• 0 Posts
Joined 5M ago
Cake day: Dec 21, 2021


Nah, for $50,000 you can buy an African child. Takes about a year or so. It’s not human trafficking because it’s good and wholesome.

Haha. “Adoption”. There haven’t been any recent world wars. No plagues (close miss on that though). There are no children to adopt. So few, in fact, that those who want to adopt often find themselves on waiting lists…

So much so, that many give up on that course of action, and instead choose to fly halfway around the world to buy children from warlords and conmen in Africa.

Or, you could become a “foster parent”, which is like adoption except that the kid’s even less yours… they might come along and yank them away from you for a variety of reasons. The most heartbreaking of which, I’m told, is that the real parents have convinced some bureaucrat that they won’t abuse or neglect them like they had been doing, when experience suggests that it will just happen again.

Though, don’t be too sympathetic to the foster parents, they’re helping the government prosecute the war on drugs and ruin families, just by supplying the demand for child abduction technicians. And all so they can scratch their itch of (fake) parenthood and feel self-righteous about it.

Where is the guy with the spear supposed to leave to, to let that poor little medved alone? They can’t pick up the borders of Ukraine and drag them off to the Iberian peninsula.

They likely would not only choose to act differently based on lessons learned, but they would have to.

Why? Why would they have to act differently? What would force this to be so? What if, for instance, they considered that the projected failure of their state 100 years after the founding to just be the price of utopia, and did everything the same way? What if they considered it a fluke, some extremely slight random chance that toppled their government? Like, I dunno, the misspoken utterings of a dumbass East German propaganda minister who should have kept his mouth shut or better yet “lost his job” a year prior?

There’s no reason to suppose they’d have to do things differently. It might even be unreasonable to think they would, given human nature and our propensity for trying the same thing over and over, hoping that it will work “this time”.

Abortion is the very definition of homicide. And I wholly support it. How convenient for me that the very people I want to not exist are willing to commit genocide upon themselves. Do they want me to pay for it? Go for it, my tax dollars have never been so effective.

These people would be your allies and friends. It’s quite bizarre that you want them to be childless, to have fewer children. That you’d teach them that their children aren’t even really children but “globs of cells” (as if any human, adult or infant, was something other than that).

I sometimes ask myself if people like yourself will never figure this out, or if you will figure it out but only too late to do something about it.

In the past, people used to drown kitten, now they spay kittens. Let’s be like the kittens.

Just brilliant! “Let’s be like the animals whose lives and deaths are in the hands of people we have no control and little influence over!”

Any speech that’s disallowed is done on the basis that it’s a crime.

In sane places, sure. In some more tyrannical places, the speech itself is the crime. “You’ve insulted the king!” or “The commissar deems your criticisms of the government to be sedition!” and so on.

There’s no fraud in those things. No violence occurred (or would ever have occurred due to the speech in any plausible circumstances). No plausible harm occurred… unless you worry that when other people think things you don’t want them to think that this is harm.

They’re “markdown” files. You can go into the Nextcloud web app interface, and open them or any other text file.

And, you’d even be able to modify those files there… except that Joplin doesn’t do true markdown at all. It spams it up with some metadata which it hides within its own interface. Sometimes I want to be able to look at or add to notes when I’m not at a computer that I own, it’d be able to use NC’s web app for that.

Just wondering if Joplin still screws this up, or if they somehow went in and fixed it.

I’m still wondering how we’ve not seen legislation to address what is essentially “package fraud”. Start fining and confiscating retail packages that misrepresent the quantity of the product, and this would all stop in a matter of days. Even less garbage in landfills.

Most of those taxes would be used to buy bombs to drop on brown people. So I can see why you’re so adamant that he needs to pay more.

Tax cheats save lives.

Does it muck up the html code the way it does md? Last I checked, it stuffed a bunch of metadata into the md which meant it was the only editor that could make use of it… so if you wanted to use the NC interface to edit a note on a machine that you didn’t or couldn’t install Joplin, it screwed things up.

Instigating violence is a crime. The speech is incidental. If you could dance a jig that was guaranteed to start a riot, you’d be prosecuted for that even if you dance silently.

That’s not a free speech issue. We’re talking about people speaking, writing, communicating, and so forth. And you’re saying that even that sometimes shouldn’t be allowed. Just trying to make sure I understand that correctly.

