable if their entire customer base was 10,000 strong.
How many 787s do you think have been built? I understand your point, but Boeing is not an airline, their customers (for the 787) are in fact a relatively very small group of companies. In that case the unit cost is high enough for them to see a profit long term, and then back to your point those 787s are then used to carry a very large number of customers over their life spans.
But we in the US already have social safety nets: Welfare, Unemployment Ins, Food Stamps, Medicaid/Medicare.....etc.
The problem is, we need to tighten up those programs so they aren't abused as much as they are
No, that's not the problem. The problem is that the existing system does not work for a very large number of people. The problem is that if someone wants to go to a university to get a high-level education, or if someone needs to go to the hospital, they may be looking at decades of debt from that. That's what the problem is, not that people are abusing food stamps. The problem is that we have a predatory insurance and healthcare industry which exists to make a profit first. We expect future high-contributors to society to undertake enormous debt to get the education that their desired jobs require. Our workforce is going to continue to get less educated and less healthy unless we address those issues. People should be able to get an education and receive health care without taking on a mountain of debt.
I'm pointing out that I'm using the classical definition, which you agree to, so apparently you're agreeing with me, but somehow Grendel has now entered the discussion.
And you're acting like the classic definition is no longer used, like the term second world. That's not true. The classic definition of imperialism is still a valid definition. If you'd like proof, kindly refer to the M-W link that you and I have both cited and read the definition on the top again.
Good lord, I realize that people on Slashdot like to argue for no reason, but how long can it go? Will this be archived and comments closed before you finally decide to give up fighting over whether or not a classic-but-still-used definition applies?
You have been staring into the abyss of the troll for so long, but do you realize it's staring back at you?
Yeah people aren't going to be interested in following some sort of story, they're going to try to get the guy to do things that they think are funny or humiliating for him. Within the first 5 minutes they're going to tell him to suck his own dick and try to fight someone.
Yes, phones and cars are more efficient, and in 9 years the bitcoin network has been invented and is on pace to raise global temps. Existing things get more efficient, but we aren't going to stop inventing, or hold off on a new technology because of the impact it might have on a future power grid. We WILL need more energy.
It's great that an iPhone today is better than it was when it was invented, but the bitcoin network came about 2 years after the first iPhone.
No, I didn't suggest anything like that. I'm saying that, as a civilization, our energy usage is going to continue to increase. It's inevitable. The ultimate solution to that is to generate energy in a cleaner way. I'm not suggesting anything about technologies that use less energy. Those are great, but those aren't what will save us. Clean energy will save us.
You are purposely leaving out inconvenient parts of the term's definition.
I'm using the classic definition of what imperialism is. This isn't difficult. Imperialism historically requires dominion over another territory.
Anyways, this part is largely irrelevant because I have clearly sited multiple formal definitions where the original parents use of the word clearly fit.
*cited
This discussion has reached its conclusion, in fact it did a while ago. I'm using the classic historical definition of imperialism, and you're not. That's all there is to it, there's nothing else to say.
I like the idea of deep water storage for places where that's convenient. I realize this probably isn't a huge issue considering the actual forces involved, but I'm not too fond on the idea of pumping water out of caves and then over-pressurizing them. Although if we get enough pressure then we might have the opportunity to set a new record.
Technological advancements make carbon-neutral cheaper than fossil fuels, to the point that burning coal for electricity makes no more sense than burning whale blubber for electricity.
That's the point. As a society, our energy needs are going to continue to increase and it doesn't matter where that need comes from, per se. The point is to make energy production cleaner and less harmful to the planet. The major places where our energy is being used isn't the point, the point is to generate energy in a cleaner way. We aren't going to use less energy, we only need to generate it cleaner.
If you don't want people treating you like an asshole then don't lie to them.
I'm not lying to you, you're just easily triggered. That's not my fault.
Here's what makes you wrong there
You had to scroll pretty far down to find that one, from the "Learners dictionary" apparently.
Well, here's a question, then - what happens when there are two definitions that are in opposition? Because the main definition, the one that I've pasted numerous times, from the top of that page (you know, right under the heading "definition of imperialism") is in opposition to that "learners definition," they don't mean the same thing.
Obviously different people take the word to have different meanings. I'm referring to the actual definition of an empire, and you're referring to something else, a more recent watered-down version that people like to use as propaganda against their opponents, as Wikipedia points out: "the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy." That's the version you're using, I'm using the correct version.
