Readit News logoReadit News
tvier commented on German government comes out against Chat Control   xcancel.com/paddi_hansen/... · Posted by u/SolonIslandus
AnthonyMouse · 5 months ago
Threats aren't illegal because of their information content, they're effectively evidence of intent to commit violence. It's like confessing to a crime. You're being punished for the crime, not for the admission, but you admitting to it sure makes it easier to prove.
tvier · 5 months ago
You and the parent both made good points. In Germany a swastika might be seen as more of a direct threat of specific action than other places. That makes it more sensible to classify as a threat.
tvier commented on German government comes out against Chat Control   xcancel.com/paddi_hansen/... · Posted by u/SolonIslandus
FirmwareBurner · 5 months ago
>I wish it was this simple

Why isn't it simple?

>but that strategy has been tried many times before and it always ends in violence

Then don't import people of divergent/adversarial cultures who aren't willing to integrate into your country and are only there to extract the monetary benefits of your society without conforming to the laws, customs, social contracts, cultures and obligations that society requires.

If you only accept people who gladly accept your culture and values, there is no violence. History has proven this yet it seems like uncharted territory to some people. "you mean putting the fox in the hen house ends in violence?!"

>First off, who is "our"? Is it the majority?

It's the amalgamation of culture, history, collection of laws, constitution, 'Volk Geist' and the voice of the democratic majority of the citizens of the country where you choose to emigrate that compose the concept of "our country", which you need to accept when you choose move somewhere, or GTFO. You can't move to a different culture and expect them to accept your alien values that might go against theirs. Their values hold precedence over yours.

> That leaves every minority group vulnerable

No it doesn't, this is just an empty appeal to emotional manipulation.

In most western democracies, minorities and legal immigrants have the same human rights and equal access to healthcare, education, justice system, etc as everyone else so they're not "more vulnerable" just because they can't wear a burka in public. To receive those rights, it requires them to accept and conform to the laws and values of the society they chose to move to, like the law of not wearing burkas for example, or the law to tolerate LGBT people. Not wearing burkas in public is not making the wearer more vulnerable. On the contrary, foreigners wearing burkas in public makes the locals feel uncomfortable and vulnerable in their own country.

>For example, some of the historical opinions of my fairly recent ancestors: All Jewish people should be dead;

You see, since all your arguments are just empty appeals to emotional manipulation or moving the goalposts from laws banning burkas to somehow being similar to genocide of jews, I will stop the conversation here since you're clearly arguing in bad faith. I've already covered all your points with arguments, there's nothing more I can add. If you want to accept them fine, if not, also fine. Good day.

tvier · 5 months ago
> No it doesn't, this is just an empty appeal to emotional manipulation.

I intended for that to be a direct reference to the concept of "tyranny of the majority".

> You see, since all your arguments are just empty appeals to emotional manipulation ... you're clearly arguing in bad faith

Man, I really did my best. Why'd you have to be mean?

tvier commented on Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant   nationalpost.com/opinion/... · Posted by u/walterbell
stinkbeetle · 5 months ago
I think countries with division and low social trust and cohesion necessarily require increasingly authoritarian measures from the government to hold them together. Increasing dependence on government for their own security will reduce peoples' ability to question and change the government.

One might think it's all part of the plan. Real freedom and self determination has been a fleeting blink of an eye in the history of humanity, and only achieved by a few peoples. Those at the top have always considered it a violation of their right to rule, and they've never stopped working to take back what they believe was stolen from them. Sadly I think they're going to eventually win, and the light will go out.

tvier · 5 months ago
The power given to the masses vs the ruling class is always in flux. The light may go out, but it won't be forever.

I'm also hopeful that the requirement for a well educated workforce will nudge societies towards more freedom than the historical norm.

tvier commented on German government comes out against Chat Control   xcancel.com/paddi_hansen/... · Posted by u/SolonIslandus
FirmwareBurner · 5 months ago
>Is this actually a concern? AFAICT this isn't happening

How do you know it isn't happening if their faces and bodies are always covered? Did you undress all of them to check?

> it's just something that could theoretically happen

Welcome to the real world where a lot of laws are made to cover things that could happen precisely so that when they DO happen, there's a law ready to enforce. Why? Because if something CAN happen, it WILL definitely happen.

> but I'm pretty hesitant to force my cultural values on people.

I'm not. You come to my house, you follow my rules, you come to our country you follow our values, simple. If you want to live in the west and benefit from the western system that brings you free education, healthcare, justice, financial opportunities, welfare, freedom of speech, then you must follow the western values that built that system you came here to enjoy. Otherwise if you want to live like in Afghanistan, then go live in Afghanistan, not in our country.

