NoTeslaThrow

"ROI? Return on Investment?"

"No, Radio on the Internet."

Even a cursory glance at the legal code should convince you that "free speech" is a convenient fantasy mostly used to hoodwink liberals into supporting the KKK. Why not call it a "speech" issue?

Well, sure. But it sure as hell aint't diplomacy and peace that built this society we live in now. Or at least, not a good sort of peace. That's especially true for the US and Canada. What went on before europeans made an appearance doesn't change this observation. I'll leave defending that to the people whose world we destroyed.

Consent is important

Really? I am not a lawyer, but from what I recall this would fall squarely under defamatory speech.

I'm quite the introvert. I just am flummoxed why you would build around something so much less substantial than equitable distribution of resources, which necessarily implies our bothering each other to enforce.

If you want to be left alone above all else, you can always turn into ted kaczynski.

But reaping the benefits of society comes with costs. one of them is accepting annoying neighbors and other social contracts that might not specifically cater to your desires.

odd choice to be forced to make, but I would prefer being electrocuted to burning my face off.

Isn't this a wittgensteinian problem? ie how you interpret language is inherently subjective. But regardless of what language you use, or how you intend to bind the terms to reality semantically, apriori truth is still apriori truth. It's the only basis of objective "truth" we have access to. Throwing that out the window feels like tossing the baby out with the bath water.

Imo, this just comes down to the fact that most people would consider "standard" to be a floating signifier. I don't think the idea that mathematical concepts changing definitions when you change axioms is at all controversial in itself.

Back? This country was built on taking and retaining land with violence. We just call it "property" now and act like everyone thinks this is fine. we now refer to human sacrifices as "essential workers" and "terrorists". Same fundamental dynamic tho—we just replaced the gods with the economy; but either way, people gotta die to keep it running.

Well we have plenty of records of people who did pay attention. (American?) Society as a whole isn't very good at focusing on what will care about in the future.

Anyway, it's not easy to turn oral history into speculation about the literal past. There's a reason such work focuses so much on geology! It's likely oral traditions encode a lot more literal history than we realize, but the ability to verify or interpret this as "history" in the western sense of "historiography" may be fundamentally impossible for large swathes of it.

I mean you could, but we're inherently dependent on each other. I'm not sure I see the value of building a society around personal liberty. It wouldn't make much of a society, would it?

> Anyone who thinks Google or Chrome is evil has no idea the scope or scale of what/where evil is.

There are degrees of evil. I mean sure they're not murdering babies, but they're definitely also not pro-humanity.

I had the same reaction. I think I'm just used to seeing headlines oversell their point.