I notice you still don't post links because you're still picking and choosing what you want from where ever you want.
We've literally been talking about the definition on the same exact web page, there's no reason to keep posting the same link unless your attention span is as small as your IQ.
I'm fairly certain you don't even understand why siting sources is important in any critical context.
*citing. I'm sure you knew that though, since you do it so often.
Hold on, you're changing the subject. I was talking about Trump siding with Putin against the US intelligence agencies, and you responded with "That's not the point, the point is that when Obama did it, there was no criticism". I asked when Obama did WHAT, and you replied with that "open mic slip" video, and then I asked if you're trying to suggest that the video you posted and Trump standing next to Putin saying that Trump believes Putin and not his own government are the same thing. You responded with some rant about dictators.
Don't change the subject. Are you trying to suggest that Obama's video and Trump's press conference are equivalent? Is that what you were referring to when you said "but but Obama did it?"
Stick to the actual point before you go off about Ferdinand Marcos and the Shah, please. Try to complete a thought.
I don't give a crap whether they have some super-secret disinfo campaign.
No shit. I can tell. That's why you're not admitting that it's a problem that our adversaries are attacking us. You just don't care. You'll be riding your moral high ground defending everyone's rights up until the last seconds before the country crashes into the ground. The Soviets had been trying to divide our country since at least the 60s, and we know because they've talked about it. They tried to inflame anti-Vietnam protests, during that point their easy targets were the hippies and liberals. Since then, they've actually lived through seeing their own union break apart. They've lived it first-hand. They know exactly how it works. They're still trying to do it to us, because the old guard like Putin resent NATO and resent being watched by democratic governments. Maybe you should give a shit about that. It doesn't matter that the low-hanging easily-triggered fruit these days are the less informed conservatives, the particular group or groups they target are not the point. And if the reason why you're defending their program (and you are defending it) is because of the particular groups it targets, then you suck as an American ("first they came for the people who didn't know the ACA and Obamacare were the same thing, but I didn't say anything because I'm not a moron"). I would bet you $1000 that they tried to amplify, for example, the small number of liberals in California pushing for a vote on secession, I would bet my bottom dollar that they picked up and tried to amplify that, and any and every other divisive topic they can discover, or even make their own. I bet they're out there still trying to push "false flag" on the Florida mail bomber, and posting messages in support of the Pennsylvania whack job. Whatever they can do, their actions have outsize impact and major return on investment when the investment is so low.
So maybe you should start giving a shit about how and why we're being attacked while it's still not too late.
And let me just take this opportunity to quote and highlight this, because it's relevant to the other reply:
I am not commenting on the actions of Facebook and Twitter. I am pointing out that the United States has a problem. Yep, that's me, "cheering."
You just followed up to this by cheering the removal of random Twitter & Facebook accounts.
No, I did not "cheer", in fact I explicitly said I was not commenting on the actions. You keep ascribing various emotions and beliefs to me which are not correct. I don't think I'm the person you want to have a discussion with, because you're filing in the blanks with the opponent you wish you had, someone against free speech who wants to go around banning everything. That's not me. Again, I specifically said I was not commenting on the actions of the companies in my follow-up reply, I was just using those as an illustration of the existing problem that you're having a really, really hard time admitting exists.
You probably equate "ban" with the Government doing that
There's another assumption about my beliefs.
never mind that the Government simply has a foundation that points out accounts to private companies to ban them and that makes it awesome or something.
Why would you think that's awesome? Oh, wait, you're assuming something else about me, aren't you?
Nope, I'm waiting to see what gets proven in court.
Oh come on, you've already reached your conclusions. About me, about Russia, about whatever else. You've listed them here.
I realize you're trying to carve out "government lead disinfo" sort of ban here
No I'm not. Shocker that you don't understand my point (hint: the solution to the problem is not my point; getting you to admit the problem is 100% my goal in this discussion).
You therefore hate this speech based on subjective interpretations of their motives and content.
Oh, do I? I thought I was worried about the actual impact it had on the country.
I doubt you would fairly apply this to, e.g. Al Jazeera or the BBC based on the opinions from item one.
