I live in Canada. There was M-103 in March and C-16 in June. And those are only two minor examples of the ongoing obliteration of free speech in the Western world. "Hate speech" laws are getting broader and broader everywhere in the West. Words like racism, sexism and gender are also getting new definitions in order to promote a political agenda. We are heading toward a dystopia a la 1984 and it's not a slippery slope fallacy.
I'm not a progressive at all (I'm mostly far right), I don't hesitate to claim that I don't care about the little guy, but the same way I buy "free range" eggs, even if those eggs cost between 150% and 200% more than regular eggs for the exact same product, I would pay more for electricity coming from energy sources that produce less pollution.
In 1988 or 1989, a friend of mine wanted to get a cell phone in his car. Everyone told him that a cell phone was a useless gadget for ordinary people. Except for very few business people, no one needed a cell phone.
Only twelve years ago, I remember a lot of people saying that smartphones were useless. Everyone agreed it could be useful to some business people, but not to ordinary people. Blackberry phones were called "crackberry" as a way to mock ordinary people using those smartphones.
Only five years ago, I remember that someone using his cell phone to check his message or to check something on the Internet in the middle of a meal at a restaurant was considered extremely rude. Now, more and more people do it without any kind of shame. That behavior is slowly becoming the norm.
I strongly believe that 30 years from now, things like Google glass will become as ubiquitous as cell phones. Sure, we feel we don't need them now, the same way we felt we didn't need a cell phone in the 80s, but we will. As for the "glasshole" thing, our aversion to being recorded will gradually disappear. Being constantly recorderded will become the norm. It is instead those who will not want to be recorded who will become suspect.
On one side you have people who don't believe in evolution. On the other, you have people who believe everything is a "social construct", meaning they don't believe in biology. So the question should be : is there anyone who is not in denial of reality?
Fake news much? Russia never invaded Ukraine. Considering the difference of military power, if one day Russia decided to invade Ukraine, it would be even easier for them than when the US invaded Iraq.
As for Crimea, it was the people who were living in Crimea who decided to leave Ukraine after the coup. Do I have to remind you that Crimea was "given" to Ukraine by Krushchev, but since there was no displacement of the population, most people living in Crimea still considered themselves as Russians? So do you think it's surprising that people living in Crimea didn't want to accept the anti-Russia government that took power in Ukraine after the coup? I mean the new government was so anti-Russians it even tried to forbid the Russian language.
Oh, and since we're on the subject of the coup in Ukraine, can you explain to me why the US government immediately accepted the result of the coup instead of demanding the respect of democracy, like it usually does with other countries? Because this "strange" attitude from the US government does sound fishy to me.
Anyway, all this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the "researchers" who are making the claim (if there are any) have no evidence whatsoever and obviously are trying to push a political agenda by publishing fake news.
A lot of low wage jobs are in competition with automation. My guess is the "less hours" was due to investment with automation which became more profitable than paying employees. The consequence of this is no availability of a second job.
1. Considering (as far as I know) one of the main propagation method for Petya was through a compromise accounting software mostly used in Ukraine, it's not surprising that Ukraine was the most affected. 2. The fact that very few people paid the ransom is completely irrelevant. 3. I'm pretty sure most of these ransomware are made by teenagers and amateurs. Buggy malware is very common.
So the question is, who are those "researchers" and what evidence do they have? More importantly, are those "researchers" politically motivated?
Why single out Trump? This "moral-emotional" style is what everyone is doing. Up to a few years ago it was only feminists and other left leaning political groups who were using it, but now even right leaning political groups are using it. Trump is only following the trend. Rational discourse is dying in the West.
Neither of your examples are "good examples". Free speech is about expressing ideas. The classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not about expressing an idea, it's about blatantly lying in order to specifically cause a panic reaction. It's akin to fraud, not akin to free speech. As for asking someone to commit "murder", I'm guessing you are confusing exerting influence to push someone to commit murder with simply expressing an idea. For example, ff we were not allowed to discuss "murdering" someone, then expressing the idea of killing Abubakar Shekau (the leader of Boko Haram) in order to save innocent victims would be forbidden. Is that really what you want?
