pii

I think we might end up with counties mandating the teaching of some pretty abhorrent things if we did that

Oh TIL. Thanks

If you end up successful, pls motivate people to move off of cryptos that will cook the planet.

Thanks!

-- my kids

Searching already isn't idempotent

~Read:~ Misread:

Yes, censorship. The kind like every conservative space I've ever known, online or offline, engages in.

Also no not exclusively censorship, there are many parts to that definition.

Yeah I can't say I agree with your friends if that's indeed what they meant. The first amendment is incredibly important. So is the jurisprudence around what it means.

I have a suspicion that there might be a communication barrier somewhere between you and your friends. I'm a bit out on a limb here, so forgive my presumptions if they're off base. I mean no offense.

It's possible that your friends have learned that, when talking to you, 'free speech' is only worth defending when it's offensive, neo-nazi style speech. Then, without making explicit the change in vocabulary usage, they run with it -- ending up in a bad spot where they're saying get rid of 1st Amendment. There's no winners in this story, just unfortunate misunderstandings.

Again, disregard if this is nonsense. I've been witness to similar disagreements in the past, so I'm offering my 2c since I think you're making the good faith effort to represent, even while exasperated, the views of your friends.

I am thankful that you took the time to enumerate that you don't share neo-nazi ideology. I think that right now, it makes a bigger difference than it has in the past to state it out loud.

For reference: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

The FBI disagrees with you quite a bit on whether neo-nazis & co are a problem.

This is why I insist so much. This is why so many on the left insist so much on this particular test. Pretending the problem isn't a problem is a thing that is actively causing harm to the country.

Well no not at the outset, but we know fb, to follow this example, pays a small army of moderators. I suspect that has some kind of measurable effect.

Definition of fascism

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Hey, I'm willing to have that discussion, sure. I am accepting the challenge to accept the rules of engagement you dictated.

Are you willing to accept the challenge of accepting the rules of engagement I put forth - Acknowledge that neo-nazis are a problem, briefly state why?

---

I think the GME stuff is a bit nuts, personally. I found the whole thing entertaining, but I find it hard to believe that most participants won't be hurt in some way in the long run. I'm not sure how much small time investors understand that. Optimistically, maybe this is a collective learning experience that does minimal harm to a large number of people, and we all come away from the experience with a better idea of how the stock market works. Maybe then we can make better informed electoral decisions? Feels a bit too optimistic, but hey.

Better than meme stocks vs hedge funds, imo, would be to have a working system for accountability and enforcement at the SEC- been lacking for decades, from what I understand.

-------

Societal damage caused by data breaches. Idk, it's a bit large as a topic. Do I like that a bunch of personal data just got dumped? Not the biggest fan, no. I wouldn't want it to happen to me, certainly.

I do think it's useful to have the data there to show how much the platform is for hate and organizing around hate. It seems like there should be a better way to expose this kind of thing.

----

I'd be surprised if you also engage in a genuine discussion on your own terms.

I love surprises, but I've been on the internet long enough not to expect them.

"I won't acknowledge that neo-nazis are a problem"

Sorry, did I misunderstand you?

I think you might want to listen to them more closely, I can't answer on their behalf.

If, by chance, they're anything like me, then I agree that there's giant categories of prohibited speech that should remain so. Lying about medicine, slander, libel, incitement to violence to name a few.

Genuinely, I want to find common ground with people who don't say anyone who isn't a neo-nazi is ALL THE WAY LEFT AND A DANGEROUS PERSON

Woe is me, the man who knows best how to govern but just won't ever be given the chance

What rights, specifically? The right to invite violence against protected classes? Oh right that's not a right

"I don't care whether the government allows someone to lie to me about the contents of my medicine"

"friends on the left opposed to free speech" is your willful misunderstanding of the issue

I've never seen anyone not use MTBI as a horoscope. I'm inclined to believe there's high likelihood that the measurements will be misused, even if it were measuring useful.

oh no i just recycled one :(

:-\ approximately 0% of global commerce happens in crypto. criminal activity of a variety of kinds is an above average use case for crypto

... ????

Policy can help, good stories can do a lot of work too

Bad analogy. Ban private property when people move on to robbing, then it's just sharing

Extinction

It seems like you might be missing part of this discussion: with widespread environmental collapse as described -- irreversible decline -- humanity faces extinction, regardless of the number of jobs in the economy.

I find myself agreeing with you and at the same time thinking that your position is absurd. Let me try to put this into words. I might be missing parts of your point.

If we measure out the cost of avoiding total environmental collapse - which also implies human extinction - and we put a finite number on it, we've said 'the survival of human life on earth is worth this much and not more'.

It's really hard for me to get my head around the idea that we would find a dollar value that has any meaning that would properly describe the limit of how much humans value their own survival. I wouldn't know where to start, what to measure, or what to exclude. I'd personally be loath to excluding anything, as a fan of existence.

I'm not convinced I'm right to think putting a dollar value on existence is folly -- but I can't conceptualize what it would mean.

Are you doing the reflexive disagreement thing?

"Astronomical" is the cost of putting ecosystems on an irreversible, downward spiral.

The french royal family would like to have a word

Is it the ability for the one person who makes it this big to buy their way out of following the law that's appealing?

For me, I like that this amount of wealth depends on exploiting people who aren't as good as I am. It makes me feel like I am winning.