Otherwise if you allow one flavor of imported oppressive cultures out of suicidal empathy, just so you don't "force your values on other people", then why not allow domestic oppressive cultures too, like fascism, nazism, communism, antisemitism, sexism, homofobia, etc? Why open your doors and only tolerate the foreign imported ones?

>It hasn't gone well historically.

Then you need to go back to the schools you went to and ask for a refund, because historically it definitely has. The federal government forced their values over the confederacy via war in 1865 and the US of today is better off from it. Allied powers forced their values over the Axis in WW2 and the world was better off from it. So many historic examples why you're wrong.

tvier · 5 months ago
> I'm not. You come to my house, you follow my rules, you come to our country you follow our values, simple

I wish it was this simple, so badly, but that strategy has been tried many times before and it always ends in violence. First off, who is "our"? Is it the majority? That leaves every minority group vulnerable. Is it the most powerful (it usually is)? That leave everyone screwed. It all seems great, until you end up as a target. This is why we base our systems of rights to more universal, and not based on our ethnicity.

For example, some of the historical opinions of my fairly recent ancestors: All Jewish people should be dead; ditto for Homo/Tran-sexual; also the Irish; black people aren't humans; the middle east should be owned by Western Europeans, and if not, designed to minimize the chances of them forming successful nations; same for Africa

Seeing this as bad assumes you think hurting other people is bad, which I do. If you don't agree, then there isn't much to discuss, you are entirely correct withing your framework

> Otherwise if you allow one flavor of imported oppressive culture so you don't ":force yurt values on other people" why not allow domestic oppressive cultures too, like fascism? Why only tolerate imported ones?

Where I'm from being a Nazi is completely legal. We tolerate both. There is still an ongoing discussion about where to draw the line, but the standards are always higher than wearing clothes that you don't like. Germany may not tolerate Nazi's for obvious historical reasons.

I would recommend "They Thought They Were Free" for a more of a look into this. It's an interesting book.

Edit: This is not true, almost all laws are passed to deal with a situation that is already occurring.

> Welcome to the real world where a lot of laws are made to cover things that could happen precisely so that when they do happen, there's a law ready to enforce.

tvier commented on German government comes out against Chat Control   xcancel.com/paddi_hansen/... · Posted by u/SolonIslandus
FirmwareBurner · 5 months ago
>The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law,

With this type of logic, all laws authoritarian then, like speeding laws, theft laws, and anything else that prevents you from doing what you want to do becomes authoritarian.

tvier · 5 months ago
No, all those things harm other people.

The ban on swastikas would be considered authoritarian because it's only purpose is to limit expression.

Considering Germany's recent history though, it seems like a reasonable response.

tvier commented on German government comes out against Chat Control   xcancel.com/paddi_hansen/... · Posted by u/SolonIslandus
FirmwareBurner · 5 months ago
>Controlling how people dress sounds pretty authoritarian to me

You're making it sound like under these rules, the government can force you to wear GAP jeans instead of Levi Strauss, when in reality the government has always enforced laws on public attire in public to preserve decency and security.

Otherwise it would be tyrannical since I'm not allowed to go naked in public or wearing the loincloths and Tribal Penis Gourd of my ancestors near schools.

Similarly, burkas are a security risk in public since people could hide and smuggle weapons under that, or there could be men hiding underneath using it to enter female only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms, or so much more nefarious cases.

Then on top of that, you also have the cultural and optics aspect, that burkas are a symbol of a backwards oppressive culture that's incompatible with western progressive liberal and feminist values that the west cherishes or at least pretends to.

tvier · 5 months ago
You're throwing a bunch of straw man arguments out, which makes it a lot of work to actually respond to this whole post.

Rights are always on a spectrum with a large amount of grey area.

> burkas are a security risk in public since people could hide and smuggle weapons under that

This is silly. Everyone wears coats in the winter.

> there could be men hiding underneath using it to enter female only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms

Is this actually a concern? AFAICT this isn't happening, it's just something that could theoretically happen, which doesn't make it a reason to decrease people rights. That would be another standard tactic for pushing authoritarian laws.

> Then on top of that, you also have the cultural and optics aspect, that burkas are a symbol of a backwards oppressive culture that's incompatible with western progressive liberal and feminist values that the west cherishes or at least pretends to.

This seems valid, but I'm pretty hesitant to force my cultural values on people. It hasn't gone well historically.

tvier commented on German government comes out against Chat Control   xcancel.com/paddi_hansen/... · Posted by u/SolonIslandus
FirmwareBurner · 5 months ago
The first one is bad indeed, but what's so "authoritarian" about the rest?

