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 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 have watched many films on the holocaust, and they were quite sad, and tragic.
However, I did not truly understand some of the why until I happened across the German Revolution of 1918–1919 [1] ; organizations, and elites, that played significant roles in the Revolution were the very same that were proscribed with the rise of the Nazis.
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'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.
Since "the government" in this context includes the legislative, and not just the executive branch, of course it can create legislation that decides such things.
However, the question was if nurses are forbidden to strike, and the answer is: no, not in general. What is happening now is that the government forced a contract on them, and continued strikes break that contract.
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 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.
I fly quads recreationally, though I'm far from an expert. I've flown a wide variety of fixed wing and multicopter drones, both payload/filming drones and FPV drones.
Drones that have payload capacity are loud, full stop. This one isn't especially loud as its payload is relatively light.
The comment I believe you're talking about mentions they can be heard from multiple houses away. That isn't quiet by any means.
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.
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.
>Alternatively, we may become an interstellar species and circumvent these problems for an entirely different set.
Don't see it.
The "manned mission to Mars" merchants will sell the dream of that trip for decades to come (they have already backtracked. Which, even when eventually is done, it would be a crude, Apollo-style affair, for a handful of people and equipment, not some sci-fi travel destination.
Anything further, and the hurdles are so many (plus "small" things like the speed of light limit and so on), that the only realistic thing would be "generation ships" going to some unknown place that might or might not have a habitable planet.
And that of course is only feasible with major major leaps in technology which we don't seem to be making, including several "invent a whole new paradigm" style solutions.
Heck, the reality is we haven't even been able to send a manned mission outside of LEO for 49 years now. Heck, basic infrastructure like roads and schools is in ruins, and people imagine being able to fund space exploration. Rather, bet on more decline.
People want to leave Earth because "it's bounded", but at the same time think that our capacity for space travel/inventions/bearing manufacturing costs/etc is somehow "unbounded", or at least easily handles us being an interplanetary species.
Space has at most cubed resources relative to time (we can only explore a sphere assuming non arbitrary FTL travel). Population growth is exponential.
Even with space as a resource the math doesn't work out.
You'd just keep the pyramid scheme running for a few hundred years with the 1% elite inhabiting earth, and the current cheap workforce of the third world inhabiting the astroid belt.
It's important to be realistic. We are not an interstellar species, we build infrastructure for cars and we can't even afford the maintenance bill on it.
Even in space we could not afford an exponential growth. You would want to pace yourself before you can afford to reach other stars, then other galaxies. Eventually there will be nowhere to run.
You do realise there are probably more habitable planets than there are human beings right now? You seem to have no concept of how big the universe is.
I'm not saying we are going to populate the entire universe at any point, but your statement here is just ridiculous.
>You do realise there are probably more habitable planets than there are human beings right now?
Which is neither here, nor there. Speed of light, and around thousands of required technologies missing, many of those huge leaps over what's available today, make their existance (assuming we even knew where they are) moot.
And even if they were known what? You'll carry 8-10 billion people there for trips taking 10s or 100s of years with light speed? Or we're talking about some "generation ship" with some handful of humanity selected for it?
And how would that help the rest?
We haven't send a man out of LEO for 50 years, might as well forget those "habitable planets".
> You do realise there are probably more habitable planets than there are human beings right now?
I don't realise that, for one. It certainly isn't part of the shared knowledge or common sense, so I don't think the way you have expressed yourself is fair.
I thought we had only discovered a relatively small number of planets, most of which were relatively large gas giant types, and that claims to large numbers were based on speculation. That knowledge could be very much out of date by now. What is the current state of knowledge?
What is the definition of a habitable planet? If it's just "an earth-size planet that is so close to a stable star", I don't think it's really fair to call that habitable. If there's no life on the planet already, it would be a great deal of effort to make it ready for human habitation, wouldn't it? There will be rock but no soil, so we need to start with simple life forms for a long time before we can get human food to grow. Is there any reason to suppose that a lifeless planet would have a breathable atmosphere? Or if the planet is Venusian or in a snowball phase, we probably couldn't do much on a useful timescale. Again, I don't actually know what the state of knowledge in that field is, so I'm betraying my ignorance rather than trying some kind of "gotcha".
If we only need one planet at a time, I guess it's okay. But if we're talking about exponential growth, then we will need an exponential number of planets. We will "use up" the second one much faster than the first, and the third much faster than the second, and we'll probably need the fifth when we're starting the fourth and so on. There will come a time when we either need to slow down, or the difference between some technical and practical definition of "habitable planet" becomes relevant.
Even with a constant entropy production rate there would be nowhere to run eventually. The Universe is a closed system.
So you would always want to be thermodynamically efficient, which appears to also produce lifelike behavior. "Any system built to have nonzero memory has to be predictive to operate at maximal energetic efficiency."
There are quite a few reasons to be pessimistic about space travel to new worlds. Never say never, but astronomy is no job for the impatient. It certainly won't help with our more immediate problems.
Look at the other poor planets in our solar system and those beyond the solar system are solidly beyond our reach.
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.
You seem to be projecting onto me what you think I'm projecting. ;)
I didn't call it a stronghold. There are certain subreddits that were aligned. The donald before it moved, conspiracy, conservative, etc. You ever see the greatawakening subreddit where they were acting like Trump was giving secret messages in speeches and calling for executions?
If that exists on a site with leftism as a major demographic, what does it look like elsewhere? You're making my point for me.
BTW, one of the longest-running mods of conspiracy that finally got banned has admitted that they are a Russian national. Not that this means anything, but it's interesting that a subreddit could be dominated by an individual with such strong beliefs about politics in another country.
To give context, I'm very much what some people would mock as an "enlightened centrist" (I felt so sad when I realized this is bad?). I think much of the "hateful mistinformation" is actually more aligned torwards the left. I can't read a thread about pitbulls or my home state without people frothing at the mouth and acting like my dog should be put down today or that my state is an ISIS stronghold.
But consitutionally? If someone is being an asshole on your property, it's your right to kick them off.
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 think the number of discussions that are off-limits should be very small and platforms should be much much more transparent.
However, if allowing certain discussions means also allowing other discussions, I'm not broken up if sites like reddit were to ban a subreddit like conspiracy or at least try to reshape it to something much more objective.
If the owners a property decide certain views are abhorrent, that's their right, I can't think of a valid moral or legal complaint against that - it is their property. If we lack competition that is an issue of market competitiveness more than propaganda.
You're correct in that it's really a market capture problem as things are. But the popular proposals that try to co-opt Big Tech into the censorship game are popular precisely because of that market capture - it's a way to make it extensive without putting the government in charge of it explicitly.
So we can't really treat these two as completely separate right now. Indeed, if those schemes are allowed to go forward, the next thing you'll hear is that we can't break Facebook etc up, because doing so will limit how effectively some information can be suppressed. The more power is concentrated, the more it seeks to sustain that state of affairs, and the better it is at that - so why would we hand those companies so much power when they already are a major problem?
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!
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.
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!)