Even if I'm guessing what I consider as "trash" is quite different than what you consider as trash, like you I believe that expressing all ideas should always be allowed. Saying nations have different history is not a justification for forbidding free speech. Some Germans may not like free speech, some Germans may prefer to restrict freedom of speech in order to have a government in control, but in my point of view they are both morally and socially wrong.
As for limiting profanity and sexual content, I disagree with you. In the case of using profanity, it is about the expression of an emotion. For example, we use profanity to express our disgust or our hatred. You may not like the emotion someone else may have, you may feel "offended" by someone else's emotion, but your own feelings should not limit the freedom of expression of others.
As for sexual content, while I agree it should be limited when minors are part of the audience, I don't see why we should limit it when adults are the audience.
What about a signal from God himself? Or maybe this signal was caused by Xenu when he escaped from his prison! Or maybe it was coming from the space station that Hitler built when he escaped from his bunker!
Imagination is great, but there's a moment when we must be rational and accept the reasonable explanation. And no, believing this was a signal from an "intelligent source" is not reasonable at all. One thing is for sure, rejecting this reasonable explanation because it goes against our desire and dreams is also not reasonable.
Being against multiculturalism is not about race, it's about being against mixing different cultures and different ways of life within the same society. Multiculturalism leads to communitarianism, even if people are of the same race, and communitarianism leads to the destruction of social cohesion, which leads to hatred and violence. Multiculturalism is extremely destructive to societies.
And no, someone's race does not define his culture or his religion. Associating a culture to a specific race is racism. For example, anyone who thinks "cultural appropriation" is a thing, is someone who is profoundly racist.
Again, the article cited from this site reported only verifiable facts, therefore the reputation of the site is completely irrelevant. People running this site could be pedophiles raping babies, it wouldn't change that what was said in this article was the truth.
Islam is not a race, it is a religion. More than that, it is a religion which now has a serious violence problem, and there's a moment when someone must be held responsible for choosing his religion. I won't forbid him to choose Islam, but I will certainly not pity him or defend him if he considers he's a victim of discrimination.
The terrorist agenda is not simply to disrupt our way of life in order to make their voices heard. In the case of Islamists, they hate us simply for who we are. They can't accept that an inferior group of people (us) are not under their domination, like it is said into the Quran.
European countries are notorious for not allowing freedom of thoughts if those thoughts are deemed to be dangerous to society. Also, some religious sects are banned in Europe. So I don't see why Islam, which can arguably be considered dangerous to Western societies, and which certainly still has sectarian practices, could not be banned.
I have no clue what "The Federalist" is, but I looked at the article, and what is said in this article is true. What Churchill thought of Islam is certainly no secret. One thing is for sure, when the only thing you can do against an idea is to criticize the one who express that idea, it shows that the person you criticize is right and that you are wrong.
I live in Montreal. Simply going to Quebec city is about 160 miles. Worse, during winter, the range of the Leaf drops to 50-80 miles (depending on the temperature). And as if it wasn't enough, the car must not be left outside without being plugged to a charger when the temperature is below -17 Celsius (which is quite common in Canada).
Trump supporters are certainly "associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization", if not outright hate. Does that mean any video insulting or making fun of people who voted for Trump should be not be eligible to monetization?
I was an adult when I bought my Amiga 1000. Your idea that "nostalgia" is because we were isolated by our parents from the problems of the day is pure nonsense.
Yes, calling someone ignorant is an insult. Please, have the courage to look at yourself in a mirror and admit what you are doing. Anyway you still have no argument. You talk about "reality" and "facts", but those are just empty words. In the end, you still have only insults. Again, do you think insulting me will achieve anything but making you look like an irrational fool?
So your point is that I'm "ignorant" and easily fooled by some undefined "alt-right propaganda". You have no "argument", but insults. I'm curious... Do you really think insulting me will achieve anything other than making you look like someone who has no clue what he's talking about and only act emotionally? Are you sure I am the "fool" here?
The ones who want total control and obedience are not the same group of people who wanted Brexit. And by the way, Brexit is not about isolating from the rest of the world, it's about stopping mass immigration and trying to stop the fall of the Western civilization.
Slashdot Mirror
Gen X'er here. I stopped thinking "being cool" was "cool" when I became an adult. Don't you think it's time for you to also become an adult?