OK, doubt away then, man. You're going to assume some sort of solution that you assume I support, and then assume it's not going to be applied equally. Whatever dude. Read the last couple paragraphs to my last post again. I'm sure that, as a country, we can come up with intelligent and effective solutions that are in line with our shared values. But, whatever, just assume whatever you want.
I don't think it should survive strict scrutiny
What shouldn't survive, some hypothetical solution that you just came up with that you assume I support? Yeah, man, sounds like a shitty solution, I don't think it should survive either.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist
You're sure as fuck not saying it does. The DNI would like a word with you. You probably know better than he does though, in fact you've already assumed all of his motivations and conclusions and you've concluded that he's wrong and you're right.
I'm saying that censorship (public or private) is the wrong way of dealing with speech.
NO ONE IS SAYING OTHERWISE.
This has really gone on as long as it can. You're not having a discussion with me, you're having a discussion with who you want to prove wrong on some sort of moral ground that no one is attacking. Just like when politicians are debating, they say to not answer the question that was asked, but answer the question that you wish was asked. That's what you're doing, that's what this discussion is, and there's no reason for me to continue it. You're not addressing reality, you're just assuming everything and then knocking down the points that you incorrectly attribute to me.
I am not commenting on the actions of Facebook and Twitter. I am pointing out that the United States has a problem.
There is absolutely no point in ignoring the problem or acting like it does not exist.
There is no point in questioning the motives of our counter-intelligence services when they decide that someone with known intelligence links to an adversarial government who describes himself as an informal advisor to that government is under surveillance, regardless of if and whether he is connected to any active political campaign. A connection to an active political campaign does not exempt a potential foreign agent from surveillance, in fact it might strengthen the case to watch them. The political affiliation of any political campaign is irrelevant to that decision making. The counter-intelligence agents are likely to love the United States and believe that they are acting to protect it.
There is no point in questioning the motives of an investigator who is trying to determine the methods, scope, and reach of a foreign government program to interfere with our elections and destabilize our country when the purpose of the investigation is to understand what they are doing so that we can protect ourselves. If that foreign government decided to favor or potentially use or even assist a political campaign, that does not mean it should not be investigated. It also does not mean that campaign is at fault or even knew it was happening when the purpose is information finding to determine what happened so that we can protect ourselves. The political affiliation of that campaign is irrelevant to that decision making. The investigator is likely to love the United States and believe that they are acting to protect it.
As far as I know, it's for commenting on Twitter with fake names, like everyone else who wants to be anonymous. I'll let them prove that if it's more, but the idea that someone posting Jesus arm wrestling Satan under a fake name on Twitter is something to make a federal case out of because it undermines our democracy or whatever just makes me laugh.
I can't even reply to that because you're starting under the assumption that Russia's US-directed propaganda activities are limited to one meme that I never even saw before you pointed it out.
By posting Jesus arm wrestling Satan on Twitter under fake names.
There it is again. You're really hung up on that one individual thing. I don't know if I should take that to mean that you are completely unaware of the extent, or you are and just willfully ignorant of it. Could be either, I suppose.
The idea that we can censor foreigners who discuss political topics does not sit well with me, especially when it's so selective.
Again, I don't know how to respond to this because it's like you're assuming that these were Russian citizens not hiding the fact that they are Russian citizens instead of being Russian military intelligence agents on a propaganda campaign trying to convince people that they are Americans, even to the extent of taking on the personae of actual people, and setting up actual rallies and various online groups to push wedge issues that they know are divisive and chosen specifically to create and exploit divisions in our society. You make it sound like it's just some foreign nationals expressing a political opinion. It's not. But that's the strawman you set up so that you can act like you're pro-first-amendment, which what, makes me therefore anti-first-amendment? Because I'm not, but that's what it sounds like you're doing. And, again, as an American I have no idea why it's so difficult for you to admit that what Russia has been doing is not a good thing.
nobody cares if journalists actively support a foolish and unnecessary war.
Yeah? Nobody cares if journalists, or anyone else for that matter, actively support a foolish and unnecessary war? Nobody cares? OK man, if you say so.
Yeah, I don't buy that one.
But ordinary Russian citizens are just posting memes and expressing political opinions. Got it.
I'm explicitly saying that political *speech* shouldn't be banned.
OK, Freedom Fighter, who the fuck is saying "political speech should be banned?" Who do you think you're fighting on that issue? Do you think you're fighting me on it? Do you think the crux of my argument is that we should ban political speech? Why do you keep bringing this up?
