Tempting as it would be to believe this, I don't think you're right. The true danger in ISIL is their ability to export and fester while having the legitimacy of a "state" and territory. We're already seeing the sociopolitical ramifications from the people they've displaced, the territory and commerce they've disrupted, and the terror they've exported.
If you're point is that Islamism and theocracy are self-defeating systems, I happen to fully agree with you, but you have a very optimistic timeline and I frankly am not willing to allow the death and suffering of our Muslim brothers and sisters toiling under ISIL's rule to go on while we wait....
"See, that's where we disagree. The most popular are not the best, they are only the most popular"
You missed the point; we DON'T disagree here. I never said the most popular was the best objectively, only that it was the best in terms of the business of search results. As I said, for a search engine, popularity is the only game in town. Google can't try to make a value judgement on the "goodness" of search results, or it will lose users who may not want what they/you/I think are the "best" results.
"It reflects poorly however on Google because their results are more of a popularity contest rather than an attempt to get you the best results."
This is where you lose me and likely everyone else reading this. For a site like Google that is trying to return the best search results for the masses, the most popular ARE the best. If you're saying it would be better if Google returned the most INFORMATIVE results, sounds great, except who gets to decide which are the most informative? Popularity is really the only objective game in town for a search engine, with a nod to weighting certain results that ought to show up near the top, which is why for most search items Wikipedia DOES indeed end up near the top of the list (at least for me, I understand that others may have a different result).
"Google has become a giant echo chamber for a world way more interested in style over substance, rumor over fact, and opinion over information."
Now that REALLY doesn't make any sense. Google is returning search results, not feeding people information they want. Tailoring search results to past search history might have SOME effect in paring the results down, but claiming that a person who leans one way or another on any issue will only see those results in their search field is pretending to live in a world that doesn't exist.
"Worthwhile? You realize that Bernie is a Democratic Socialists and so was the Nazi party?"
You're fucking kidding me, right? The Nazis were NOT Democratic Socialists, they were National Socialist, from which they derive the Nazi name and also I hate you for being this stupid. The Nazis were a far right organization, on the other end of the political spectrum from Sanders and Democratic Socialists. Notable Democratic Socialists, other than Sanders, include:
1. Christopher Hitchens 2. Albert Fucking Einstein 3. Bertrand Russell 4. John Dewey 5. David Ben-Gurion
If you're any indication of the level of intellect of the American voter, however, we're all fucked and let's all welcome our winners from the Trump/Carson ticket and enjoy the disaster to come.
"Stalin was given the book Origin of Species when he was 13 and justified his actions as being evolutionary."
Thinking Stalin's atrocities weren't tainted by a Russian Orthodox Church, and thinking that Stalin didn't raise his own religion as a cult of his own personality, is an incredibly wrong way of viewing history....
"Likewise, Hitler was a Darwinist and thus his idea of the master race."
That's not even CLOSE to being true. Hitler was part Christian, part pagan, who believed in a strange bastardization of Norse supremacy. There was nothing secular, in other words, about Hitler. Nothing atheist, either....
"There are several more of the most genocidal dictators to ever live just in the last 100+ years that are all combined responsible for over 100+ million deaths and not a Christian among them. So tell me again how bad Christians are and how great Atheists are."
Christianity had its reformation. If this were the fourteen hundreds, for instance, you'd be singing a totally different tune, as Christendom was the primary instigator of murder on the planet.
"Also, your lies about Christians being racists, prejudice, violent and having contempt for the poor are just that, lies. Are there a few matching that description? Sure. But as a whole, nope, not at all."
I would never have intended on saying otherwise. I doubt the original commentator did either. The point is that many people love wrapping themselves in the cross, but fail to act as their religion prescribes. To that extent, they don't actually have sincere religious beliefs. They just like being in a gang.
"If you look at the charities atheists support, they are mostly animal shelters."
Citation needed. Because you're super, mega wrong. Ever heard of the ACLU? Doctors w/o Borders? Amnesty International, SHARE, or UNICEF? All secular....
I'm actually with you on this, in that I don't think the Fighting Sioux's name or logo is in any way racist. That said, if the local tribes say they'd rather you not use their tribe name as a moniker for a big institution of the state that long ago did you wrong, I think it's appropriate to change the name at their request....
First of all, this comment should never have been reported and hidden, and I'm a little disappointed the community chose to do so just because of the name of the commenter. Report the comment, not the person making it, in my opinion.
That said, some points of major disagreement:
"A discussion of ideas and concepts doesn't require a perfect digital copy to happen. A perfect example would be this article, without listening to Nina's video, one would still have a very good idea of the content and her point of view, and could discuss them. Is any significant information lost if that video isn't available to me, or is unable to play on my mobile device at the time? The answer is not really as much as she thinks."
It's trivially easy to see how dangerous this line of thought is if we simply up the stakes. Take, let's say, a religious text. Imagine that a religious text is controlled in some way as to make it inaccessible to the wider public. Let's say, for instance, by language. So, you may have adherents to a faith following a book of providence that they cannot ever read. This seems to fir the analogy of this article with the associated video perfectly. What you'd have is the faithful blindly following what few individuals could read the original text and interpreting it for them. That means the faithful are following the interpreters and not the text, and could never check the text against the interpreters even if they wanted to. It's trivially easy to see how dangerous a situation like this is, as we have real-world examples.
Or, if you don't like the religious text analogy, make it a law that nobody can interpret due to the language it is written in. You'd have a public bound by a law that they could not themselves read or understand. It should be easy to see why that is dangerous and/or problematic as well. The point is that having the source text is paramount to understanding and learning. Censoring the source text/video/whatever deprives the public of that understanding, learning or, in the case of art, appreciation. One might argue that there is a larger case for this, but one CANNOT argue that the source material doesn't really matter, as you have above.
"Except in exceptional cases, nobody wants to use copyright to stop distribution, they want to use it as a legal basis under which distribution can occur. It would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) for artists to be able to get compensation for their works if they had no legal standing."
This is obviously not true. Musicians made a living before copyright existed. They made a living before recorded music existed. There are any number of ways for artists to make a living without relying on legal standing. In fact, in the vast majority of transactions that result in an artist making money, the law is never consulted or considered.
Re: "I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
I know what you mean and I think I know your good intentions in writing a comment like this, but I dislike this argument. For the would-be extremist, it seems pretty clear that little in the way of true terrestrial grievance or geopolitical factors need be applied. After all, there are oppressed peoples the world over, and not all of them react in identical fashions.
For me, I'd rather focus on the pure evil of tearing a child away from his/her parents without being made to produce evidence at trial for why. I don't think we have to worry about might-be future-terrorists in that scenario. I think we have plenty on our own plates to worry about....