Some people fail to see policy as violence. They view it as civilized, even when its outcomes are suffering and death. They then view resistance to that policy as violence. You’re supposed to do things the “right way” and change the policy by voting like a civilized person. Conveniently, that doesn’t work, so you’re always forced into being the bad guy if you have a soul and want to stop hurting people.
Obviously not, the poor spec choices led to the price. Perhaps the company claiming to focus on ethics could focus on ethics instead of bezel-less design and 120 Hz screens, thus bringing it in at a lower price point. Feel free to critique me now
I’ve only ever seen the legal “right to be forgotten” concept applied to search engines and news publications. I think the closest to this was in Delhi high court where they ruled to have some social media “news” posts deleted. But that’s far different from having platforms erase things you’ve said and may regret. And then add yet another degree of separation for using a semi-private form of communication in email.
I am not speaking authoritatively so anyone who knows more than me jump right in.
Well that’s about Trump, not politicians broadly. But if we assume that’s the issue across the board, is the problem that politicians are able to represent us with their words, or that politicians are able to escape consequences for their words?
Elaborate on why politicians should be exempt
Yes, this includes ultraviolet light.
Why? Does it also include x-rays? That’s only one step further on the electromagnetic spectrum. Seems arbitrary to stop at ultraviolet waves! Does that mean thin sheets of steel aren’t opaque? Or is the term “opaque”, without any modifiers attached, colloquially used to describe whether something permits visible light through?
For the record, they’re not opaque. The original article actually says they work better if you close your eyes.
Tangential nitpick—the phrase “evolutionary pressure response” evokes the idea that there is an intelligent or benevolent purpose behind the process. When a beneficial trait randomly occurs and gets passed on, that is a release from evolutionary pressure, not a response to it.
I’m not claiming to have evidence backing me up, but I fear the idea that addiction is under your control may be higher among the educated populace may not be affected by being more highly educated because they’re bought into meritocracy and the idea of improving oneself. ‘Just do this’ platitudes etc. from the crowd that believes everything works like a controlled lab experiment they did in AP Bio
It is a perfectly coherent argument that Boeing is more harmful than Lowes despite both being $120 billion megacorporations. You have a point, but there are real functional differences between the actions a person or a corporation or a country takes. Make another pro-nihilist argument, I will listen, discount the validity of viewing the world through any other lens and I will not give a shit
I do not think it is a coherent argument to lean on history to discount the effects of brand new surveillance and killing tools. Drones are supposed to be able to limit casualties with precise strikes but the disconnect between the operator and the victims is so great that it makes the act of killing easier, evidenced by so many botched attacks during Bush and Obama administrations. Which way does the pendulum swing? We don’t have historians and declassified documents and longitudinal studies to rely on for an answer. Maybe our children’s children can fill us in, but in the meantime I actually feel very confident claiming that expensive advanced weaponry widens the gap in power between oppressor and oppressed. The fact that practically nobody from the US died while the Misdle East cowered is evidence of this; I think Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge actually reinforce this claim as well. Clashes and bloodshed and genocide are ancient—but I think the systemic rounding up and genocide of millions in just 4 years is quite difficult to accomplish without fairly modern weaponry. There are only a handful of genocides that even compare on a numbers scale and only one I can think of is pre military industrial complex. I don’t see how today’s superiority through guided missile, drone, etc. systems differ from yesteryear’s superiority via small arms in that regard.
I’m sure it would be interesting to talk to you in some other set of circumstances—I think you have twice now made a salient point about how seemingly innocent industries end up fueling these genocides, just now and elsewhere regarding steel manufacturing—but under these circumstances it’s like pulling teeth. You are arguing that advanced weaponry does not increase bloodshed, which I disagree with, and you are avoiding any discussion of responsibility, which I think is a pretty natural impulse within all of us but it really fucking matters. I hope at least that you enjoyed interpreting everyone’s critiques in the worst possible light.
Yeah, that’s a pretty pointless response on the Uyghur front and I don’t think we’re making progress on the “how easily is the genocide carried out” front so let’s just drop everything else and hone in here:
China’s comprehensive surveillance system is what makes tracking the movements of Uyghurs possible. It is what has made detaining and killing them so easy. So the people that made that system possible are responsible. Please explain how actually it’s nobody’s fault because things just happen.
It is pretty radical to argue that a small contingent of Zionist Israelis would be successfully eradicating the people of Palestine if both sides just had sticks, so the U.S. should just keep manufacturing and selling MK-84 bombs. Or we can talk about how absurd a claim it is that the arms industry is looking out for the little guy—you know, the group that can pay for less of their product? Thank god for arms manufacturers—that’s probably what Uyghurs think when they’re stopped at checkpoints by military police
So do you work for a defense contractor or do you just have great respect for the act of killing in general
Not only does closing the lid do just that, it works the exact way you’d think it would. The lid is not effective at preventing viral spread. Not the only cause for concern when it comes to things exiting the toilet bowl.