I don't like how easily you shift from one to the other, either. Equating speech with violence has long been a censorship trope.
Oh, it is me. You think that I'm equating speech with violence, and that I want to ban political speech. I don't know what to do with that information. I honestly have no reply to that. I'll just paraphrase Charles Babbage to say "I cannot rightly comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas which could provoke such a question."
If it was the line about Ukraine, I'm not equating speech and violence, I am suggesting that you have completely bought in to the Russian propaganda and their explanations of their actions. "Hey, it's just ordinary Russian citizens posting some arm wrestling meme!"
I don't think you can make a federal case out of super-secret meme targeting, nor do I think you can shut down political speech
Wow, what a brave fight you're waging there. You don't have any opponents on that fight, but wow man, way to take a stand.
If someone goes by "John Smith" did they steal the identity of everyone else by that name?
I just want to make sure I've got this right. You're suggesting some sort of equivalence between Donald Trump standing next to Putin and, against the advise of everyone around him and his own appointed DNI, told the world that he doesn't see any reason why it would be the Russians who are attacking us, versus Obama telling Medvedev (I think?) that after the election he'll have more flexibility in what is explicitly described as an "open mic slip" rather than summit televised worldwide. You're suggesting an equivalence between those two things, correct?
Slashdot Mirror
THIS IS NOT BASIC INCOME.
What? Are you trying to suggest that you and your wife spend more than $4,000 per year?
Wow, look at professor moneybags over here.
I don't know why people would even be talking about UBI in the US right now, it's pointless. What are we going to do, do nothing on healthcare, give people $500/month, and then say great, you went to the hospital, here's your $15,000 bill? We need to make education and healthcare free for anyone who needs it before even considering anything having to do with UBI, and if we can conquer the education and healthcare problems then we'll be dealing with a substantially different economic situation that our current arguments probably wouldn't even apply to. It might also be the case that if everyone is able to remain healthy and get an education, they don't need UBI.
He's not suggesting that the entire money is spent on dinner. Scale it up. If one person has $10,000 and the other $0, only one person buys dinner. He's not buying a $10,000 dinner, it's just a regular dinner. If 2 people have $5,000 each then they both buy dinner. Again, not $5,000 dinners.
Boeing spent close to $30 billion to design the 787. ... None of those costs would be justifiable if their entire customer base was 10,000 strong.
How many 787s do you think have been built? I understand your point, but Boeing is not an airline, their customers (for the 787) are in fact a relatively very small group of companies. In that case the unit cost is high enough for them to see a profit long term, and then back to your point those 787s are then used to carry a very large number of customers over their life spans.
But we in the US already have social safety nets: Welfare, Unemployment Ins, Food Stamps, Medicaid/Medicare.....etc.
The problem is, we need to tighten up those programs so they aren't abused as much as they are
No, that's not the problem. The problem is that the existing system does not work for a very large number of people. The problem is that if someone wants to go to a university to get a high-level education, or if someone needs to go to the hospital, they may be looking at decades of debt from that. That's what the problem is, not that people are abusing food stamps. The problem is that we have a predatory insurance and healthcare industry which exists to make a profit first. We expect future high-contributors to society to undertake enormous debt to get the education that their desired jobs require. Our workforce is going to continue to get less educated and less healthy unless we address those issues. People should be able to get an education and receive health care without taking on a mountain of debt.
I'm pointing out that I'm using the classical definition, which you agree to, so apparently you're agreeing with me, but somehow Grendel has now entered the discussion.
And you're acting like the classic definition is no longer used, like the term second world. That's not true. The classic definition of imperialism is still a valid definition. If you'd like proof, kindly refer to the M-W link that you and I have both cited and read the definition on the top again.
Good lord, I realize that people on Slashdot like to argue for no reason, but how long can it go? Will this be archived and comments closed before you finally decide to give up fighting over whether or not a classic-but-still-used definition applies?
You have been staring into the abyss of the troll for so long, but do you realize it's staring back at you?
Yeah people aren't going to be interested in following some sort of story, they're going to try to get the guy to do things that they think are funny or humiliating for him. Within the first 5 minutes they're going to tell him to suck his own dick and try to fight someone.