>https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v...

Other European countries like Switzerland, also banned full face veils(burqas) in public. Try entering a bank, city hall, school, etc with a balaclava, ski mask or motorcycle helmet see how that goes.

>https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf

Allowing the surveillance of minors if they show signs of radicalization? This to me makes sense under existing child protection laws. If kids are being raised in environments that are harmful to themselves and society, should we just sit by and let them get permanently wrecked till they reach adulthood, over a technicality? The earlier you can catch the issues the better for everyone and the higher the chance you can rescue the child. Existing child protection laws in Germany already allow the state a lot of power to take children away from parents if they're seen as unfit.

>https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf

Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not?

These are common sense viewpoints a lot of Europeans agree with, not authoritarian ones.

tvier · 5 months ago
Controlling how people dress sounds pretty authoritarian to me. The fact that it's currently not acceptable to enter a bank with a covered face would indicate a law banning it in all public locations is not needed.

Taking rights away from people labelled as terrorists is a pretty standard way for governments to control viewpoints. It gives them the power to add any group they don't like to a list, and deport/imprison them with minimal judicial process.

I don't know enough about surveillance of minors to comment on that one.

tvier commented on The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong   derekthompson.org/p/the-a... · Posted by u/rbanffy
talkingtab · 7 months ago
Fish Tank Thinking is where your thinking is so constrained by some artificial walls that you cannot actually ... well actually think. It is the wages stupid. Let me repeat that. It is the wages stupid. What happens when a society is so brain washed that it cannot even consider that if you don't pay people they can't afford housing. Or cars. Or medical care. Or food.

If you actually have some desire to consider the problem rather than discuss how many angels can dance on a pin head, start with considering why "Inflation" is not a measure of anything thing, but rather the sound of one hand clapping. What is the other hand? Wages.

In this country rather than fixing wages we are discussing solutions that make things worse. Let us add tariffs so that people can buy less. Let's create tax incentives that create more housing people cannot afford, with the tax incentives coming out of the pockets of the people who cannot afford that housing.

tvier · 7 months ago
While I 100% agree that there are wage issues, the question with housing is why it's growing faster than general inflation.

House prices seem to be increasing fastest in places with high incomes. This leads me to believe increasing incomes wouldn't solve this particular problem.

tvier commented on The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong   derekthompson.org/p/the-a... · Posted by u/rbanffy
wilkommen · 7 months ago
Monopolistic activity and corporate consolidation are driving up prices in many industries in the United States. Why wouldn't corporate consolidation be a major factor in driving up housing prices, like it is in so many other sectors? I am suspicious of journalists like Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein because their solutions seem to punch down on municipal governments and homeowners instead of punching up at our nation's corporate masters and elite class, who would be much more threatened by effective antitrust action against homebuilders than they would by a movement to deregulate zoning in cities. I am open to the idea that excessively restrictive zoning could be a part of the problem, maybe even a big part. But I am skeptical of anyone who wants to act like excessive regulation is the sole driver of skyrocketing housing prices. It doesn't hold water to me.
tvier · 7 months ago
This opinion sets up corporate consolidation as the cause of all issue in the US. I don't think it makes sense for that to be the null hypothesis that needs to be disproven.

For this specific issue, homebuilding, and construction in general, are very regional businesses. There just aren't a few giant homebuilders controlling the industry across the nation.

There are certainly some antitrust issues with rentals, but they don't seem to be nearly as widespread as the housing issue in general.

I don't think the punching down vs up lense is a particularly effective way to analyz this issue. Nor do I think its easy to figure out who's "down" and who's "up".

tvier commented on Solar power has begun to transform the world’s energy system   newyorker.com/news/annals... · Posted by u/dmazin
silvestrov · 8 months ago
Steel factories cannot shutdown temporarily due to high electricity prices. They need a steady source of electricity.

This needs to be taken into account. I don't know if factories can be made with better insulation so they can "hibernate" somewhat when electricity is expensive.

So they might want to be located in a location with both wind, solar and hydro to ensure a (somewhat) stable price.

Denmark has a lot of wind mills and use hourly pricing for most consumers. This means that the price can vary a lot from hour to hour. 21st of June the price of electricity itself (excl taxes and transmission) was negative 3 cents at 2pm and 18 cents at 8pm. That is a difference of 21 cents over 6 hours.

tvier · 8 months ago
> Steel factories cannot shutdown temporarily due to high electricity prices. They need a steady source of electricity.

This isn't true, there are currently facilities doing exactly this. For example, this steel mill in Ohio.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250215223931/https://gridbeyon...

u/tvier

KarmaCake day108December 31, 2022View Original