People have been anti-abortion since antiquity. The pro-life movement we know today was concocted by Republican operative Paul Weyrich (co-founder of the Heritage Foundation): https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-ri...
6,141 karma · joined November 8, 2014
I guess I would say, I'm not sure what the basis of your critique is. I guess if you want to sit back and watch a more centrist permacomputing organization push those values without you doing anything, that doesn't seem like a fair ask. If you do want to do something, you could probably make your own website/etc. "Please tailor your activism to my aesthetics/politics" is kinda self-centered.
Anyone reading here can see all the points you let stand, from anything about reductio ad absurdum, to drug laws, to the intransigence of the right. Are we to the part of the thread where you just say things that are clearly untrue and hope no one has a memory longer than 5 seconds?
> That's a little rich, given all of your posts above are absolutely steeped in schoolyard insults. Do personal attacks somehow not count if they're directed at a third party? Is CF not a person to you?
In the same way I don't think a libertarian fortune cookie program is a person, I don't recognize Friedersdorf's personhood, no. I will crush his weird body like a dry snack and consume him for energy and pleasure, such is my appraisal of his full and total worth and consideration.
> This is the problem with your posts in a nutshell: all rhetorical flourishes, no substance
Of the two of us, I'm the only one who's cited 3rd party sources and Friedersdorf himself.
I think if you're honest, you'll admit you're envious that I bring both style and substance. Not everyone can be great, Friedersdorf is a prime example of this, and I think he and others like him should take at least a minute to consider what a burden it is for people like me to shoulder the envy of the world.
You have no way of knowing this.
> your arguments are poor
You've yet to refute any of my arguments, focusing only on optics.
> your tone hostile
I call it like I see it, in good faith. If you're offended, feel free to engage on the substance. Or you can make any real changes on your end contingent on meaningless tone changes on mine, but that would put you in the same basket as Friedersdorf, Thomas, et al: unwilling to engage in conversation and good faith debate.
> It was very recently that Bill Clinton was signing in "welfare reform" and the Defence [sic] of Marriage Act, and minorities were told to shut up
That was over 30 years ago. Remember that one time we elected the first Black president, ran the first woman candidate for president, elected the first Black woman vice-president? Remember that one time we put the first Black woman on the bench? Remember that one time we got marriage rights for the LGBTQ community? Remember that one time we pushed for years to decriminalize and legalize cannabis and spare thousands and thousands of Black men meaningless prison sentences? Remember when we pushed through sentencing reform? Remember all our efforts to reform the immigration and asylum systems? Etc. etc. etc. If this is your summation of the benefits Democrats have had on minority populations since and including the Clinton era you are woefully ignorant.
> Nah, dude. Politics is lifestyle brand to you, and online toxicity is your form of cathartic self-expression.
Of the two of us, only you have resorted to personal attacks. Every accusation is a confession.
I don't think he has bad intent. I'm just saying his idiocy is so rampantly virulent anyone who reads one of his articles should be treated for brain damage; like Typhoid Mary he should be banned from his chosen profession in the interest of public sanitation; anyone who really believes ignorance is bliss should spend an evening with Friedersdorf's catalog and wake up the next morning happier for it.
> Friedersdorf has expressed his thoughts on drug laws elsewhere, and they are consistent with his other beliefs, in that he thinks drug laws as a form of regulation do not really work.
Our correspondence has regrettably required me to ingest Friedersdorf's oeuvre of articles on the war on drugs. You're right, he doesn't think it's effective, and he doesn't think the collateral is worth it. I agree! But he doesn't think we should put drug dealers in prison, which is nutso. He also doesn't have any plan for the additional treatment that would be required, which is irresponsible.
Let's imagine a world where tobacco is illegal, like cocaine. Some libertarian somewhere is like "hey, imagine a world where we don't terrorize an entire continent in service of proscribing tobacco; how do we get there?" And the answer, unbelievably, is that you decriminalize usage, treat users, and punish sellers. That is this regime. But Friedersdorf prefers merely to whine about the grotesqueness of it all. He's getting what he wants! Can't he see this is the entree? (Narrator voice: "No, he cannot".)
> Protected classes do not exist in Europe
You've been wrong about this for maybe 16 years or so: https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/workforce-and-hr-suppor...
> and yet where specific characteristics are enumerated, 'age' is one of them.
"birth date" is not "age".
> [libertarians] tend to believe people will consume drugs no matter what
Legalization advocates argue constantly equate relatively small numbers of users with huge numbers of users. Cannabis use has skyrocketed since legalization: https://www.addictiongroup.org/resources/marijuana-use-stati.... Imagine the effect cocaine legalization would have on a society that couldn't even handle Four Loco. Again the kind of rattling skull brilliance we get from the right.
I'd also love to hear a libertarian explain how we're gonna pay for all the treatment that'll be required, given that we won't have any taxes on anyone under their regime. Wait, no I wouldn't, I need to hang onto the few functioning brain cells I have left.
> There is not a person on Earth who's ever been convinced to turn their politics around by being called a moron over and over again.