Yes, phones and cars are more efficient, and in 9 years the bitcoin network has been invented and is on pace to raise global temps. Existing things get more efficient, but we aren't going to stop inventing, or hold off on a new technology because of the impact it might have on a future power grid. We WILL need more energy.
It's great that an iPhone today is better than it was when it was invented, but the bitcoin network came about 2 years after the first iPhone.
It's obviously the historical definition. That's nearly self-evident.
But, by all means, if you really want to continue this amazing and enlightening discussion, go right ahead.
No, I didn't suggest anything like that. I'm saying that, as a civilization, our energy usage is going to continue to increase. It's inevitable. The ultimate solution to that is to generate energy in a cleaner way. I'm not suggesting anything about technologies that use less energy. Those are great, but those aren't what will save us. Clean energy will save us.
So by your own omission you are using an outdated definition?
It's not outdated. It's the non-propaganda definition.
You are purposely leaving out inconvenient parts of the term's definition.
I'm using the classic definition of what imperialism is. This isn't difficult. Imperialism historically requires dominion over another territory.
Anyways, this part is largely irrelevant because I have clearly sited multiple formal definitions where the original parents use of the word clearly fit.
*cited
This discussion has reached its conclusion, in fact it did a while ago. I'm using the classic historical definition of imperialism, and you're not. That's all there is to it, there's nothing else to say.
I haven't been keeping up, what's the current Washing Machine Index at?
I like the idea of deep water storage for places where that's convenient. I realize this probably isn't a huge issue considering the actual forces involved, but I'm not too fond on the idea of pumping water out of caves and then over-pressurizing them. Although if we get enough pressure then we might have the opportunity to set a new record.
Technological advancements make carbon-neutral cheaper than fossil fuels, to the point that burning coal for electricity makes no more sense than burning whale blubber for electricity.
That's the point. As a society, our energy needs are going to continue to increase and it doesn't matter where that need comes from, per se. The point is to make energy production cleaner and less harmful to the planet. The major places where our energy is being used isn't the point, the point is to generate energy in a cleaner way. We aren't going to use less energy, we only need to generate it cleaner.
If you don't want people treating you like an asshole then don't lie to them.
I'm not lying to you, you're just easily triggered. That's not my fault.
Here's what makes you wrong there
You had to scroll pretty far down to find that one, from the "Learners dictionary" apparently.
Well, here's a question, then - what happens when there are two definitions that are in opposition? Because the main definition, the one that I've pasted numerous times, from the top of that page (you know, right under the heading "definition of imperialism") is in opposition to that "learners definition," they don't mean the same thing.
Obviously different people take the word to have different meanings. I'm referring to the actual definition of an empire, and you're referring to something else, a more recent watered-down version that people like to use as propaganda against their opponents, as Wikipedia points out: "the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy." That's the version you're using, I'm using the correct version.
I notice you still don't post links because you're still picking and choosing what you want from where ever you want.
We've literally been talking about the definition on the same exact web page, there's no reason to keep posting the same link unless your attention span is as small as your IQ.
I'm fairly certain you don't even understand why siting sources is important in any critical context.
*citing. I'm sure you knew that though, since you do it so often.
Hold on, you're changing the subject. I was talking about Trump siding with Putin against the US intelligence agencies, and you responded with "That's not the point, the point is that when Obama did it, there was no criticism". I asked when Obama did WHAT, and you replied with that "open mic slip" video, and then I asked if you're trying to suggest that the video you posted and Trump standing next to Putin saying that Trump believes Putin and not his own government are the same thing. You responded with some rant about dictators.
Don't change the subject. Are you trying to suggest that Obama's video and Trump's press conference are equivalent? Is that what you were referring to when you said "but but Obama did it?"
Stick to the actual point before you go off about Ferdinand Marcos and the Shah, please. Try to complete a thought.
I don't give a crap whether they have some super-secret disinfo campaign.
