SenAnder

The claim was that "we figured out how to handle Nazis 80 years ago", where the "we" that did the handling would be considered modern-day Nazis, and it is to people holding a mild version of their opinions that the modern "handling" is being applied.

I don't think I said anything that disagrees with your post. Except for one detail - the comic you linked writes (emphasis mine):

"It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door."

But as I think you'll agree, the problem is that "the people listening" often don't show the door (that's why hateful accounts gain such large followings), and it's up to the corporate owners to do the deplatforming.

But I agree it's better PR to describe it as "people" doing it. The manufacturing of consent necessary to maintain our democracy is much easier if we trick "the people listening" into thinking they are doing it, instead of it being done to them by 3rd parties.

You're right, credit also goes to the Russians that had just finished starving Ukraine into submission (and would go on to implement a system of brutal repression that killed tens of millions and consigned eastern Europe to dictatorships for decades), and the British colonial empire.

In other words, trying to claim any side of WWII had modern liberal anti-racist sensibilities is farcical, and that such claims so often meet no resistance only speaks to our utter historical ignorance.

> The manufacturer argued that this was because of malpractice by these workshops, and that they should be serviced by them instead of third parties.

So libel on top of computer sabotage.

But remember - Malthusianism was debunked, and the planet can support many more people. As long as you never think about environmentalism and population size at the same time - the only way to hold two conflicting ideas at once. I wonder if there's a succinct term for it..

The email cites a tweet url as the reason for the ban, but the tweet itself has since been deleted. What was it?

Throughout the piece he cautions against abandoning friends, principles, and of striving for the inner circle for its own sake, and for greed. It is a very uncharitable reading to then recast this caution and awareness as a general prohibition against entering the inner ring for any purpose. Nothing in the piece gave me the impression he is cautioning against, e.g., an upstart entrepreneur entering various inner rings to grow his sales, or a general vying for political power to help his country. It is the inverse he warns of - a general staying silent, or becoming a yes-man against his better judgement, to gain social standing at the expense of his troops.

You're right, he spends few words extolling the usefulness of the inner ring [1] - presumably he thought it obvious, especially to his audience at King's College. Probably seeing greed and sycophancy as bigger dangers than lack of ambition or too much sincerity, he naturally warned against the former. Like an old captain warning against storms instead of giving encouraging words about how many fish there are to catch. I wouldn't begrudge him that.

[1] Few, but not none: It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.

It's very in line with the current zeitgeist to dismiss a thoughtful piece on the perils of compromising personal values and friendships for the sake of social climbing, as a mere defense of classism. Gone from public discussion are virtue, integrity, loyalty. There is only class struggle.

Did you get the impression he meant labour organizers or ambitious but honest entrepreneurs when he spoke of scoundrels? Or, given his emphasis on friendship, did he mean those who would sell-out their co-workers? Do you really mean to defend the "financial upward mobility" that comes from, say, withholding the health hazards of a product?

So it is your claim that Blacks still lie about their race on the census, in significant numbers, because they are afraid of... what, exactly? Except in rare cases, race is obvious on sight, so I don't see what they would gain by giving a different answer on the census.

Of course you presumably have a good source backing up your claim that Blacks are afraid to identify their race on the census, and trustworthy alternate statistics counting the racial makeup of the US?

> What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device?

Include the unlock key in the box the device was sold in, and in Apple's database. Tech-savvy users can, possessing the key, change it. Tech-unsavvy users can behave the same as they have now, even if they lost the key, as long as they didn't change it. So long as they don't carry the key with the device, all the anti-theft remains.

The freedom-respecting solution is literally trivial. The only reason it is not implemented is because Apple likes owning your devices.