HN user
The opportunity for trolling is endless, people looking to smell "strawberries" would instead end up smelling other things... B.O. , farts you name it. I wish the iSmell actually had succeeded, too bad.
"Strong fences make good neighbors"
I disagree that internal conflict would become external as you say. I think that the reverse would happen, we could coexist more peacefully as no groups feel controlled or exploited by the other.
Also I'm not sure what the reason you insist that people you clearly hate must continue to live with you. There is the obvious fact that you can continue to control them and demographically dominate them at the polls (thanks to immigration). If they separate from you then you cannot do that, also you would become a very tiny minority in the multicultural society that remained, I think that doesn't sit well with you. My assumption is that you are white.
I suspect the opposite, the trend is getting worse and relations are becoming a powderkeg. I suppose time will tell who is correct.
I know what his name is and how to spell it I just reflexively spell it that way. Why don't you just write that you think I'm stupid rather than hide behind this trivial spelling error comment?
You didn't address anything I said. This comment is just you calling me stupid rather than demonstrating it.
You didn't address my point, but I'll address yours:
Could those social, political and racial divisions be addressed by living in different polities?
Again, I would say that relations have not improved regardless of interracial marriages.
Public approval has increased likely in lockstep with how functionally illegal it is to not approve.
Oh so Mr. Rodgers winked into existence in 1968? I suspect that instead that he was born much earlier than that, and he lived and grew up in a very different USA than the one you live in now, and even a different USA from the one in which he began broadcasting in 1968.
"Low-trust" "multicultural" "society" is race-war code language, isn't it?
Says you, they're just words. If you don't agree you can go ahead and disagree. I won't comment about your rhetoric other than to say it's functionally ad-hominem. Calling something a trope is a also a pretty easy way to hand-wave away anything you don't want to think about.
and spark a whole unproductive discussion about what it is we "trust" or "don't trust" about people
I would say that trust has not improved, I would say that race relations have not improved (probably deteriorated). Even you can probably agree with that?
Mr. Rodgers prescriptions for life are lovely but impractical, and they haven't helped society at all I would say.
Well none of those issues were resolved sadly, IMO it's as bad as it ever was.
"big-lipped alligator moment"
The generic term being non-sequitur I would say.
Interesting that you don't cite brandishing a knife as unsafe, it's a text to speech voice that's the REAL problem.
SQL vocabulary is better than functional vocabulary as for many people lot of understanding (and actual use) of set manipulation and transformation starts with SQL. Why have one set of terms for code and a different set on the DB? Thats like saying why is there English, Spanish is functionally equivalent etc. Except that I already learned English (SQL) so why don't you just let me speak English (SQL) in my code?
The guy was unstable yes, but he also looked super liberal. It's tough to articulate, but it exists nonetheless, it's like asking what strawberries taste like. Perhaps I can't articulate it but that doesn't mean nobody can taste them or the taste doesn't exist. Some facets about him that I don't care to enumerate gave me that impression. He was trying to appear crazy yes and he did brandish a knife as well.
You are being far too charitable with him. He essentially committed assault by creating the impression that andy was not physically safe and that he may use a knife against him.
But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more
They could do more for sure. But it's a bottomless pit. The more you invest the more "poor" people are "pulled" into orbit of the programs requiring more spend, which brings more poor which requires more spend ad inifinitum.
I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it)
Oh ok then, I just decided that you don't need your money and I will spend it on the poor. Since I am "good" and I have everyones best interests at heart because I said so, then there's no problem. I will also decide who does and doesn't "need" their money. What an awesome power to wield.
What weasel word language you're using "life for those with the least advantages" just because you are poor doesn't mean you didn't earn it or don't deserve it. What simplistic logic you are using, what gigantic and awesome powers you propose to wield with such little thought.
Because they are a money pit, more and more and more money is required. The more resources and infrastructure you build to "help" them simply pulls more of them to you, which then requires more money to maintain and on and on.
The most basic standards of care and concern are absent from them, they litter and loiter and harass and stink and steal without any regard. So attract them to your city at your peril.
That being said: I prefer biking, and with two saddle bags I can easily do the shopping for two
^This right here. You don't come into contact with them ever, so you don't see the problem. You probably never will but you cluck cluck whenever somebody who does have to deal with them complains.
Now they have no means to move anywhere (or they'll just steal bikes), and they're just going to shelter anywhere else that they can, including breaking into buildings.
They already do all of these things.. and also they befoul public transport and harass people on the subway and buses.
You merely assume I want to do unethical things to them meanwhile you don't really condemn their unethical behavior denying their agency while amplifying mine. I think we should just round them up and take them to a place outside of town that feeds them clothes them and gives them whatever drink and drugs or amusements they want so long as they stay there. ALL benefits are contingent on life reform so they can continue to receive benefits if they leave, or they must stay there (kind of like a gilded cage).
You can't solve the issue of poverty. Poverty is as unsolvable as stupidity, or having people you don't personally get along with in the world. Those aren't solvable problems. Poverty is relative, so there will always be "poor" people. Even our poor people rich compared to Indias. And I assume you are fine with spending other peoples money to solve homelessness, or spend from the "commons" as is the typical solution to this issue. You want to spend while requiring nothing in return for that spend. So easy to make trite little comments that show you "care".
Homeless people using transit as a shelter is a huge problem, it makes transit undesirable. Also politicians are so milquetoast they won't address the problem for fear of looking like a 'bad guy' when in reality transit was never designed to be a homeless shelter, so homeless need to be forcibly removed from the vehicle and excluded from the transit system where possible. Eventually homeless ruin everything they touch and society needs to find a way to deal with them.
