I'll admit this is a little side-tracked, but ownership is being put in jeopardy in the physical world as well.
From real estate where a few groups are trying to monopolize properties, to IoT devices that you "own" only as far as the always-online software allows you, to personal electronic equipment that can only be repaired or refilled at the manufacturer's own stores...
Some of these behaviors are not fully implemented across their respective markets, but they are growing trends across multiple types of products as soon as electronic is involved, trends where your freedom to do with your "property" as you will is getting severely limited.
Welcome to a world of not-owning-anything, where you can enjoy whatever you want for a hopefully-reasonable monthly fee.
Then again, when you see some people going crazy over cryptos and NFTs, who cares if you actually own anything as long as you think you do?
You can't do that.
Think of all the "legitimate" companies who harass you "legitimately". Like your bank, or your cable company. Or that well-intentioned friend you didn't know you had who can erase your student loan debt.
I'm late on this reply.
First, thank you for sharing your opinion.
If you are honest, you are not the loud hypocrite that many other conservatives are. But your anecdotal opinion doesn't weigh much in the face of a number of other cases.
Second, I'm talking about many loud conservatives who whine that they are "censored" any time they are 1. banned for bad behavior or 2. replied to in anything but complete agreement.
Since you're definitely not one of these, I'm amused that you felt targeted.
If you really want to disprove my point, you can't just talk about your own personal expectations. You'll have to show that conservatives never (or very rarely) complain about being censored when someone tells them they're wrong. As there are several high-profile conservatives who did this on camera and in public statements, you have a high bar to meet. (e.g. Politicians complaining about social media platforms adding information banners on top of their posts.)
2, The right to impose their speech on any audience.
False. Instead, not to have platforms censor their speech, so that people who want to hear it may.
Thanks for agreeing with me despite starting with "False". You literally described the same thing I did. You added an "objective", but the means is the same. And still no, you are not allowed to impose your speech on everyone anywhere with the excuse that a few are willing to listen. You can choose a venue that will allow it instead.
They want pretty much three things, implicitly or explicitly.
The right to say anything, as abhorrent it might be.
The right to impose their speech on any audience.
The right to not be criticized back.
The first one is partially a free speech issue. One is indeed free in the US at least, to say pretty much anything except for a very few narrowly defined exceptions. (I think it all comes down to defamation, fighting words and incitation to crime.) It's also contingent on the time and place. (The second point gets into more details about this.) In short, free speech has never been absolute to begin with.
The second one is purely based on the rules of the location, real or virtual, of your intended audience. Not a matter of free speech. Even public places might have rules, they simply can't apply viewpoint-based discrimination.
The third one, as you mentioned, has never existed. Not ever, not anywhere. When you act, even through speech alone, there are consequences. People might approve, people might disagree, and they are free to speak their reaction within the same limitations you have to abide by.
They hide this implicit third point as they pretend that opposite speech is an attempt to silence them. Funny enough, by their own standard , they shouldn't be allowed to speak a lot of their opinions since a ton of their speech is reactionary, if not downright antagonistic. (I'm always having fun thinking about applying their ideas to themselves.) Their hypocritical selves won't understand that of course, but replying to someone is not "silencing speech", it's "adding speech".
(An example is the possible reversal of Roe v Wade. The conservatives "Justices" are criticizing the 1973 decision, saying it was wrongly decided. That's an attempt to censor the seven Justices who wrote and approved it at the time. By their standards, not ours.)
Winning a debate - or having a debate for that matter - is not censorship, it's the exchange of ideas that they pretend they're in favor of.
Right, they just want the fighting to stay civil.
None of that barbaric s***ing all over the place (like they did on Jan 6th, literally) and making the whole place uncomfortable for everyone.
Here’s the deal, I’m just going to ask you flat out, because we’re in the middle of this and this is something we could potentially resolve – do you want your lawyer here or do you want to just figure this out?
Both, I don't see why these would be mutually exclusive choices.
Don't let yourself be trapped by false choices.
And if they insist, then choose lawyer. Always.
Better stay in the dark for a little longer than walk into an obvious trap.
Why do they resist?
I see nothing in that study that explains why corpses "resist arrest". Or how. Because stupid me always thought that dead people committing violence was only in the realm of zombie movies. Which are fiction in case you're confused. :D
Stupid Poe's law.
Wasn’t actually trying to pick on you. It was meant to be funny.
I took it that way, no offense taken.
It just didn't communicate properly apparently. :)
Whoever called you a troll didn't read the mood properly.
Still, thanks for the additional details. I'm always interested in lore and myths. Makes for great material for RPG sessions.
What a complete disaster, proposed by clueless bureaucrats who have been told how ridiculous this proposal would be and still decided to push forward with it.
From what I've seen with bills in other domains (e.g. copyright, computer security), being told how ridiculous a proposal is seems like an incentive for them to push it forward.
You tell them "it's a stupid proposal", they hear "I double-dog dare you".
Thanks for the precision. I have so many conspiracies to keep track of that I forget the exact names of the demons involved.
I grant you a Qookie for your help. :)
With over 700,000 police officers and roughly 10 million arrests every year, that is the norm.
It is not the norm when constant abuse of force goes unpunished. We're headed in the right direction now that video cameras are in the hands of nearly everybody, showing clear evidence that it is an ongoing issue.
But the denial from every level of authority allowed that behavior to thrive until then, and resistance to change is still very high.
Until it is made clear that use of force is a last resort by systematically punishing abuse, you cannot say that it is out of the norm.
