>But war, war is something fascists value intensely because the beating heart of fascist ideology is a desire to prove heroic masculinity in the crucible of violent conflict (arising out of deep insecurity, generally). Or as Eco puts it, “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life, but, rather, life is lived for struggle…life is permanent warfare” and as a result, “everyone is educated to become a hero.”2 Being good at war is fundamentally central to fascism in nearly all of its forms – indeed, I’d argue nothing is so central. Consequently, there is real value in showing that fascism is, in fact, bad at war, which it is.
Well, no point in discussing with you anyhow according to your performance in this thread. You're akin to a wrong way driver here: "everyone else is wrong" despite sources being laid out.
We have dozens of pain killers which are not opioid based, what do you mean? From the top of my head NSAIDs can be used, and Metamizole for example is as effective as morphium.
you got nsaids, metamizole, acetoaminophen, duolexitine. And you got a couple of more that work for neuropathic pain. The biggest problem with nsaids is that they cause bleeding and kidney failure, ulcers hence can cause stomach cancer.
Here is a site you can use too see how most pharmaco therapy is lacking.
In my opinion this is just another example of our broken copyright system. That copyright should have expired years ago, so no troll company which happens to resurrect Ataris corpse for the tenth time can pull stuff like this.
But the lobbyism is too strong for a reasonable 15 or 20 year copyright limit.
Why should a country tolerate an information system designed to circumvent the enforcement of the law, no matter how you individually feel about that laws. We boot fraudulent or illegal apps all the time.
What about an app that reports every LEO (not just ICE) around you? What would that accomplish except benefit criminals?
>What about an app that reports every LEO (not just ICE) around you? What would that accomplish except benefit criminals?
Do you think apps like waze should also be illegal? What possible reason would you want location of speed trap except to speed with impunity? Moreover whether it "benefits criminals" is irrelevant here, because the current legal standard is imminent lawless action[1]. Otherwise that would be license to ban all manner of materials, from anarchists cookbook to DRM circumvention tools.
My point was, if speed camera warnings are only for people wanting to break the law how would you explain this site to exist.
https://radars.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/#/
sos it means there has to be at least one other reasons for warning people of speed cameras which is not breaking the law, or do you think the French authorities want you to help break the law there?
I don't know which one but there has to be one right?
As for the US I'd say with a cynical pragmatism it's because they are privatized afaik and thus have a big lobby lol
It's illegal to have navigation in your vehicle tell you there's a camera coming up in France, enforced and punished by high fines (I moved here from NL which has no such law).
> Why should a country tolerate an information system designed to circumvent the enforcement of the law
This is the party line, but in practice ICE is not acting 100% within lines of the law. Unfortunately, it's possible for politicians, and even entire government agencies to lie. The evidence shows that ICE has both failed to enforce the law, and even follow the law themselves. This puts ICEBlock within other crime mapping or offender identifying tools.
What would that accomplish except benefit criminals?
There's an unbounded downside to allowing government too much power, including the power to act unobserved. Empowering criminals also has obvious drawbacks, but they're limited in scope.
"Rules for thee, not for me."
Those sympathetic to the American political right don't get to use that saying anymore, not even ironically. Not because it's offensive, but because they've effectively turned it into a tautology.
Such apps can be forbidden by law, and then this would be quite unambiguous. This is criticizing a company bending over backwards to what the government wants. Not really surprising, since none of these companies supports free speech for the sake of it, but to further its business, but still.
“ bending over backwards” seems to be just an opinion, or collection of opinions…?
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but clearly there has to be some credible argument why opinion X is better than opinion Y (held by company decision makers).
Assuming it’s just automatically better isn’t productive.
Indeed, an opinion held by legal experts, as the title of the submission quite clearly expresses. And on the other hand there is a history of Apple refusing other government requests.
A government agency can tell people whatever it wants, if it doesn't have a legal basis then it has no authority. Unless it doesn't respect the rule of law. It might and probably will follow up its orders with force, but that's still not lawful.
What does that mean? A government agency can ask a company to do something. But unless there is legal force behind the order, it is nothing more than a request and can be ignored. In ambiguous cases the lawyers of each side will decide if they want to go to court over the matter. Eventually either the government will fold or the company will give in to the request. Until then it is a matter of opinion.
Of course the government could also exert other means to pressure the company or simply negotiate. But that's outside of the rule of law.
This doesn’t seem to make sense as a reply. I explained what it means in the second sentence of the prior comment.
You’ve also yet to explain how your comment 3 days ago relates to the comment before that… so there’s no reason for me to go on an unrelated discussion.
Oh, on re-reading your comment I find that I actually agree with you:
> It doesn’t matter if every expert concurred, arguments from authority can not lead to opinion X becoming superior to opinion Y.
> At least not in a logically valid way.
But that's not what happened. What happened is that Apple dropped their argument Y without much fighting, which they previously upheld in face of government pressure.
So no country should tolerate Signal? If you’re someone who believes that ICE is only enforcing real laws and innocent people don’t need to be concerned, please get in touch with my bridge sales department.
Thanks, I stay with Mumble as my VoIP software. At least there I can name my channels and myself as I wish, without being cancelled by a not well thought out SJW word filter.
I do believe it is reasonable to hold repeat offenders. And I hope this law will be upheld when tried. These people do not understand democratic dialogue and so I have no pity for them.
> A Wall Street banker doesn’t have a carbon footprint that much higher than a regular person.
Found the millionaire coping with his excessive consumption.
No really, I don't own a car, don't fly, don't go on cruises, don't go on vacation three times a year any other way, live in a 50 sq m flat without anything but the most basic amenities. And you know why? Because I'm poor, that's why. Like most of Earths population. So don't try to tell me my carbon footprint is the same as Gordon Geckos, it simply can not be true.
