I have about 20 different lists of people on Facebook. Some things I post, I post for everyone. Other things, only a select group can see them. It really isn't that difficult to manage.
Intelligence also correlates strongly with attending a four-year university, and universities are generally thought of as being "liberal" institutions. Not saying this is the definite cause of a certain way of thinking, just pointing out there are other possible explanations for the observed trend.
It's sad, but it's not surprising. Every group of people out there thinks it's OK to trample on the rights of a few if it'll bring either them or some other larger group of individuals the illusion of more rights and/or security. The 61% of people who want the government to control Internet access are no different, at the most fundamental level, from those Slashdotters who disagreed with my assertion in this article that limiting the rights of people in groups to have free speech will only diminish the free speech of everyone, even if you have the illusion of having security against corporations in the short term.
Face it, everyone out there is terrified of the Evil Other. Whether it's blacks, terrorists, corporations, or some other boogeyman who poses no real threat to you, every single one of us is capable of being afraid of them to the point where we would gladly sacrifice a fundamental right for the appearance of safety. And every single time we do that, with absolutely no exceptions, we are wrong and end up with fewer rights and even less security. The Internet kill switch is no different from the PATRIOT ACT, trying to limit corporate ad buying for elections, or allowing the NSA to wiretap our phones without a warrant.
We've all been guilty of this behavior at some point in the past (if you don't think you have been, then either you're deluding yourself or you're just too damn young, give it time). I fell prey to this kind of thinking after 9/11. Luckily for me, I eventually regained my senses. Hopefully the rest of America will eventually follow suit, but I'm not holding my breath.
Why should ANY of these behaviors be okay? Why should the idea that I have $150,000 to throw around guaranteeing that politicians vote the way I want them to or find themselves jobless be acceptable?
The short answer is: because someone else will also have $150,000 to spend how they want on political advertising, effectively rendering your money neutral.
The fact is, even after the Citizens United ruling, corporate money and individual wealth has not had an appreciable effect on the amount of money available to politicians or their supporters. All of your arguments are completely pointless, because in the real world, none of what you evidently fear has happened in the US.
The crux of your argument seems to be "if more people seem to be better off at the end of the day, it's OK to sacrifice a few individuals." That is just insane. Arguing that society, which is composed of individuals, has a greater social worth than any individual on their own is a statist approach that forgives (and in some ways encourages) totalitarianism. And you know who else placed a greater value on society than the individual?
There, the thread has officially been godwinned. Happy?
Not limiting someone's freedom of speech by, for example, allowing a group of individuals to pool their resources for political advertising does not put any limits, whatsoever, on what other individuals may do.
Democrats are still outspending Republicans in nearly every race. So for all the fear mongering by progressive groups, none of their fears have come true. Once again, people with no real understanding of an issue completely failed at predicting the outcomes of it.
If you honestly think that acting as a group exempts you from the individual responsibility for your actions, then you know nothing about corporate law in America and should just stop talking now before you make yourself look even more foolish. I've already provided one famous example of how that's not how things work, there are many, many others along the same vein.
Anonymous speech is still protected speech. Or are you saying we should dispense with the ability to make our political voices heard without identifying ourselves completely? If so, should I assume "pixelpusher220" is your legal name?
I see, so you think it's OK to limit someone's freedoms because they have more wealth than you? Please explain how that's right or fair. And please don't bother with inane utilitarian concepts of "the greater good". You aren't Jeremy Bentham and you're not going to make a more cogent argument than he ever could.
I'm going to say this again, and more clearly and forcefully: it is immoral to trample on one person's rights because you think other people will be somehow better off if you do so. The fact of the matter is, those people will not be better off as we all suffer when rights are sacrificed for convenience or good feelings.
First off, you can put the people who work for a corporation in prison if they break the law. Just ask Jeff Skilling about the possibility of getting away with a crime just because you did so for the benefit of a corporation.
Second, if you and I pool our money to buy a political ad, that is not fundamentally different from both us buying two smaller ads separately. We're still exercising our rights to have our voices heard. The same principle applies between two people or two million.
You cannot trample the rights of individuals just because they're exercising those rights as a group. Why is that so difficult to understand?
The problem is not corporate/union donations to individuals, the problem is one of transparency. Focus on that and on closing the "loopholes" mentioned in the summary, rather than beating your chests about the supposed unfairness surrounding the act of individuals joining together to pool their resources for political change. Anything else is merely a red herring.
When they made the ruling, I agreed with their judicial logic, but that was a case where very clearly the ruling was not in the good of the general population.
The Supreme Court needs to concerns itself with protecting the rights of the individual, not the good of the general population. Otherwise we'll end up with a tyranny of the majority.
I think there's something wrong with your new, high-speed network. It seems to be getting lots of line noise coming across as random characters on your Slashdot posts.
Slashdot Mirror
Note to self: avoid rakuen's dumpster, especially shortly after eating.
I have about 20 different lists of people on Facebook. Some things I post, I post for everyone. Other things, only a select group can see them. It really isn't that difficult to manage.
They should name the section "Microsoft", since it sucks so much (hint: read the GP's sig).
Intelligence also correlates strongly with attending a four-year university, and universities are generally thought of as being "liberal" institutions. Not saying this is the definite cause of a certain way of thinking, just pointing out there are other possible explanations for the observed trend.