No shit. I can tell. That's why you're not admitting that it's a problem that our adversaries are attacking us. You just don't care. You'll be riding your moral high ground defending everyone's rights up until the last seconds before the country crashes into the ground. The Soviets had been trying to divide our country since at least the 60s, and we know because they've talked about it. They tried to inflame anti-Vietnam protests, during that point their easy targets were the hippies and liberals. Since then, they've actually lived through seeing their own union break apart. They've lived it first-hand. They know exactly how it works. They're still trying to do it to us, because the old guard like Putin resent NATO and resent being watched by democratic governments. Maybe you should give a shit about that. It doesn't matter that the low-hanging easily-triggered fruit these days are the less informed conservatives, the particular group or groups they target are not the point. And if the reason why you're defending their program (and you are defending it) is because of the particular groups it targets, then you suck as an American ("first they came for the people who didn't know the ACA and Obamacare were the same thing, but I didn't say anything because I'm not a moron"). I would bet you $1000 that they tried to amplify, for example, the small number of liberals in California pushing for a vote on secession, I would bet my bottom dollar that they picked up and tried to amplify that, and any and every other divisive topic they can discover, or even make their own. I bet they're out there still trying to push "false flag" on the Florida mail bomber, and posting messages in support of the Pennsylvania whack job. Whatever they can do, their actions have outsize impact and major return on investment when the investment is so low.
So maybe you should start giving a shit about how and why we're being attacked while it's still not too late.
And let me just take this opportunity to quote and highlight this, because it's relevant to the other reply:
I am not commenting on the actions of Facebook and Twitter. I am pointing out that the United States has a problem.
Yep, that's me, "cheering."
You just followed up to this by cheering the removal of random Twitter & Facebook accounts.
No, I did not "cheer", in fact I explicitly said I was not commenting on the actions. You keep ascribing various emotions and beliefs to me which are not correct. I don't think I'm the person you want to have a discussion with, because you're filing in the blanks with the opponent you wish you had, someone against free speech who wants to go around banning everything. That's not me. Again, I specifically said I was not commenting on the actions of the companies in my follow-up reply, I was just using those as an illustration of the existing problem that you're having a really, really hard time admitting exists.
You probably equate "ban" with the Government doing that
There's another assumption about my beliefs.
never mind that the Government simply has a foundation that points out accounts to private companies to ban them and that makes it awesome or something.
Why would you think that's awesome? Oh, wait, you're assuming something else about me, aren't you?
Nope, I'm waiting to see what gets proven in court.
Oh come on, you've already reached your conclusions. About me, about Russia, about whatever else. You've listed them here.
I realize you're trying to carve out "government lead disinfo" sort of ban here
No I'm not. Shocker that you don't understand my point (hint: the solution to the problem is not my point; getting you to admit the problem is 100% my goal in this discussion).
You therefore hate this speech based on subjective interpretations of their motives and content.
Oh, do I? I thought I was worried about the actual impact it had on the country.
I doubt you would fairly apply this to, e.g. Al Jazeera or the BBC based on the opinions from item one.
OK, doubt away then, man. You're going to assume some sort of solution that you assume I support, and then assume it's not going to be applied equally. Whatever dude. Read the last couple paragraphs to my last post again. I'm sure that, as a country, we can come up with intelligent and effective solutions that are in line with our shared values. But, whatever, just assume whatever you want.
I don't think it should survive strict scrutiny
What shouldn't survive, some hypothetical solution that you just came up with that you assume I support? Yeah, man, sounds like a shitty solution, I don't think it should survive either.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist
You're sure as fuck not saying it does. The DNI would like a word with you. You probably know better than he does though, in fact you've already assumed all of his motivations and conclusions and you've concluded that he's wrong and you're right.
I'm saying that censorship (public or private) is the wrong way of dealing with speech.
NO ONE IS SAYING OTHERWISE.
This has really gone on as long as it can. You're not having a discussion with me, you're having a discussion with who you want to prove wrong on some sort of moral ground that no one is attacking. Just like when politicians are debating, they say to not answer the question that was asked, but answer the question that you wish was asked. That's what you're doing, that's what this discussion is, and there's no reason for me to continue it. You're not addressing reality, you're just assuming everything and then knocking down the points that you incorrectly attribute to me.
Your coming was foretold, well done fulfilling the prophecy.
The comment literally right under yours. Well done.
That's exactly right, if only CNN or the NY Times would report on the presence of a disinformation or propaganda campaign, people would believe it.
Because it's relevant:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
I am not commenting on the actions of Facebook and Twitter. I am pointing out that the United States has a problem.
There is absolutely no point in ignoring the problem or acting like it does not exist.
