deathgrips

Haven't we been doing that ever since Covid19 got serious?

>US did eventually get over slavery

"Get over" is a funny way to describe a war that was bloodier for the United States than WWII was for any Allied power. Please don't lump everyone in with the southern states.

Cops are just regular people on a power trip. Soldiers work in far more dangerous situations and have better trigger discipline. In Afghanistan, plenty of times soldiers cannot engage an enemy of military age holding an assault rifle until that enemy aims at the American soldiers. Cops are unprofessional and have no good excuses for their behavior. If soldiers are tried according to the UCMJ for violating rules of engagement, cops should certainly be tried for murder.

If you think that crushing a man's neck was a mistake, how many minutes of crushing his neck would turn that mistake into intentional murder? If you think those three policemen guarding the killer were also bad apples, how many policemen would have to stand guard for it to be a systemic issue? If it's not a good time to protest police murders, when should we?

No, but he lives in one.

This is the Sistine chapel of shitposts. It's miraculous.

The NSA wasn't the first agency to not follow the laws as written. In America no one acts like they care about the rule of law unless it impacts their personal lives.

>Vegetables all week and maybe on Sunday a roast probably fowl of some sort.

That's not a balanced diet.

It's better to have weapons but never need to use them than to need weapons but not have them.

Clearly an attack of flies from 30 years ago is more important: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23345173#23346304

The problem with this sort of thinking is that we don't live in a bubble. Even if we don't study nuclear weapons or biological engineering, our enemies will.

>Given that mood disorders can be due to some underlying conflict within the person's psyche

Couldn't be further from the truth. I know where you're going with this and I think we are in agreement on the majority of mental illnesses (as the brain's best response to stress), but mood disorders are in a different category entirely. Mood disorders and schizophrenia do not respond to therapy. They are never cured or recovered from. All you can do is manage the symptoms.

Do you have a better, moral way to reduce war fatalities?

The point I was making is that right now a one-time cure seems impossible. If you think it's doable, please come up with some evidence for it.

Hey buddy, I'm not a Republican :) Normal, smart people with all sorts of beliefs, backgrounds, and affiliations can disagree with you.

>Daily medication, which must be taken without fail in order to have a normal life, is a liability. It can be lost, stolen, or missed. It must be obtained on a regular basis, and carried around on trips.

I doubt these are a real problem for people who have a modicum of conscientiousness.

>A one-time, permanent cure is clearly superior

If you think that big bad pharma companies are keeping people from taking one-time cures for depression, by all means come up with a one-time cure on your own. How do you think one pill can create a permanent structural change in the brain that makes the just-so changes necessary to cure depression forever?

Hold on... do you know what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is about? Do you know what protections it gives to companies and what happens if you're treated like a publisher?

>Something that republicans selectively forget

ok... Go tell it to a Republican then.

I don't think you should use Twitter or Facebook anyways if you're concerned about the free flow of information. They censor stuff and try to make walled gardens. I'm not sure what the good alternatives are... I've heard of confederated Twitter and Facebook clones but they all suffer from losing out on network effects.

If 4 companies control the internet, having the government restrain from censoring them doesn't fix the problem. What do you think we should do? I'm at a loss here.

I was calling out the partisan perspective on this ("the federal government only does bad things because Trump is bad"). Call me whatever you want but I don't think the world revolves around Trump. Most people in the federal government just keep doing their jobs as usual and he doesn't have the interest or competence to interfere.

>Hell, half of the 2016 campaign was about jailing the other candidate . . .

That's not what we're talking about. People (who don't actually care about free speech in principle) are saying that this is a free speech violation in principle (legally, it is sound). The FCC might attempt to treat social media companies like newspapers. This is not a big deal. Bad orange man has not censored newspapers. Your tweets are safe.

Believe it or not posting the first amendment isn't a unique message that no one has heard before. I'm not sure why it's relevant here. Of course the government is upset about something. We pass laws to fix problems. If we see no problem, we don't pass a law.

The White House wants the FCC to treat certain social media companies as if they were newspapers. That's it. Do you think there is a first amendment issue with how the government is treating newspapers right now?

>The president gets to tweet things that would get you, a non-president, quickly banned from Twitter.

This is exactly why Twitter is an editor.

> the federal government is going to actually censor Twitter on his order

Wrong. They will instruct the FCC to treat Twitter like a newspaper.

Yes, and?

As long as those sites curate according to their transparent terms of use these rules wouldn't apply to them.

I don't buy this. Both sides have been calling for regulation ever since Russians used Twitter and Facebook to meddle in the 2016 election. These are unaccountable companies with unparalleled influence on our elections. If they influence which lawmakers get chosen, they should have to follow minimum standards of conduct.

Twitter already arbitrarily approves, edits, and removes content. It seems like he wants the FCC to treat them like a publisher.

If you don't like it, speak on another platform that doesn't edit and censor user content.

I don't buy this. If Clinton had won, she would have went after Facebook with tough regulations over Russians using that platform to influence the election. Both parties see Twitter and Facebook as a problem because they change the power landscape.

If you want to know what rules newspapers follow, ask a journalist about their laws and ethics rules and ask a lawyer about publisher rules. I can't give legal advice.

Yes, they are an unaccountable private platform that influence public elections.

And Twitter is not politically biased? At least we vote for government officials. None of us vote for the Twitter mods who censor mainstream political discourse.

Hahaha political censorship is so funny hahaha

Twitter is being threatened because they are arbitrarily censoring people.