The people whose politics you despise, the ones in power right now, using your own principles, they would be in the right to prohibit, prevent, and even punish you for proselytizing socialism. Essentially, they could shut you down with the same tactics you’d use yourself given the opportunity.

When I say “those things aren’t mutually exclusive”, it means “it can both be true that you don’t want to learn Latex and that there are no viable sane alternatives to it”.

Which sort of makes your question silly.

You don’t, your country has limits on acceptable speech just like every other.

I’m not entirely sure what you think those limits are. What is it that you think I can’t say without risk of criminal sanction?

The reality is that no country has absolute freedom of speech.

I reside in one. Even state secrets… prior restraint orders get thrown out of court on appeal.

Calls for violence are illegal

Yes, but the speech is incidental to the crime there.

Germany bans glorification of fascism

They certainly do. And look where it’s got them. For 70 years they’ve had jackasses mooning for those symbols and words, just for the taboo appeal. The trouble being that these cosplayers soon morph into actual neo-nazis.

So, it’s not a binary question of whether freedom of speech is allowed or not, but rather what the right balance is.

Philosophically, it really is a binary thing. If you’re mulling over the “what’s the balance”… you no longer have free speech. You’re just trying to decide if you’ve missed any categories of disallowed speech with the implication that you’re only allowing that speech which you like. And that’s not “free speech” at all. No humans in any era or any country have ever needed freedom of speech to protect speech which those in authority already agree with.

Was violence/insurrection necessary on 1/6/2021? Absolutely not. Violence was used in an attempt to negate my legal vote in the election. It did not represent the people. It represented extremists.

I do not support those people, and they certainly committed crimes. By my count, there’s at least rioting in there, and likely others.

I wonder if it rises to the level of “insurrection” though. If you were to attempt insurrection, would you show up dressed in costumes, in most cases (the vast majority) unarmed, and without a plan for resistance? This was something more akin to a flash mob, and any actual insurrection remained solely in their absurd fantasies.

Those calling it an insurrection are doing so to try to milk it for all its political worth. More so than any child with a skinned knee wailing about how they have to go to the hospital ever did. They should be worrying about midterms, where they’re likely to lose their offices… legitimately.

My take is that violence is apparently only justifiable after-the-fact. People are more than willing to look back at some historical event and say “this violence was justified” (and of course, for a few events, even to denounce and say that it wasn’t justified)… but no one seems to be able to tell me what the criteria are that makes it justifiable in a way that I could use to objectively test whether I should become violent now.

I am unsure why. Possibly, they are reluctant to codify such rules for fear authorities would use those rules against them… the authorities can objectively test the circumstances too, know that people are going to become violent soon, and then crack down before they can. Possibly, people are simply too dumb to codify these rules, even if they are codifiable. Or, maybe even all this is subjective bullshit, and no such rules are possible.

As for the original question, I’d guess that up to 20% of the population understands “never”, is using the strong meaning, and thinks it never justifiable (except in hindsight). This is because they value stability far more than they value justice or decency, and they are unrepentant about this.

Yes, but those things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Glasnost basically allowed private outlets to start pumping pro capitalist propaganda

Freedom of speech does allow assholes and idiots to make false claims, even to tell dangerous lies… something we’ve been reminded of just recently. But on what grounds should a government disallow propaganda, pro-capitalist or any other type?

Even if regrettable events result, is that not the right thing to do?

I will read more, I can’t really remember what perestroyka was supposed to mean… I would have been 11 or 12 at the time. In the literal sense, I think it was something like “thawing” as in the cold war itself, but I don’t really see the connection to privatization at least with what little I know of it.

Forgive me, it’s been a long time since the 1980s. Isn’t “glasnost” something like “freedom to criticize”? For that matter, wasn’t perestroyka “we don’t want to keep threatening mutual nuclear annihilation”?

How are those things bad?

The privatization I at least get, others have criticized it in various places and times before. Or is there some causal link I’m not seeing, where those things led to or caused the privatization?

Gorbachev oversaw the destruction of USSR that was one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in history.

I don’t think I could reasonably dispute that it was a great humanitarian disaster. Or that Gorbachev was in charge at the time.

How was he responsible? Was he only responsible in a “well, he didn’t prevent it” sort of way? I’ve considered that a valid criticism of politicians I myself support… if you’re in office when it happens, it really is your fault. Sort of.

If so with Gorbachev, I’ll just leave it there and I guess I agree for as much as that’s worth.

Or is it more? Does he have more culpability even than that?