There is no point in questioning the motives of our counter-intelligence services when they decide that someone with known intelligence links to an adversarial government who describes himself as an informal advisor to that government is under surveillance, regardless of if and whether he is connected to any active political campaign. A connection to an active political campaign does not exempt a potential foreign agent from surveillance, in fact it might strengthen the case to watch them. The political affiliation of any political campaign is irrelevant to that decision making. The counter-intelligence agents are likely to love the United States and believe that they are acting to protect it.
There is no point in questioning the motives of an investigator who is trying to determine the methods, scope, and reach of a foreign government program to interfere with our elections and destabilize our country when the purpose of the investigation is to understand what they are doing so that we can protect ourselves. If that foreign government decided to favor or potentially use or even assist a political campaign, that does not mean it should not be investigated. It also does not mean that campaign is at fault or even knew it was happening when the purpose is information finding to determine what happened so that we can protect ourselves. The political affiliation of that campaign is irrelevant to that decision making. The investigator is likely to love the United States and believe that they are acting to protect it.
As far as I know, it's for commenting on Twitter with fake names, like everyone else who wants to be anonymous. I'll let them prove that if it's more, but the idea that someone posting Jesus arm wrestling Satan under a fake name on Twitter is something to make a federal case out of because it undermines our democracy or whatever just makes me laugh.
I can't even reply to that because you're starting under the assumption that Russia's US-directed propaganda activities are limited to one meme that I never even saw before you pointed it out.
By posting Jesus arm wrestling Satan on Twitter under fake names.
There it is again. You're really hung up on that one individual thing. I don't know if I should take that to mean that you are completely unaware of the extent, or you are and just willfully ignorant of it. Could be either, I suppose.
The idea that we can censor foreigners who discuss political topics does not sit well with me, especially when it's so selective.
Again, I don't know how to respond to this because it's like you're assuming that these were Russian citizens not hiding the fact that they are Russian citizens instead of being Russian military intelligence agents on a propaganda campaign trying to convince people that they are Americans, even to the extent of taking on the personae of actual people, and setting up actual rallies and various online groups to push wedge issues that they know are divisive and chosen specifically to create and exploit divisions in our society. You make it sound like it's just some foreign nationals expressing a political opinion. It's not. But that's the strawman you set up so that you can act like you're pro-first-amendment, which what, makes me therefore anti-first-amendment? Because I'm not, but that's what it sounds like you're doing. And, again, as an American I have no idea why it's so difficult for you to admit that what Russia has been doing is not a good thing.
nobody cares if journalists actively support a foolish and unnecessary war.
Yeah? Nobody cares if journalists, or anyone else for that matter, actively support a foolish and unnecessary war? Nobody cares? OK man, if you say so.
Yeah, I don't buy that one.
But ordinary Russian citizens are just posting memes and expressing political opinions. Got it.
I'm explicitly saying that political *speech* shouldn't be banned.
OK, Freedom Fighter, who the fuck is saying "political speech should be banned?" Who do you think you're fighting on that issue? Do you think you're fighting me on it? Do you think the crux of my argument is that we should ban political speech? Why do you keep bringing this up?
I don't like how easily you shift from one to the other, either. Equating speech with violence has long been a censorship trope.
Oh, it is me. You think that I'm equating speech with violence, and that I want to ban political speech. I don't know what to do with that information. I honestly have no reply to that. I'll just paraphrase Charles Babbage to say "I cannot rightly comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas which could provoke such a question."
If it was the line about Ukraine, I'm not equating speech and violence, I am suggesting that you have completely bought in to the Russian propaganda and their explanations of their actions. "Hey, it's just ordinary Russian citizens posting some arm wrestling meme!"
I don't think you can make a federal case out of super-secret meme targeting, nor do I think you can shut down political speech
Wow, what a brave fight you're waging there. You don't have any opponents on that fight, but wow man, way to take a stand.
If someone goes by "John Smith" did they steal the identity of everyone else by that name?
I don'
I just want to make sure I've got this right. You're suggesting some sort of equivalence between Donald Trump standing next to Putin and, against the advise of everyone around him and his own appointed DNI, told the world that he doesn't see any reason why it would be the Russians who are attacking us, versus Obama telling Medvedev (I think?) that after the election he'll have more flexibility in what is explicitly described as an "open mic slip" rather than summit televised worldwide. You're suggesting an equivalence between those two things, correct?