nights192

I don't think that epicureanideal was asserting that the Holocaust and the Nazi party in general was overlooked--merely that its coverage is perfunctory, glancing at immediate cause and effect rather than the deeper patterns behind it. I, too, am leary of over-emphasizing German atrocities surrounding WII--heinous though they may have been, there is no paucity of savagery in world history; however, I feel as though your reply is, frankly, a very bad faith reading of what bombcar posted.

He appears to be surmising that we're becoming very impulsive in quashing whatever thought appears to impede our immediate policy goals--not that it is the Holocaust in and of itself that is special. (He even goes through the effort of explicitly highlighting it as entirely feasible for a populace to fall to!)

I admit I find the ferverent vociferations against ROBLOX as an entity somewhat disheartening; the game was cynosure to my childhood, providing precious experience to me in learning how to navigate social situations and cope with the rammifications thereof.

Pedophiles did, and do, exist, but this is a fact of life in any manner of social media or large community; discussing frankly how malevolent some may be is imperative, even if it does not preempt all danger posed. The alternative, stifling all manners of creative expression available to those who may otherwise be socially shunted, is untenable to me, as it does not line up with what my experience growing up using this technology taught me.

Nothing in life is without risk--exposure to this risk over a platform that's online, somewhat discoverable, and insulated is vastly preferable to keeping your kids blissful and unknowing of what would threaten them. Please do not attempt to parent in such a way that motivates your children to hide things from you and cut you out of the loop entirely.

I don't believe that's a very good-faith interpretation; what makes you believe that, man?

I've had extensive experience with gifted and magnet school programs through the 2000s to the mid 2010s--as an anecdote to account for this period in my area, (the Mid-Atlantic US,) I found that a fair portion of my classes were immigrants and people of color. It may've been the case that racism was endemic to gifted programs in the 90s, but this was not my experience in the slightest.

Is this not a roundabout way of saying that--yes--the government can decide whether or not a group is allowed to strike?

They also state, however, that the drones are typically high enough to provide little disturbance prior to descending for the drop. Regardless, this doesn't primarily confuse me; rather, the hostility to the idea of delivery coffee writ large.

Thanks for clarifying the noise issue!

I understand the noise in the video is fairly unpleasant; however, others within the thread with more experience with the technology have testified that they are not, typically, perceived as this disruptive. (Whether due to the rotors straining less when not countering a raven/crow, or simply due to the frequency band of the phone microphone exacerbating the worst qualities of the sound.) Many express rancor about the very concept of delivered coffee--not merely the practicalities of it, and this is intriguing to me.

It's somewhat baffling to me that there's such a large pushback against getting coffee delivered via drone, and I don't see many reasons expressed as to why, exactly, this is iniquitous--could somebody explain this in greater detail to me, please?

I believe he's more concerned about issues where tail-calls aren't possible or attractive.

Alternatively, we may become an interstellar species and circumvent these problems for an entirely different set. I find it unfortunate that our milieu's become so thoroughly pessimistic as to the continued, unbounded prosperity of our race--I feel as though it engenders a sort of defeatism.

There're certainly multiple places one could draw the line--the efficacy of a given position for these sorts of things varies by your objective or simply the severity one perceives.

Thanks a ton for providing the opportunity for some discussion on this!

I don't believe I am, though--you are, if I'm not mistaken, asserting that it's some prolific iniquitous undercurrent which these platforms are subtending in some manner. (Which would seem somewhat misleading to me, as your assertion that r/TheDonald moved was of their own volition, rather than a banning by the site.)

Any platform harboring content will, as a matter of course, simply through the caprice of a moderator, let slip by insane opinions--but opining that these are some growing tide and, more dangerously, representative of their moderate counterparts (a la the r/Conservative subreddit, which seems constituted of largely by-the-numbers right of centers,) seems disrespectful to all parties involved and serves only to distract from your central assertion that communicating these ideas will in some way seed wanton chaos. (Comparing the ideas directly to those that precipitated the tragedy of the Holocaust.)

Edit, as I'd written my reply to a previous version of your own: I am sympathetic to the idea that seeing these more fringe ideals is unfortunate--but the argument which I believe bears greater importance is that acting in this manner against them, striking them from the whole of our public discourse and pre-empting any who could, in some way, divine inspiration from the muck is far more deleterious to discourse. It serves all too easily as a means to silence disquiet and cast a veneer of unanimity.

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand how Reddit--a bastion for young 20-somethings, among which leftism is a major demographic, could ever be construed as a Q-Anon stronghold.

I feel as though this may more reflect your fears than the state of the site, and I feel as though so reflexively writing off a population that already largely agree with you illumines the opposite argument--that reaction to speech is largely an overreaction, and we will, without careful consideration, largely consider any bloc to be constituted of what we fear.

This seems like a delightful way to set precedent for any manner of disgruntling opinions--whether inimical or simply unpleasant to the status quo--as illegal.

Could you expound on this, please? I'm not too familiar with Houston's milieu, and I think hearing a reason why you believe this'd be really interesting.

I apologize, but I fail to see how the consensus view of some manner of political philosophy matters--whether right or left--as it applies to discussion and debate, insofar as justification is provided and due research applied.

Again, I understand that the crux of your argument is that this discourse (that of the "crazy right wing,") is solely the fermenting ground of lies; however, I find that very difficult to believe, personally, and I believe that--while any side may develop misconceptions--exposure to these allows you to better explore your own beliefs in the face of adversity.

What is crazy is a relative concept--to be cliched, homosexuality was considered a mental illness until fairly recently.

But they literally are police--that's the difference between these two arguments. Police can be held to account through voting and policy shifts, individuals cannot without community enforcement.

Could you expound upon this statement? I'm not quite sure I understand what you're implying.

I believe the term 'could care less' is largely facetious- "I could care less... but it would be extremely difficult," tends to be the implication; don't understand why you found it necessary to correct him.

edit: Added clarification.

I don't know, man- Rome proper's population is larger than Paris', with approximately 2.9 million residents.

London, however, is indeed much larger.

Likely because it isn't a mistake.

... which is irrelevant. The point posed was that the ephemeral form heralds the so-called 'revolutionary' concepts, and stating that a prolonged delivery of the concepts invalidates their usefulness is the result of an overly literal interpretation of a common phrase.

Yeah- you're right. Pythagoras' theorem obviously isn't timeless; the fool took time devising the formula!

While I cannot speak for the majority of your experience, what you just described sounds very much to be related to revulsion towards the inclusion of different biological/reproductive traits within the same, supposedly semi-private, room; this may provoke discomfort within your average female attendants in the room, and works against the design of the rooms themselves. (The rooms utilizing separate urinals optimized for certain sexes.) I understand your reasoning behind have some distaste against this particular viewer, but it is preferable to attempt to understand the philosophical underpinnings and priorities of the other side than merely note said side's existence- such a lack of introspection is part of the problem, not the solution.

Datashovel, man, I don't understand how being "separated" could be considered distinct from being married- it's a marital status. It's likely that they're not looking for that variable- 'married' is a binary value, why would one need to clarify?

No- one set goes through an (at least semi-)standard training process, with public scrutiny upon their every action at a personal level with additional access to public records of most of their related actions, while the other is recruited through familial relations and contacts, with the media investigating the group with a view from a collective standpoint with far more limited resources available.