Hey, I believe all people deserve love and respect, no matter their intelligence level. Friedersdorf clearly didn't find his calling, but that's OK! Maybe he could do better as a prompt engineer or something.
In seriousness, Friedersdorf isn't in conversation with anyone. Most people on the right are Clarence Thomases: they've made up their mind and they're not changing it. They are not in conversation with us; they're not looking to be convinced by us, they're not open-minded; they're not acting in good faith; they're in the town square solely to trumpet their ideas, not to hear ours. Again I don't think in Friedersdorf's case this is malign intent. I just don't think he has the mental flexibility to conceive of the world any other way.
> An effective politics requires a willingness to understand other viewpoints
I couldn't disagree more. Most viewpoints are pretty bad. Ideally you educate/persuade people out of them, but at some point you're fighting. I don't think in a million years I'll ever convince Friedersdorf or most libertarians they're wrong. My hope is I convince passersby that the ideology is bankrupt and foolish, a playpen for small minds with small dreams.
> I want to turn moderates towards my politics and build a lasting coalition to secure my rights
Vote Democrat. Leftists, MAGA, conservatives, libertarians, they all want to strip your rights in service of their weirdo ideology. Simple as that. Or, decide we're too rude and shamble into the gulag. Whatever I guess.
No, but I don't say something like "I don't know about that, MBP M3 launched in 22 and its pretty cool" in response to "I can't think of a major technology product invented in the last, say 5 years, that actually served to fulfill a need that I had."
This stuff is iterative, which is fine--even good! But the valuations and hype are "we invented a new thing", and that's grift bullshit.
I have given Friedersdorf's article and subject more attention than he did:
> Of course, although the law may reduce smoking, it won’t actually yield a smoke-free generation any more than Prohibition yielded a gin-free generation. Black markets for cigarettes will expand. Many people will buy them, even if they’re unregulated and potentially more dangerous than legal cigarettes (and end up enriching criminals).
Addressed: Friedersdorf fails to address similar arguments against drug laws. In particular, this is an argument against all laws, which is reductio ad absurdum, and the type of faux intellectualism we've come to expect from the right.
> The law’s design raises equal-protection concerns too. At first, it will affect only people ages 17 and younger.
Addressed: not an equal protection concern as it applies to vendors, not buyers, and "birth date" isn't a protected class. This is the kind of lazy "dunk" the right loves ("oh I thought you haaaaaated discrimination, what hypocrites!"), albeit in cozy-writer-sweater Atlantic form. Friedersdorf is the one lowering our discourse here, not I.
> It will violate the liberal principle that although the state may initiate force to stop an adult from harming others, it should not do so to stop an adult from harming themselves.
Addressed: Friedersdorf fails to address similar arguments against drugs, requiring seat belt laws, etc. In this case, it would be "the state has a vested interest in its people being healthy", which the UK discovered when they had practically no healthy men in the wake of WW2 and birthed the NHS. This is the kind of historical ignorance we've learned to expect from the right.
> There is inherent dignity in making choices and living with the consequences
Addressed: there is no dignity in suffering/dying from what tobacco and vapes do to you.
> As I see it, the conviviality that cocktails, wine, and beer add to meals and social life is worth the health risks, whereas the costs of smoking cigarettes far outweigh the benefits.
Addressed: Friedersdorf fails to address similar arguments against drugs. In this case, all drugs aren't created equal, i.e. tobacco isn't comparable to alcohol. Alcohol contributes to ~178k deaths/yr in the US. Tobacco contributes to over 490k/yr, 2.75x. Secondhand smoke exposure causes 1.2 million premature deaths annually worldwide. In 2021 alone, exposure to second-hand smoke was linked to nearly 8.45m years of healthy life lost in children worldwide due to respiratory infections and tuberculosis. Why should children suffer the consequences of their parents' decisions here?
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/c...
https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/tobacco/adult_s...
https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/public-health-education...
https://europeanlung.org/en/news-and-blog/children-lose-8-45...
> Although a majority of U.K. citizens support the smoking ban, more may come around to Hockney’s position if, as I suspect, the paternalists in Parliament are emboldened rather than satiated by their ban on cigarettes, and expand their ambitions to a broader array of unhealthy behavior. I’d hate to bet on what exactly they might attempt to control next.
Addressed: Friedersdorf fails to address similar arguments against drug laws. In this case, it's a slippery slope fallacy. Actually, this article is something of a menagerie of fallacies.
---
Maybe you think I'm rude, dismissive, arrogant, privileged even. Maybe I am. But that's nothing against a guy wielding his vast influence to try and addict, sicken, and kill untold numbers of people. I am 1000% over conservatives/MAGA/libertarians fucking literally everything up with their idiotic takes and hot trash ideologies. Take my example. Save your ire for people doing actual bad things.
You said "would you claim" and I said no based on US statutes and case laws as a US citizen. You can't discriminate against a non-protected class, for example ignorant HN posters. You'd probably get a different answer from a bona fide European. Friedersdorf is also American, so eat that one too.
> In thirty years, if this law stands as is, we'll have forty-seven year old men and women who cannot legally buy a product, and forty-eight year old men and women who can.