Socialism is simply the union of industry and state. We know that church and state is bad, but for some reason industry and state is good? Power corrupts. Thats why you want to limit the power of government, not ALSO give government power over all goods and services and everything that gets made and everyones job. What a recipe for disaster. You never see it coming because they hide behind the rhetoric of universal sufferage, but it instead it all goes to shit. Always, without fail. Every. Single. Time. And yet you people come out of the woodwork in the middle of capitalist prosperity to criticize? Please leave.
Please. They are hiding behind their children whom they are using to circumvent the laws by triggering your all too predictable emotional response.
I can guarantee that's because the article is light on insight and heavy on emotionality and will almost certainly seek to tug on the heartstrings as it has no real commentary or insight into the situation. It just wants to show you crying babies, women and sad people.
free college for all students who maintain adequate gpas, no more federal loans. impose cost controls on universities that take federal money.
You could probably do all this, but then you would have to clamp down on all the freeloaders, "irregular immigrants" and other people draining the public coffers.
Cutting into defense spending WILL NEVER HAPPEN so don't even suggest it. Yes it is a perfectly viable place to get all the money you could ever want, but regime change isn't free, and the US pays Israel 38 Bln a year in outright cash or arms. The money the US gifts Israel alone would likely make all your student loan debt disappear (for Citizen students with good GPA's).
Well not an easy replacement anyway, but something that is always useful forever.
Except I justly compensate people for my electricity, food, and clothing. I do not steal it from them.
I didn't imply that you do steal.
Also the money is another manifestation of the society (that you apparently don't owe anything to) since the society enforces the utility and value of the money and that it can be exchanged for anything at all.
The fact that you can negotiate with them in a common currency using a common medium of exchange in a safe place is fully a manifestation of the society you live in.
It's not "society" I owe anything to, it's the individuals I enter into voluntary contracts with
What if your plumber doesn't honor the contract? What if the electricity doesn't get connected even though you paid your money? I guess you won't complain to anybody about it right?
To declare my sexuality or relationships are not serving "society" well enough is a criminal infringement of my freedom of association
You received your genes and your health and your welfare from "society" (and society includes your parents) you are free to do as you wish within the rules of your society. That doesn't mean you can't be considered selfish or a bad person.
You can do whatever you want to do largely within our society, but I am just calling you out on your false assertion that you don't owe society anything. Nobody can make you have kids for example, but choosing not to have them (assuming they would come out healthy) is a selfish act because you deprive the future people of the company/help/participation of those individuals you chose not to bring into the world. You benefitted from all the kids other people chose to have (all the people you enter into voluntary contracts with) but choose not to pay back by having your own who will inevitably be of benefit to others in many ways. That's my point. I and society are not compelling you to do anything, but I and also society at large can certainly comment on it.
and no amount of populist religious zealotry will make it permissible or right.
I don't doubt it.
To be honest I don't know what point you are trying make other than governments don't like people to think for themselves.
The gist of your point is that when people hear ideas (that you imply they shouldn't hear) then they can make decisions that you or the government doesn't want.
My point: Let me hear things and I'll make my own decisions using my brain.
Your point?: People are dumb and what they hear should be curated so they can decide "good" things and not "bad" things. I guess you or the govt gets to decide what's good and bad, and which ideas are "weaponized" or not.
A good comment I read here on HN was to the effect of: the minimum viable unit of humanity is not a single couple (two people), it is actually a village / tribe (more like 150 people).
With regards to my sexuality, I owe "society" absolutely nothing.
This is incorrect. You actually owe society everything. You don't generate your own electricity. If you are robbed / assaulted you won't prosecute the offenders on your own. You don't feed yourself and on and on. You don't even ensure your own safety, mostly "the herd" accomplishes that for you.
The only reason you can exist at all is because of the thousands and millions of competent caring people around you who you can communicate with because you speak the same language. There are so many details and dependencies that you have and are taking for granted they can't even be enumerated accurately.
Even your health didn't just fall out of the sky, you owe your health to the fact that your parents passed on functioning genes to you, and that the environmental laws ensured you weren't poisoned, on and on and on. You literally DO owe society everything. Yet I would be good money that you only value your society to the extent it enables you to pursue your own desires and vices.
Please. It is pretty clear that this is not freedom of expression, but merely malicious trolling. And just because there are edge cases doesn't mean that reasonable laws can't be defined.
Obviously (but apparently not so obvious): Explicit threats of physical violence are not freedom of speech.
And that's the line.
A: Not "Free speech": I am going to kill you.
B: "Free Speech": I hope that you die.
A is an explicit threat.
B is merely offensive and an expression of ill will.
The slippery slope that people don't anticipate, is when government makes rules that allow them to silence people for "good" reasons. As soon as you allow that then you end freedom of expression.
Example: Administration A makes anti-hate speech laws 10 years later Administration B comes along, nobody likes them, they complain about it. Gets slapped with "hate speech" has to prove a negative that their speech isn't hate, from jail.....
Power corrupts that's why we try to limit the power of government, or any orginization, because government and corporations are made of people and people are fallible and greedy etc
The only thing you can do is simply allow pure freedom of expression, good or bad. Any given individual simply listens to what they want to listen to and ignores what they don't. That is the only practical way forward.
The gervais principle is more interesting than the peter principle.
You would inevitably just end up re-implementing a shittier Web with less features and no adoption. A waste of time.
In the best case scenario you implement something almost identical to the current web which is only slightly better, and therefore not worth moving the entire world over to your stack just to get these minor improvements.