I live in Canada. There was M-103 in March and C-16 in June. And those are only two minor examples of the ongoing obliteration of free speech in the Western world. "Hate speech" laws are getting broader and broader everywhere in the West. Words like racism, sexism and gender are also getting new definitions in order to promote a political agenda. We are heading toward a dystopia a la 1984 and it's not a slippery slope fallacy.
Pollution underground in thick concrete will not affect me. Pollution in the air will affect me.
I'm not a progressive at all (I'm mostly far right), I don't hesitate to claim that I don't care about the little guy, but the same way I buy "free range" eggs, even if those eggs cost between 150% and 200% more than regular eggs for the exact same product, I would pay more for electricity coming from energy sources that produce less pollution.
In 1988 or 1989, a friend of mine wanted to get a cell phone in his car. Everyone told him that a cell phone was a useless gadget for ordinary people. Except for very few business people, no one needed a cell phone.
Only twelve years ago, I remember a lot of people saying that smartphones were useless. Everyone agreed it could be useful to some business people, but not to ordinary people. Blackberry phones were called "crackberry" as a way to mock ordinary people using those smartphones.
Only five years ago, I remember that someone using his cell phone to check his message or to check something on the Internet in the middle of a meal at a restaurant was considered extremely rude. Now, more and more people do it without any kind of shame. That behavior is slowly becoming the norm.
I strongly believe that 30 years from now, things like Google glass will become as ubiquitous as cell phones. Sure, we feel we don't need them now, the same way we felt we didn't need a cell phone in the 80s, but we will. As for the "glasshole" thing, our aversion to being recorded will gradually disappear. Being constantly recorderded will become the norm. It is instead those who will not want to be recorded who will become suspect.
On one side you have people who don't believe in evolution. On the other, you have people who believe everything is a "social construct", meaning they don't believe in biology. So the question should be : is there anyone who is not in denial of reality?
Fake news much? Russia never invaded Ukraine. Considering the difference of military power, if one day Russia decided to invade Ukraine, it would be even easier for them than when the US invaded Iraq.
As for Crimea, it was the people who were living in Crimea who decided to leave Ukraine after the coup. Do I have to remind you that Crimea was "given" to Ukraine by Krushchev, but since there was no displacement of the population, most people living in Crimea still considered themselves as Russians? So do you think it's surprising that people living in Crimea didn't want to accept the anti-Russia government that took power in Ukraine after the coup? I mean the new government was so anti-Russians it even tried to forbid the Russian language.
Oh, and since we're on the subject of the coup in Ukraine, can you explain to me why the US government immediately accepted the result of the coup instead of demanding the respect of democracy, like it usually does with other countries? Because this "strange" attitude from the US government does sound fishy to me.
Anyway, all this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the "researchers" who are making the claim (if there are any) have no evidence whatsoever and obviously are trying to push a political agenda by publishing fake news.
A lot of low wage jobs are in competition with automation. My guess is the "less hours" was due to investment with automation which became more profitable than paying employees. The consequence of this is no availability of a second job.
1. Considering (as far as I know) one of the main propagation method for Petya was through a compromise accounting software mostly used in Ukraine, it's not surprising that Ukraine was the most affected.
2. The fact that very few people paid the ransom is completely irrelevant.
3. I'm pretty sure most of these ransomware are made by teenagers and amateurs. Buggy malware is very common.
So the question is, who are those "researchers" and what evidence do they have? More importantly, are those "researchers" politically motivated?
Why single out Trump? This "moral-emotional" style is what everyone is doing. Up to a few years ago it was only feminists and other left leaning political groups who were using it, but now even right leaning political groups are using it. Trump is only following the trend. Rational discourse is dying in the West.
Neither of your examples are "good examples". Free speech is about expressing ideas. The classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not about expressing an idea, it's about blatantly lying in order to specifically cause a panic reaction. It's akin to fraud, not akin to free speech. As for asking someone to commit "murder", I'm guessing you are confusing exerting influence to push someone to commit murder with simply expressing an idea. For example, ff we were not allowed to discuss "murdering" someone, then expressing the idea of killing Abubakar Shekau (the leader of Boko Haram) in order to save innocent victims would be forbidden. Is that really what you want?
