illuminerdy

Reddit has a bad anti-everything problem.

That place is a cancer.

I haven't used Facebook or Twitter in well over a decade.

Nothing is more freeing than not having to put up with entitled, whiny idiots who think they are the moral authority on pretty much everything in the world. Especially since most of them couldn't accurately point to country that isn't America on a map.

Great. Now I can build my next rig with 4x RTX 3080 and, well...who cares about the rest of the parts?

Also, I hope every GPU miner's fireproof safe fails and all their money burns up.

> "Different socialist and communist communities interpret this differently. The fundamental baseline is no one should starve, no one should be homeless, no one should lack basic medical care -- essentially there should be a baseline safety net for everyone."

Ok, well show me the communist country that lives up to even those ideals and doesn't have an elite ruling class that has privilege and benefits above the working class and poor.

> "I would say yes, authoritarian communism is prone to the outcomes you describe."

Well, yeah. That's pretty much the only type of communism that exists. You can't choose to not live by communism in a communist country. It's by its very nature authoritarian. Because if they were, say, to allow real deviation from that economic and societal system (not the "managed" deviation you see in places like China), their system would quickly fall apart. If today I decided to go and live on a commune in Washington that functions locally under the principles of communism or socialism, I would be able to do so. Nobody could say boo. You can't decide to go and live by the principles of free markets/capitalism (again, real capitalism) in China or any other communist country.

Except none of those people, to my understanding, are communists and none of the countries they lead are communist countries.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a central tenet of communism the equality of outcome for all citizens? So how does having an elite Inner Party (which there always is) that has special privilege (which they always do) translate into equality of outcomes? Last time I checked, no capitalist/free market country promised such a thing. So Trump having billions of dollars doesn't go against the very principle of the U.S. economic or social structure. To the contrary, it aligns precisely with our economic structure.

Most people would be surprised at the number of laws passed decades, if not hundreds of years ago that are still on the books in many states but never enforced. Many aren't even Constitutional due to subsequent jurisprudence. They're just laying there.

I don't think you needed to include "The spam on".

The statement works just as well without it.

I think you need to distinguish between "communist folk" and the people who inevitably end up being in charge in communist governments.

Show me a communist country where the leaders don't profess to be "for the people" but live lives of luxury while "the people" live lives of struggle and servitude.

It's impossible to set a definite standard for when a social media site or other website has become so crucial to the public square that it is set apart from general services.

You could use a multi-prong test like they do for determining whether an entity constitutes a monopoly.

Or you could use the old Justice Stewart's test for obscenity..."I know it when I see it."

But given what we've learned of late about the government influencing social media sites to censor citizens on their platforms, I don't think there's a legitimate argument that certain social media sites are not different from the general internet.

I remember when a well-respected doctor (in his field) started questioning the COVID narrative and Wikipedia let people literally erase him from wiki pages he had been on for years. None of the information on him was false, they just didn't want people using his experience and accomplishments to bolster his credibility.

Saying that Wikipedia is "accurate and reliable" is like saying the corporate media is "trustworthy".

I think the scope and scale makes it different.

Social media has become extremely important to the free and open exchange of ideas between people.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Is what true? I don't think the ACLU actually supported the Nazis in Skokie or their message. But sometimes people miss the forest for the trees with that case. In oder to defend your own rights, you have to defend everyone else's rights too. First they came...

But the ACLU has changed quite a bit since those days it seems. It's my understanding that they no longer take the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" approach to free speech and the free and open exchange of ideas.

Framing it as "support" is extremely disingenuous.

You can defend someone's right to say something offensive without actually being in support or agreement with said statement.

Or, the only thing we learned is that you cannot trust the beaurocrats who call themselves scientists, and the politicians who are all too happy to try and force performative displays in order to gain more control and power over anyone who lacks the critical thinking skills to question them in even the most basic way, such as:

"Hey, that politician/"health official" told me and my family that we can't go to school or work, and we have to wear masks everywhere and stay 6 feet away from everyone. So why do I see those same politicians/"health officials" breaking their own rules, partying with people, unmasked, shoulder to shoulder, as if the so-called "life or death" rules only apply to everyone else?"