No one cares even a little about this. Of course the best thing to do is to kick anyone selling tobacco or vapes to anyone of any age into a lake of fire. This is the next best thing.
> AI exists, therefore you get to deepen the partisan divide by lazily dismissing CF as a 'token conservative', when he's not even talking about a left-right issue?
Friedersdorf is trying to outflank the libs while simultaneously painting the UK as some sort of fascist hellscape. It's craven and pathetic. The nicest thing I can do is deploy hyperbole.
This isn't the same thing; race is a protected class; "birth year" isn't. Also is this a flourish: "This is a terrible argument"??? I welcome you to the land of polemics and hyperbole, united against the soul-eating bland vomit of AI compositions.
Here's something else that's argument-destroying: the ban doesn't apply to the people born after 2009, it applies to anyone trying to sell them tobacco or vapes. This falls under the aegis of regulation (can't sell heroin either) and applies to all sellers regardless of race, age, sex, etc, so it's not even discriminatory. Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet.
But finally, Friedersdorf talks about the dignity of making choices and dealing with the consequences. I'd love to see him make this argument to people dying slowly of COPD and emphysema, people with mouth, throat, and lung cancer, people who will die before meeting their grandkids, etc. Just, chilling detachment from humanity.
It's more the case that Gen Z is giving up on having the homes that Millennials want in the places they want them. They're buying fixer uppers, moving into 3rd/4th tier cities, etc. They also have some benefits millennials didn't have: inheritances and way less student loan debt.
You can look at this in a number of ways, but it's clear we didn't solve the problem of "so you want to live in NYC/LA/Chicago/SF/Seattle".
https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/how-gen-z-...
So much of advancement has gotten rid of jobs you can sort of half-ass, while you put most of your energy into something that advances culture in the off hours. Think of like, photographers and school photos or weddings, poets and copy editing, etc.
This is what happens when one thinks "tech=good" no matter what. I'm not saying we need something like a huge investigation to see if something will disrupt the fragile ecosystem of artists, but I'm not not saying it.
Anyway, I think we agree on the main points. One thing I'd add is Netanyahu's corruption trial--which he'll almost certainly lose--was only suspended because of Israel's ongoing military operations, which are winding down. He's got a pattern of spinning military operations up to continue to defer this though (this isn't just me talking, this is former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert) so I mean, look for that to keep happening.
I'm so tired of this garbage. The Guardian had to have read this Times of Israel article because the details it reports (ex: the date) aren't included in the report, but they leave out the part where the commander is under investigation by the Military Police? What a joke.
No, what EI wrote is: "Hundreds of Israelis were likely killed by Israel itself in “Hannibal” targeting incidents as well as unintentional crossfire."
This is wrong, and also propaganda. Why would they do this? Think for yourself, question authority.
> We ordinary human beings are not capable of such depravity, only the extremists are.
There aren't enough extremists to do the truly abhorrent things. They need help from others, so they use tools like propaganda and coercion. Think for yourself, question authority.
I'm not here to defend the Likud party. I think what Israel prosecuted in the wake of the October 7th attacks was a genocide. But I do the next thing, which is learn the history and analyze a variety of sources with different incentives to get as clear a picture as possible, in hopes of not becoming a useful idiot for evil. Not everyone can do this, I understand. But I agree with 90% of what you wrote--you're clearly pretty smart and motivated, so I think you can.
Also apply think for yourself, question authority to me! Why would I do this? Am I a Zionist psyop? Am I virtue signaling on what I think is an influential message board? Am I ignoring my wife in a vain attempt at making the world a better place, which is something like the shadow of narcissism or the fear of irrelevancy?
But isn't this pretty fungible? Like it can't be that all the people genetically predisposed to like high density neighborhoods and biking to the grocery store happen to be in the Netherlands.
The Hannibal Directive is supposed to prevent kidnappings, in a similar vein as "the US does not negotiate with terrorists". Say what you want about it, but it's not borne from Israel's callousness towards its own people, it's borne from facing truly monstrous enemies.
Finally, and I know the odds of this succeeding are real low, I implore you to do what you can to get out of what seems like a Marxist/Leninist Israel/Palestine absolutist hole you're in. I don't know you or your background, and I don't know if my read here is correct. But sourcing "electronicintifada" and "wsws" (straight up propaganda outlet and ML rag) or claiming elsewhere that Biden/Democrats would have supported Israel's attack on Iran (not even Israel thinks this, and the evidence is they didn't do it under Biden) gives me some pretty clear signals. I want to be clear: these people are nuts. MLs are nuts. Pro-Pali antisemites are nuts. (Again if I'm right) you're in the equivalent of thinking ivermectin will get you laid right now, completely off the deep end. Timothy Leary said it best: think for yourself, question authority. Don't be a useful idiot for these evil people.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
I implore ANYONE about to write a similar post to avail themselves of the search bar to not Groundhog Day us. Someone should do a "History of HNers railing ignorantly about Mozilla and Firefox" coffee table book; would link the buy page in my group chats.