Also, more fundamentally, how does boasting about the number of officers and arrests show in any way that force is not used in excess? How many were peaceful arrests when not met with resistance? How many of these arrests are legitimate? How many actually led to convictions?
It's even going to be difficult to quote any credible numbers to answer my questions here given how cops easily write "resisting arrest" even when not met with resistance. They are on camera yelling "stop resisting" at a corpse, so I will take any statistics with a truckload of salt.
"Because it's unconstitutional" should be enough a reason for anyone to not like this.
Shortening copyright terms is definitely a good idea. Doing it on a whim, expressing it very publicly as retaliation against a company and carving that out explicitly into your bill is the constitutional issue.
It cannot pass (or cannot stand if it miraculously passes) and it's a petty revenge for a company that did speak out against some republican BS, which they only rarely do. So, it's a violation of 1st amendment and of an original clause of the Constitution. If you "like this", you're just digging the grave for any of your rights.
even though some of the language in the bill suggests that it requires companies to operate in Texas
Ignoring the first amendment issues, how could this be legal by any standard? Seriously, what is their legal basis? Or is that simply another "novel" idea like offering bounties to track abortions?
But democrats are Satan worshippers. So, after Biden took office, he asked his master to send the email to Twitter back in time so Trump could be banned before Biden took office. Along with brainwashing the Twitter execs so they would ignore their usual behavior of denying such requests.
All to foil Trump's very-stable-genius plan to keep the White House through his perfect, eloquent and totally-not-calling-for-violence tweets.
Have any of you been on a ride-along or even talked to a police officer about their job?
I answered that in a previous post, but my answer is yes. I have close friends in the police and we discussed their job multiple times. I know that training involves several good lessons, and they haven't received "warrior training" to make them into paranoid murder machines, but we know such training exists. And should be purged out of the system. In particular, one of them explained to me that his training involved using physical force (including guns) as a last resort, not as SOP, and he's still alive today after 15+ years of service (which sounds like a miracle if we go by your view of the world). This should be the norm.
My daughter in law is half Asian, but identified as mixed race.
I don't understand the "but" here. Unless the other half is also Asian.
Cops see both the victim and the perpetrators’ of crime so there is an “us vs. them” mentality, but not the one you’ve imagined.
Not sure about "most of them", but many cops have proven that "us vs them" is "cops vs everyone else". Not "innocents vs criminals" as you seem to imply.
There have been numerous reports of innocents being violently arrested (or worse), or non-violent criminals being treated like raging serial killers. Being killed over an allegedly fake $20 bill is definitely overkill (in the most literal sense of the word) and has luckily been judged as such. Being killed for legally owning a gun is even worse. Being killed for failing a game of "Simon says" is way too stupid, but no less tragic. (Note that, of those three examples, none the victim was convicted of a crime at the time. And two had no criminal history at all. Also, one of these victims was white, which didn't save him. As a joke, one can argue that cops have no bias: they hate everyone equally.) And the list goes on.
These are not accidents, but results of bad training emphasizing the cop's power, authority and survival over any concern of safety for and communication with the public.
And even if they make it through all that; somewhere, somehow, sometime in the next 25 to 30 years of their career they might make a mistake that costs them or someone else their life.
Accident and mistakes are understandable.
The training as described in the article doesn't lead to "mistakes". It leads to the intentional and constant use of violence against people regardless of their guilt. And death is inevitable when abuse of violence is the norm.
Most of us here understand that. Too many cops are trained to antagonize the public at large. Most of us here don't hate all cops, we hate the antagonistic training many of them receive.
The training you describe sounds good on paper, but
1. how much time and accent is put on the positive aspects such as de-escalation and bias training? Also, is there any guarantee the cops actually pay attention to these?
2. is that followed by a "warrior training" that basically negates everything good that could be learned in the training you described?
Sadly, this is barely an exaggeration.
Qualified Immunity is actually used in recruitment ads as a perk of the job.
The copyright industry is not content with helping to push through the worst copyright law in recent memory, but even at this late stage is trying to make it more unbalanced. Also notable is the almost complete absence of any input from members of the public during this process, or any serious attempt to protect their fundamental rights – a selfishness that is so typical of the copyright world.
This has been their MO for decades now.
Pushing for stricter regulations, pushing back against any right in favor of the public (e.g. fair use, copyright limited duration) and ignoring due process as much as possible (e.g DMCA's not-so-safe harbor, private agreements).
All of this with the philosophy of "when offered a finger, grab the whole arm".
They have already demonstrated that they will never be satisfied, so how about pushing back against their efforts? I'm not surprised that this wouldn't happen in a country that has officially recognized bribes as a form of "free speech" like the US did, but I'm surprised it still works in other so many other countries as well.
This is an ongoing issue with the system as a whole.
It is treated as a game and "winning" is more important than "justice" or "truth". And it is the same as framing people, regardless of their guilt.
Judges need to take Brady violations more seriously, and issue sanctions against every single prosecutor in every single instance this happens. It's not just about dismissing a case, it's about punishing the violation of constitutional rights. With increasing penalties as the offense is repeated.
Only this way will the culture of "winning" be abandoned. Eventually. Otherwise, as long as they are allowed to play games with the legal system, they will continue.
they’d wake to a home invasion and have every right to shoot anyone breaking in, at least in any stand your ground state
Not even that much. We're talking "castle doctrine" here, which is even more widespread. And slightly more justified.
"Stand your ground" basically expands "castle doctrine" to the public space, which is absolutely horrifying.