dextralt

So if all those people who hold problematic opinions would go and make their own privately owned website, everyone would be happy?

>Two world wars later and we've decided that maybe Nationalism isn't such a great thing

The states that brought Germany down in both world wars were just as nationalistic at the time. Even the commies brought it back when they needed it the most - and it worked.

Also, since the country in question here is India - without nationalism, they would still be a colony.

not possible anymore. a platform that has reddit-tier moderation policy from the get-go would never gain traction

This is exactly what's going to happen, not just with PWAs but with all websites. The mechanism ("Google Safe Browsing") is in place, precedents are being set, the number of hysterical ideologues who will support that is growing.

But on the bright side, I think if it was Mozilla with 90% of the browser market and not Google, this would've happened already.

The case for freedom of religion has never looked more questionable than it does right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe

Trying to wave away this debate by just shouting “RACIST! NAZI!” contributes nothing meaningful to a debate that is sorely missing from society.

Edit: why is this controversial and the post I'm replying to not? We both advocate the exact same thing: to abolish a founding principle of western civilization because sometimes people die. Hell, there's even a quite large disparity between the number of deaths caused by those two principles - my argument has way more merit.

I'd really love to see why these two cases are totally different and incomparable. Three paragraphs of mental gymnastics or less though, please!

I wholeheartedly agree. Private companies should be free of regulation and be free to do whatever they want, like refusing service to whoever they want - nazis, flat-earthers, homosexuals, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, blacks, etc.

>36.6% Non-Hispanic White

>41.4% Non-Hispanic White

4.8%. that sure makes a world of difference.

I'm wondering if you're implying that there's something wrong with having such a preference though. You have provided some interesting statistics, would you mind if I did so as well?

Oh reeeeeeeeeeally? You didn't think it was "needed"?

>Hate speech in the United States is not regulated due to the robust right to free speech found in the American Constitution.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

It is a very widely accepted notion (among everyone who matters) that ethnostates have no place in the modern world. Hell, it is nearly as universally accepted that the very concept of "ethnicity" is problematic. So why should it not be applied in these cases? Why do some groups deserve their own land, but others don't? Either we all do or nobody does.

>The overwhelming majority of young people (and people overall, though not by nearly the same margin) are left leaning or very left

for some reason that phenomena only manifests itself on heavily moderated platforms.

on unmoderated (chans) or barely moderated (youtube) platforms, you get a much more diversity of thought.

you mean the same things we did to each other throughout our entire history and yet somehow our civilization had advanced past the stone age?

yeah, it is their own fault, lmao.

I suppose you have similar concerns about men occupying the overwhelming majority of physically taxing and hazardous jobs, correct? Obviously, we both know there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, so this is a great injustice that women's representation among miners, construction workers, metalworkers, truckers, heavy machinery operators, fishermen, foresters, waster disposal workers, and so on, is virtually nonexistent.

And of course you find it outrageous that in the entirety of Asia, Africa and Middle East, white people constitute nonexistent percentage of the population, and there are virtually no white men in the positions of power there.

Right?

If you think very carefully about Mozilla, you'll realize that they're controlled opposition on a short leash, with almost the entirety of their revenue coming from Google. Guess nobody should be working there either, huh?

>If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good

I don't believe your definition of "justice" is good, and I don't believe that the people who had attempted to implement your ideology in practice brought any good to the people they've promised that justice to.

'Amazon' is an _English_ translation of a _Greek_ name given to an _Eurasian_ tribe. What claim do _South American_ nations have for it?

I loathe to defend Amazon and ICANN of all the fucking things, but come on now. There are plenty of reasons to shit on these two, but not this nonsense. 'Illegal', lmao.

>a world of equality and universal justice

>resentment and mutual distrust

which of these goals do you think an entity like Goldman Sachs is more likely to pursue?

Sorry, but no. You may be descendant of Eastern European serfs, you still carry the blood guilt.

google 'github meritocracy' TLDR, meritocracy is now considered to be a far-right concept.

- Authoritarian ideologies, such as fascism and communism, have no place in our society and their proponents must be shunned

- People should be judged (i.e. admitted to college or hired) by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin

- Mass import of foreign workforce by corporations is not being done in pursuit of any high-minded ideals but to drive the wages down, and it is not something we must embrace or celebrate

If you agree with any of the above, congratulations -- you're a fascist.

And I don't get that kind of bootlicking mentality.

Google services are (mostly) free. Advertisements come with the territory. As for 'pushing', I'm using the search and youtube daily and I don't even have a google account.

Windows 10 Pro is 200$. In what world is that acceptable to bundle spyware, crapware and advertisements with it?

>And I think it's really bad practice to use scripts that break standard behavior of windows and nothing that should be encouraged to non technical people

"Don't ask questions, just consume the product". Keep enabling that shit, and in a few decades it will be illegal to tinker with your own fucking computer.

>"... is a private company and it is their right to refuse service to anyone"

>"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences"

>"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy"

Nothing is out of the order.

"What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment.Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the "sacred soil of the Fatherland", etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered form. The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions--racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war--which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms,and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action."

George Orwell, "Wells, Hitler, And The World State", 1941.

I also can't help but notice that you fail to mention that Orwell's definition of nationalism in "Notes On Nationalism" is somewhat different than the definition used today:

"By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

Orwell, had he lived today, would be unironically branded as a nazi. And as for his views on communism, oh boy, if he had a twitter account, he'd have a horde of blue checkmarks at his throat every time he had anything to say.

Hell yes I support waterboarding terrorists. There's no way the definition of 'terrorist' will ever change. There's no way it will be ever done to me.

Hell yes I support civil forfeiture with no due process. There's no way it will be ever done to innocent people.

Hell yes I support the executive branch getting more and more power. There's no way someone terrible would ever be the President and use that power.

and now:

Hell yes I support corporations policing free speech. They are on our side! There's no way it will ever be done to me or people I like.

do you get the idea?

Am I a fucking terrorist sympathizer if I speak out against torture and extrajudicial indefinite detention? No. I don't give a shit about them, but whatever I support done to them might be done to me.

Am I a fucking Nazi sympathizer if I speak out against abuse of power by unaccountable private entities? No. I don't give a shit about them, but whatever I support done to them might be done to me.

You must be really excited about the current administration's effort to fight end-to-end encryption then. Can't have them thoughtcriminals spreading their wrongthink¹.

¹ definition is subject to change depending on which entity is currently in power.

>RE "socialism": this isn't intended to be socialism as a religion

It was a poor choice of words to put it in the tagline then, for a number of reasons.

According to the fact that discriminatory hiring and college admission practices are deemed perfectly acceptable. You want some sources on that?

in case you haven't noticed, progressives have long since moved on from the idea of "equality" of races and sexes.

>Diversity is strength

I'd like to point out that it is a notion held by a minuscule % of the population.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/12/in-views-of...

And I believe that the opinion held by majority matters more than the notions held by a minority, however vocal it might be. This is how democracy works, doesn't it?