It's sad, but it's not surprising. Every group of people out there thinks it's OK to trample on the rights of a few if it'll bring either them or some other larger group of individuals the illusion of more rights and/or security. The 61% of people who want the government to control Internet access are no different, at the most fundamental level, from those Slashdotters who disagreed with my assertion in this article that limiting the rights of people in groups to have free speech will only diminish the free speech of everyone, even if you have the illusion of having security against corporations in the short term.
Face it, everyone out there is terrified of the Evil Other. Whether it's blacks, terrorists, corporations, or some other boogeyman who poses no real threat to you, every single one of us is capable of being afraid of them to the point where we would gladly sacrifice a fundamental right for the appearance of safety. And every single time we do that, with absolutely no exceptions, we are wrong and end up with fewer rights and even less security. The Internet kill switch is no different from the PATRIOT ACT, trying to limit corporate ad buying for elections, or allowing the NSA to wiretap our phones without a warrant.
We've all been guilty of this behavior at some point in the past (if you don't think you have been, then either you're deluding yourself or you're just too damn young, give it time). I fell prey to this kind of thinking after 9/11. Luckily for me, I eventually regained my senses. Hopefully the rest of America will eventually follow suit, but I'm not holding my breath.
Why should ANY of these behaviors be okay? Why should the idea that I have $150,000 to throw around guaranteeing that politicians vote the way I want them to or find themselves jobless be acceptable?
The short answer is: because someone else will also have $150,000 to spend how they want on political advertising, effectively rendering your money neutral.
The fact is, even after the Citizens United ruling, corporate money and individual wealth has not had an appreciable effect on the amount of money available to politicians or their supporters. All of your arguments are completely pointless, because in the real world, none of what you evidently fear has happened in the US.
The crux of your argument seems to be "if more people seem to be better off at the end of the day, it's OK to sacrifice a few individuals." That is just insane. Arguing that society, which is composed of individuals, has a greater social worth than any individual on their own is a statist approach that forgives (and in some ways encourages) totalitarianism. And you know who else placed a greater value on society than the individual?
There, the thread has officially been godwinned. Happy?
Not limiting someone's freedom of speech by, for example, allowing a group of individuals to pool their resources for political advertising does not put any limits, whatsoever, on what other individuals may do.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/27/pity-the-poor-rich-incumbent
Democrats are still outspending Republicans in nearly every race. So for all the fear mongering by progressive groups, none of their fears have come true. Once again, people with no real understanding of an issue completely failed at predicting the outcomes of it.
Speaking of Citizens United, surely you're aware it has no effect on the relative levels of spending by the two major parties, right?
http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/27/pity-the-poor-rich-incumbent
I give up, you're just plain old criminally retarded.
You obviously didn't read the decision we're talking about, because the justices said no such thing.
Good thing several centuries of jurisprudence disagrees with your totalitarian impulses.
Really? So the janitor in the Houston office of Enron should've gone to jail? Do you realize how idiotic you sound right now?
If you honestly think that acting as a group exempts you from the individual responsibility for your actions, then you know nothing about corporate law in America and should just stop talking now before you make yourself look even more foolish. I've already provided one famous example of how that's not how things work, there are many, many others along the same vein.
Anonymous speech is still protected speech. Or are you saying we should dispense with the ability to make our political voices heard without identifying ourselves completely? If so, should I assume "pixelpusher220" is your legal name?
I see, so you think it's OK to limit someone's freedoms because they have more wealth than you? Please explain how that's right or fair. And please don't bother with inane utilitarian concepts of "the greater good". You aren't Jeremy Bentham and you're not going to make a more cogent argument than he ever could.
I'm going to say this again, and more clearly and forcefully: it is immoral to trample on one person's rights because you think other people will be somehow better off if you do so. The fact of the matter is, those people will not be better off as we all suffer when rights are sacrificed for convenience or good feelings.
How about addressing my second point?
First off, you can put the people who work for a corporation in prison if they break the law. Just ask Jeff Skilling about the possibility of getting away with a crime just because you did so for the benefit of a corporation.
Second, if you and I pool our money to buy a political ad, that is not fundamentally different from both us buying two smaller ads separately. We're still exercising our rights to have our voices heard. The same principle applies between two people or two million.
You cannot trample the rights of individuals just because they're exercising those rights as a group. Why is that so difficult to understand?
The problem is not corporate/union donations to individuals, the problem is one of transparency. Focus on that and on closing the "loopholes" mentioned in the summary, rather than beating your chests about the supposed unfairness surrounding the act of individuals joining together to pool their resources for political change. Anything else is merely a red herring.
When they made the ruling, I agreed with their judicial logic, but that was a case where very clearly the ruling was not in the good of the general population.
The Supreme Court needs to concerns itself with protecting the rights of the individual, not the good of the general population. Otherwise we'll end up with a tyranny of the majority.
So what are you spending all your extra cash on?
Except, of course, for TruckloadsOfCash.com. And maybe Walmart.
No, but good luck reaching idle.
though there is political argy-bargy about it
I think there's something wrong with your new, high-speed network. It seems to be getting lots of line noise coming across as random characters on your Slashdot posts.
50 / (1/9) != 5513.