Or, how about this question:

"Hey, how come my kids and I can't go to work or school, but Hollywood studios are getting exemptions from those rules to keep filming? Isn't my ability to provide for my family, or my child to learn just as important as Tom Cruise's desire to finish filming Top Gun, or the Academy Awards' desire to put on their vapid showcase of gaudy wealth and unhinged political virtue-signaling?"

On the contrary, we should all forget the "1619 Project".

Well, it's already a well-established principle that, when you take taxpayer money from the government, the government gets to attach conditions to it as they see fit. That's not a violation of any individual rights.

Bullied, trolled - Tell them to get over it.

Harassed - online, tell them to get over it. In person (i.e. someone is actually harassing you in real life), call the police because we already have laws against that.

Doxxed - If someone posts actual protected information, then sue them if you can. If someone just posts public information, then I don't see what the issue is.

Revenge-porned - If someone makes secret recordings of someone without their permission in a situation where that person would reasonably expect privacy, then that should be a crime. If someone makes a sex tape with someone willingly and hands ownership/control of said tape to that person, then you should have to live with the consequences of your actions. Don't make sex tapes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But to be clear, just because we're not talking about government abuse (i.e. violating the First Amendment) doesn't mean that "there's nothing there for speech to be free from." The mob can be just as dangerous as a out of control or abusive government.

First, the right to freedom of speech only enshrines a right which already existed and which the Founders wanted to ensure would be protected to the greatest extent possible. The free and open exchange of ideas in an open society. Because you cannot have open and honest debate without the free and open exchange of ideas.

Second, we have seen recently that, if someone dares say something that a particular group of people don't like, then they had better prepare to be doxxed, deplatformed, harassed, and for people to harass their employer until they are fired from their job. All while those harassers profess that "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences".

Those "consequences" are nothing less than outright intimidation and suppression of the free and open exchange of ideas. And they can be just as damaging as arresting someone and locking them up.

Can you give some examples? Is it actually speech that's being restricted, or actions, or access to certain types of speech/content (e.g. age restrictions)?

Somewhere along the line, we stopped teaching children that everybody doesn't have to agree with you. And now those children have grown into adults who want only those opinions of which they approve to be heard. No free and open society can survive with that kind of thinking.

I can see how their conclusions play out in real life.

One of the common threads I've noticed across many people when trying to explain why defending freedom of speech, and the free and open exchange of ideas in general, is that they're not just defending some "right-wing" person's rights, they're actually defending their own rights. Because the same tactics and rationales that are being used to suppress and silence the "right-wing" (which is comically everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders these days) will eventually be turned around and used to silence and suppress them.

But so many people simple can't wrap their head around it.

The notion is perfectly illustrated by Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

By protecting the rights of everyone, even people you disagree with, you are ultimately protecting your own rights. Anything else is short-sighted and dangerous.

I think trying to limit it to taxes ignores the many other reasons why average Americans are fleeing states like California and New York. Business climate, high crime, low prosecution, homeless issues, etc.

Why would the FBI investigate anything related to the integrity of elections when it doesn't involve a certain Orange Man?

I remember a story a few months ago where a female player (her name was Queen something) posted a video on Twitter showing how she was being "abused" by a misogynistic man who told her to go play a farming simulator because she sucked at Halo or Battlefield or whatever. All the blue checkmarks came out of the woodwork to virtue signal how much the supported her and how brave she was.

The next day, someone posted a video of the very same female player abusing a male player and telling him his penis must be so small because of the way he played.

Crickets from the blue checkmarks.

Another option is to listen to the audio book read by Rob Inglis. He's absolutely amazing in his reading.

I think Dune would be the only other series I might read multiple times like I've done with Lord of the Rings.

Seems like an overreaction. At least based on what articles are saying was the probable cause.

Interesting. Might be good for getting kids into tabletop(?).

I never think about the Bible as a 'book' for some reason. But I've read it more than any other.

The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien.

Don't think I need to explain what it's about at this point. As to what drew me to read it multiple times, that's due to it still being the greatest high fantasy story ever created. And it's a very balanced story. Every character, even the most powerful ones, has their flaws and weaknesses. Every choice has consequences, and could be the undoing of everything that the heroes are working towards.

Man, I love that book.