SenAnder

The claim was that "we figured out how to handle Nazis 80 years ago", where the "we" that did the handling would be considered modern-day Nazis, and it is to people holding a mild version of their opinions that the modern "handling" is being applied.

I don't think I said anything that disagrees with your post. Except for one detail - the comic you linked writes (emphasis mine):

"It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door."

But as I think you'll agree, the problem is that "the people listening" often don't show the door (that's why hateful accounts gain such large followings), and it's up to the corporate owners to do the deplatforming.

But I agree it's better PR to describe it as "people" doing it. The manufacturing of consent necessary to maintain our democracy is much easier if we trick "the people listening" into thinking they are doing it, instead of it being done to them by 3rd parties.

You're right, credit also goes to the Russians that had just finished starving Ukraine into submission (and would go on to implement a system of brutal repression that killed tens of millions and consigned eastern Europe to dictatorships for decades), and the British colonial empire.

In other words, trying to claim any side of WWII had modern liberal anti-racist sensibilities is farcical, and that such claims so often meet no resistance only speaks to our utter historical ignorance.

The people that handled the Nazis were racist segregationists [1,2]. Today you would call them white-supremacist Nazis and try to get them censored, while appropriating their sacrifices by using "we" to talk about them.

[1] https://ia902302.us.archive.org/25/items/us-war-department-f... - 74-82% of US soldiers felt the army should be segregated.

[2] https://www.afhra.af.mil/Research/Military-Integration/

I support free speech so long as those expressing views I find vile lose their jobs and are exiled from all public but privately-owned platforms. They should be left with only the most obscure and ineffective venues, like public street corners. And on the rare occasion that their views might make it into the public consciousness through media reports, virtuous journalists shouldn't actually report what those views are, only that they are "hateful" or "racist", and, occasionally, "debunked".

This way, racists can't even claim they are censored, because they're not being literally jailed for their views. People are just voluntarily disassociating from them. And by 'people', I of course mean the corporations that own publishing and social media platforms. Because if it was just 'people', there would be no need to deplatform them - they simply wouldn't have an audience, platform or no.

> The manufacturer argued that this was because of malpractice by these workshops, and that they should be serviced by them instead of third parties.

So libel on top of computer sabotage.

But remember - Malthusianism was debunked, and the planet can support many more people. As long as you never think about environmentalism and population size at the same time - the only way to hold two conflicting ideas at once. I wonder if there's a succinct term for it..

The email cites a tweet url as the reason for the ban, but the tweet itself has since been deleted. What was it?

Throughout the piece he cautions against abandoning friends, principles, and of striving for the inner circle for its own sake, and for greed. It is a very uncharitable reading to then recast this caution and awareness as a general prohibition against entering the inner ring for any purpose. Nothing in the piece gave me the impression he is cautioning against, e.g., an upstart entrepreneur entering various inner rings to grow his sales, or a general vying for political power to help his country. It is the inverse he warns of - a general staying silent, or becoming a yes-man against his better judgement, to gain social standing at the expense of his troops.

You're right, he spends few words extolling the usefulness of the inner ring [1] - presumably he thought it obvious, especially to his audience at King's College. Probably seeing greed and sycophancy as bigger dangers than lack of ambition or too much sincerity, he naturally warned against the former. Like an old captain warning against storms instead of giving encouraging words about how many fish there are to catch. I wouldn't begrudge him that.

[1] Few, but not none: It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.

It's very in line with the current zeitgeist to dismiss a thoughtful piece on the perils of compromising personal values and friendships for the sake of social climbing, as a mere defense of classism. Gone from public discussion are virtue, integrity, loyalty. There is only class struggle.

Did you get the impression he meant labour organizers or ambitious but honest entrepreneurs when he spoke of scoundrels? Or, given his emphasis on friendship, did he mean those who would betray their co-workers in service of their bosses, to be better off themselves? Do you really mean to defend the "financial upward mobility" that comes from, say, withholding the health hazards of a product?

So it is your claim that Blacks still lie about their race on the census, in significant numbers, because they are afraid of... what, exactly? Except in rare cases, race is obvious on sight, so I don't see what they would gain by giving a different answer on the census.

Of course you presumably have a good source backing up your claim that Blacks are afraid to identify their race on the census, and trustworthy alternate statistics counting the racial makeup of the US?

> What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device?

Include the unlock key in the box the device was sold in, and in Apple's database. Tech-savvy users can, possessing the key, change it. Tech-unsavvy users can behave the same as they have now, even if they lost the key, as long as they didn't change it. So long as they don't carry the key with the device, all the anti-theft remains.

The freedom-respecting solution is literally trivial. The only reason it is not implemented is because Apple likes owning your devices.

> Higher-income households reside in distinct neighborhoods and send their children to better schools than low-income households.

But state and federal funding supplements local tax school funding to achieve approximately equal funding per pupil, and the US is 4th in the world (behind only Luxembourg, Norway, and Iceland) in per-student primary education spending [1]. So what makes those schools "good"?

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238733/expenditure-on-ed...

Dismantling Jim Crow does not seem to have affected their numbers much - the census found Blacks to be 10% of all Americans in 1950, and 12.4% in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...

48% of the US, including 35% of those self-described as liberal, and 25% of those self-described as extremely liberal, are nazis? What a flexible (and useful!) term. I'm so glad it's only ever applied to my opponents.

I don't know why you're singling out the middle-aged or men, but in the 1950s the US was in fact 87.5% non-Hispanic White [1], so all other groups accounted for only 12.5%.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...

Much like the EU patent convention that also excludes computer programs as such, programs for generic computers routinely get patented. It seems it is the opinion of esteemed patent judges that "as such" means it only applies to programs that do nothing other than exist as computer programs, in some pure, Platonic sense. If they actually do anything, they are no longer "as such" (but if they do nothing, that is not a patentable invention anyway, software or not).

