DarkKomunalec

You also haven't answered why you feel this way.

My feelings are irrelevant - they make my points neither more nor less valid.

science is never final

Why not wait till we're (more) certain? What's the worst that could happen? Catastrophic, runaway climate-change? I say we risk it - at least the science will have been settled...

FUD works both ways.

So the error is... where? If you think I am beyond saving, at least point it out for the sake of any not-yet-lost souls reading.

Ignorance? Well, please point out where I made an error - I'd be happy to correct it.

stop having babies

Most of the west has already drastically reduced the number of babies. All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead.

Left and right ideas are just stepping stones to profit.

After all, the 'left-leaning' Google sure isn't pushing for unions, only for what will benefit them.

"orthogonal: Of two or more problems or subjects, independent of [..] each other."

..I guess you're right. I understood orthogonal a bit too mathematically, and since the 'dot product' of both concepts with election results is non-zero... and concepts cannot have negative dot-products (???)... well, that's where I realized I was holding the analogy wrong.

They can both be used by one or both parties to secure power - on that axis, they are objectively not orthogonal.

Whoopi did it first: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115580/

Data-gathering companies can and do co-operate, or someone wanting to learn something can just buy the data from several of them - price per bit of data should be the same. So breaking them up isn't really a solution to this problem.

As for why monopolies aren't getting broken up, I'd say a combination of increased corporate control of government, and global trade necessitating ever larger companies to compete, because tariffs are 'evil'.

What he said was:

Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties.

Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive casualties on all sides.

How does your appeal to emotion change any of that?

claiming that thanks to cryptography the world of intelligence was “going dark”. Quite the opposite was true [...] Twenty years ago it cost over a thousand pounds a day to follow a suspect around, and weeks of work to map his contacts; Ed Snowden told us how nowadays an officer can get your location history with one click and your address book with another. In fact, searches through the contact patterns of whole populations are now routine.

Funny how the massively increased surveillance never prompted cops and spy agencies to ask for more limited powers, but the smallest hint of encryption has them crying for even more invasive powers.

Just not funny 'ha ha'.

No 100% accurate license-plate reader exists - and that includes human eyesight. Showing license identification confidence levels, as the author's code does, is far better at dissuading the cops from over-reliance on the tool, than pretending no mistakes will ever be made.

You underestimate how much patents are used to impede competition - see https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel... , and the many less public patent licenses and threats.

Imagine if some non-US government voided Intel and AMD's patents as a self-defence measure against these probably-backdoored 'features'. Why should they protect the profits of hostile corporations?

So as long as the immigration was in the past, you're not allowed to criticize it?

History was not the argument - it was to illustrate that what you consider far right has been and is common.

we live in a global market,

Treating local businesses preferentially does not mean abolishing international trade. Just look at China, or US agricultural subsidies, or tariffs, or countless other examples.

Immigrants help Countries they move to

Countries, perhaps, but what about the local people? Don't they compete for the same jobs, driving down wages? Vote and take advantage of common resources (drinking water, arable land, existing infrastructure, etc.), reducing the political and economic capital of the locals? Encourage policies for more immigration, instead of policies that would encourage parenthood? Won't immigrants look out for their own interests more than for those of the local population?

Let me rephrase that last question - is racism real?

Immigrants [...] are the only reason why the US does not have an aging population

It's a sick society indeed that can't even sustain its own population. And instead of improving itself, it makes up the shortfall with immigration. Do you really believe immigration is the only way to sustain population levels? Why can other countries manage without?

Holding the interests of your own country above those of others is by definition nationalism, and almost any opposition to immigration is labelled xenophobia.

They are, and have historically been, the policy for the vast majority of countries, and are advantageous positions for a population to have - is that all it takes to be far right?

Not in Germany, but pretty salient: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/09/geert-wilders-...

Literally illegal to call for less immigration.

calling for physical action against individuals

They weren't raided for making true threats, but for letting the site become a "lawless realm" and/or for "sowing hate against different opinions and representatives of the country", charges so vague they could apply to almost any online forum or uppity news site.

Shutting down a club seems just as oppressive. And the definition of 'club' is blurry and stretchy, so it's not unexpected a law against 'clubs' would get abused.

The site was closed for "sowing hate against different opinions and representatives of the country,"

I am shocked - shocked - that anti-hate animus would be used this way!

Amazing how quickly the proportion of whites dropped in a mere 35 years, in every single one of those charts. Pretty soon they'll have to get used to being a minority in the US as well.

The US has already decided that the right to sue is fundamental: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/right-to-sue/

Such waivers limit this right. I struggle to imagine an ideology that thinks giving up a fundamental right is wrong, but limiting it is ok. Given how rarely arbitration courts rule against the one who selected them, the difference between limiting and forfeiting the right entirely is slim to none.

That holds for all theories, not just conspiracy ones.

There were no current decisions - such contracts are relatively new, and few laws were passed explicitly for or against them - mostly against, but were struck down by the Supreme Court.

And it does not follow that a decision made by an entity inside the society, was made by the society as a whole, or that it has any sort of majority support, even if it is law. By that logic, you could argue that we, as a society, decided that one-click shopping is worthy of patent protection, and that it should be illegal do unlock your own phone.

Amazing to see what a steep drop of whites each of those charts show, in many cases their share more than halving in as little as 35 years. And despite such a dramatic decrease, it still doesn't keep pace with the demographic changes.

Included in the 1st amendment: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/right-to-sue/

A right to water, is different to free speech.

Not entirely. Consider the case of water privatization, where there's a real risk of extortionate pricing of what used to be a common good. If carefully written, right to water laws can ensure that such resources are used for the benefit of the people, instead of being just another market good that gets slowly monopolized.

Edit: In other words, you may already have the right to free speech, while water must be provided, but both can be denied.

As a society, we have to decide - do we allow economic pressure to be used to make people give up their fundamental rights?