Even if I'm guessing what I consider as "trash" is quite different than what you consider as trash, like you I believe that expressing all ideas should always be allowed. Saying nations have different history is not a justification for forbidding free speech. Some Germans may not like free speech, some Germans may prefer to restrict freedom of speech in order to have a government in control, but in my point of view they are both morally and socially wrong.
As for limiting profanity and sexual content, I disagree with you. In the case of using profanity, it is about the expression of an emotion. For example, we use profanity to express our disgust or our hatred. You may not like the emotion someone else may have, you may feel "offended" by someone else's emotion, but your own feelings should not limit the freedom of expression of others.
As for sexual content, while I agree it should be limited when minors are part of the audience, I don't see why we should limit it when adults are the audience.
What about a signal from God himself? Or maybe this signal was caused by Xenu when he escaped from his prison! Or maybe it was coming from the space station that Hitler built when he escaped from his bunker!
Imagination is great, but there's a moment when we must be rational and accept the reasonable explanation. And no, believing this was a signal from an "intelligent source" is not reasonable at all. One thing is for sure, rejecting this reasonable explanation because it goes against our desire and dreams is also not reasonable.
Being against multiculturalism is not about race, it's about being against mixing different cultures and different ways of life within the same society. Multiculturalism leads to communitarianism, even if people are of the same race, and communitarianism leads to the destruction of social cohesion, which leads to hatred and violence. Multiculturalism is extremely destructive to societies.
And no, someone's race does not define his culture or his religion. Associating a culture to a specific race is racism. For example, anyone who thinks "cultural appropriation" is a thing, is someone who is profoundly racist.
I have no clue what you are trying to say. Your thoughts seem to be completely disorganized.
Again, the article cited from this site reported only verifiable facts, therefore the reputation of the site is completely irrelevant. People running this site could be pedophiles raping babies, it wouldn't change that what was said in this article was the truth.
Islam is not a race, it is a religion. More than that, it is a religion which now has a serious violence problem, and there's a moment when someone must be held responsible for choosing his religion. I won't forbid him to choose Islam, but I will certainly not pity him or defend him if he considers he's a victim of discrimination.
The terrorist agenda is not simply to disrupt our way of life in order to make their voices heard. In the case of Islamists, they hate us simply for who we are. They can't accept that an inferior group of people (us) are not under their domination, like it is said into the Quran.
European countries are notorious for not allowing freedom of thoughts if those thoughts are deemed to be dangerous to society. Also, some religious sects are banned in Europe. So I don't see why Islam, which can arguably be considered dangerous to Western societies, and which certainly still has sectarian practices, could not be banned.
I have no clue what "The Federalist" is, but I looked at the article, and what is said in this article is true. What Churchill thought of Islam is certainly no secret. One thing is for sure, when the only thing you can do against an idea is to criticize the one who express that idea, it shows that the person you criticize is right and that you are wrong.
I live in Montreal. Simply going to Quebec city is about 160 miles. Worse, during winter, the range of the Leaf drops to 50-80 miles (depending on the temperature). And as if it wasn't enough, the car must not be left outside without being plugged to a charger when the temperature is below -17 Celsius (which is quite common in Canada).
Trump supporters are certainly "associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization", if not outright hate. Does that mean any video insulting or making fun of people who voted for Trump should be not be eligible to monetization?
I was an adult when I bought my Amiga 1000. Your idea that "nostalgia" is because we were isolated by our parents from the problems of the day is pure nonsense.
Yes, calling someone ignorant is an insult. Please, have the courage to look at yourself in a mirror and admit what you are doing. Anyway you still have no argument. You talk about "reality" and "facts", but those are just empty words. In the end, you still have only insults. Again, do you think insulting me will achieve anything but making you look like an irrational fool?
So your point is that I'm "ignorant" and easily fooled by some undefined "alt-right propaganda". You have no "argument", but insults. I'm curious... Do you really think insulting me will achieve anything other than making you look like someone who has no clue what he's talking about and only act emotionally? Are you sure I am the "fool" here?
The ones who want total control and obedience are not the same group of people who wanted Brexit. And by the way, Brexit is not about isolating from the rest of the world, it's about stopping mass immigration and trying to stop the fall of the Western civilization.