In other words, it is the learned and wise decision of the honored judiciary that the entire sentence excluding computer programs is there just for decoration. Like flavor text on a Magic card. As a layperson I naturally defer to their expert judgement.

> a lot of opposition from feminists for obvious reasons

They oppose financial aid to young families, flexible working hours, and the promotion of living in multigenerational/extended family homes, where relatives help care for children, and free schooling/kindergartens? There are many countries, past and present, with above-replacement fertility, so this is nothing but pretend-helplessness. Israel, for example, is a modern economy, yet has a 2.9 fertility rate [1]. France and Ireland are at 1.8 - just a small push away from the 2.1 replacement level.

From the point of view of the native population (and not "the economy"), immigration is the worst option - not only does it introduce a competing group, it allows the system that resulted in their sub-replacement fertility to persist, where otherwise some change would be forced to come about.

[1] And better gender equality than the US, as well as China. The latter has a 1.2 fertility rate, which, together with the high fertility of Islamic countries, shows there is no simple linear link between gender equality and fertility. Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index

Interesting. The researcher correctly states that economic concerns are only an excuse. But he never asks why people object to reducing their homelands to mere economic zones. This is typical of such research - their goal (openly stated in this interview) is to undermine national identity and promote immigration. He does not ask or propose what we should do instead of mass immigration - he is only concerned how to continue immigration despite the people's objections, and how to silence those objections.

All running on the implicit assumption that "xenophobia" is simply incorrect (not just morally wrong) - that humans are unique in the animal kingdom in that they benefit from more competitors in the same territorial and ecological niche.

Formally verifying does no good if the compiler is infected. In the stuxnet example, formal verification wouldn't even help - how do you formally verify centrifuge timings?

Unlike what your sibling comment claims, I'm not saying all software is equally important, or must have equal effort invested in securing it. But insecurity absolutely is infectious, and the more insecure the general environment is, the harder it is to secure a small part of it.

For example, you'll want a compiler. How secure is the web stack of the page that delivers your gcc/clang? How secure is its host's infrastructure, and of the DNS provider? The browser you're downloading it with? Did you ever visit any other page that might have compromised it? What about your text editor, your OS, the SDK you're using to flash code onto the pacemaker.. And all of them have vast supply-chain networks.

> adult websites

Don't buy their framing - every website with user-uploaded content is an "adult website" in the eyes of this law. If one of your users uploads a single jpeg of porn/hateful political rant/description of self harm, you'll be liable for "not implementing adequate measures to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography/harmful material/incitement to violence".

"Adequate measures" are, of course, a complete loss of anonymity, adding your website to the surveillance state apparatus.

Hospitals in at least 4 states diverting patients from emergency rooms after ransomware attack - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/11/28/ardent...

Moreover, it is untenable to maintain a small island of "secure software" for "important things" in a vast ocean of careless and vulnerable code. Inevitably, the island gets infected, and not even air-gaps can save it, as stuxnet showed.

We lament that circumventing DRM is legally perilous, but sabotaging your customer's property is illegal. That you were the one that sold that property makes no difference - you sold it, it's not yours anymore, despite corporate messaging otherwise.

> The issue is, a lot of the people at the top engage in business practices that actively disenfranchise people at the bottom.

In an ideal world, we could first ban those practices, and only resort to punitive wealth/income taxes [1] if/when those measures fail to resolve the problem. The problem is regulatory/legislative capture by the wealthy. But I have doubts wealth caps would solve that - organizations such as WIPO or the BSA don't need multi-billionaire members to lobby effectively. A wealth cap would just multiply the number of shareholders.

[1] In the sense that they are intended to prevent ultra-richness, instead of merely filling government budget shortfalls from the pockets of those who can most afford it.

Holding the railway system hostage should make even the most short-sighted realize that DRM is an assault on national sovereignty.

The key distinction is that it is legal to build and sell a scanner that ignores the Eurion constellation, or a radio capable of transmitting in radar frequencies [1]. You may not be allowed to actually interfere with radar or counterfeit money, but that is a choice that is up to you, and it is up to the state to enforce it. It does not deputize your possessions, turning them into an omnipresent police to enforce the law and tattle on you.

[1] Though FCC regulations on radio may be a gray line here, but I'm not too familiar with them.

Mandating that your property disobeys you, and instead takes orders from someone else. They're starting with "benevolent" stuff like drunk-driving, then it'll be quarantine enforcement, then congestion control, and pretty soon your e-scooter will refuse to enter an area with a sanctioned protest taking place, and your TVs automatic content recognition will block channels spreading disinformation and malinformation.

You love to operate by association - "They want to preserve their race, therefore they're nazis. The nazis committed genocide, therefore they also want genocide". A nice trick, for some reason the left side of the political spectrum is immune to it, despite a higher death toll.

But that same source describes their ideology directly. That description contains no calls to genocide (and wikipedia would not omit such calls). But you're not alleging they called for genocide - you're alleging people that shopped on a website that is linked [1] to them called for genocide.

[1] Again, allegedly linked, an allegation made by a literal by-any-definition terrorist organization.

You have still not substantiated that the Nordic Resistance Movement is advocating for genocide, let alone this web retailer that is (allegedly, by the left-wing organization that attacks judges and politicians) linked to this movement, let alone their customers, which is who you originally accused of advocating genocide.

This is three layers of guilt by association, and you have not substantiated even one.

> A century later, American academia has gone in the opposite political direction—leftward instead of rightward—but has ended up in much the same place. The question is whether we—unlike the Germans—can do something about it.

Even when it would be most apt, writers just can't bring themselves to draw parallels with the Soviet Union, can they?