Maybe that was a while ago, because almost all of the personality tests that I've had to take are, question: "I enjoy the challenge of collaborating with my coworkers" answer: strongly agree, slightly agree, neither agree nor disagree, slightly disagree, strongly agree
With the questions all being like that with different wording, "I find myself getting frustrated in high stress situations.", "I enjoy high stress situations because they are exciting.", "Being around a lot of people all the time can be annoying", etc.
Over and over and over again for about fifteen minutes.
I think it's 'dead' in comparison to the way it used to be used.
I was actually just looking for RSS feeds for some of the top news sites, and a lot of them have specialized RSS feeds for a certain category but not for the entire site. (I had to eventually settle for Newsweek)
I genuinely don't know, so this is an honest question. Nowadays, outside of podcast feeds, what's the incentive for media outlets to provide RSS feeds? Isn't it just a fringe assortment of techies still using it? (To be clear, I'm part of that fringe.)
I think that's really easy to believe in - when you're not at risk in any kind of way.
I mean, if you're a white guy, what do you give a fuck about someone turning America into a white ethnostate? Sure, theoretically, it's morally bad, but you're not really going to be directly affected.
If you're not trans, being characterized as a groomer pedophile has no effect at all to you.
I think it's easy to take a stand in favor of free speech when speech is only speech, but that's a remarkably naive and gullible viewpoint to have. Do you think white supremacists that lynch black people don't use hate speech beforehand and talk about exterminating non-whites beforehand?
"But that's violence. That's diferent.", you might say. How do you think these people meet each other and collaborate with each other and normalize this kind of behavior? Through 'free speech'.
Man, I hate doing this, but im going to use identity politics because its fun to use it against the people pushing this shenanigans.
So as someone who is Asian, who thought that claiming the lab leak theory to be racist against Asians to be incredibly stupid, and as someone who has been on the receiving end of multiple insults related to COVID and possibly one violent interaction, I am still a Free Speech Absolutist.
My family knows what its like to live in a world where speech is censored, not by the government, but by everyone you know for saying something out of line with the official narrative. I despise the fact that the current left seems to be all ok with living in a authoritative world where everyone is expected to socially push the current narrative and suppress dissent. The worst part is that since its not directly coming from the Govt, its used as an excuse to continue to push these anti-liberal agendas.
I don't care if I'm on the receiving end of threats or actual violence because of free speech. Giving up your rights due to being scared is cowardice and allows actual authoritarians to take over your mind.
> I don't care if I'm on the receiving end of threats or actual violence because of free speech. Giving up your rights due to being scared is cowardice and allows actual authoritarians to take over your mind.
And assuming that people of color should be the victims of violence because you, personally, aren't concerned with violence is selfish and narcissistic.
The other side of that coin (which is far more prevalent historically) is that speech restrictions are used to stifle dissent and repress minority groups. I.e. illegalizing anti-war or minority rights speech.
You make the mistake of assuming that those in power will only be preventing speech you agree with rather than muzzling you.
Honestly, I would prefer that over the ambiguity. I'd much rather live in a state in America where being a Nazi is illegal with the side effect of knowing, unequivocally, that I need to leave another state because my existence is in peril.
So are you saying we should outlaw letting people gather and say disagreeable/racist things privately among each other? Boy that escalated pretty quickly. What's next? Should we outlaw people thinking racist and hateful things as well?
Actually there are a lot of black supremacists etc, people who absolutely hate me and want my whole race to die and I'll still listen to their podcasts and stuff just because it's something interesting. People who aren't scared to be labelled extreme are usually saying the interesting stuff that needs to be said. You should stop taking everything so serious and just go with the flow
> people who absolutely hate me and want my whole race to die
What's really interesting about that is I couldn't find one bit of audio that came anywhere near what you're characterizing. Even in the one episode of Underground Dialogue Podcast where they're talking about black secession.
I typed in 'white supremacist podcast'. It took a while to actually get a link because I'm pretty sure Google is censoring the results. (Go, Google!) But here's what I listened to:
I'm obviously just skimming through it but already just from the show notes we have anti-semitsm ('Jewish sex-trafficking money').
Hitting in random points. 22 mins in, nothing. 64 mins "KAnye was right about the jews. tell all black people" 1:51 nothing 3:12 a brief mention of a podcast that I looked up that talks about 'anti-White brainwashing' 4:19 'Columbus Jewish news'
Let's compare that with Hotep because Hoteps in general, should be theoretically the most anti-white podcast out of all the ones you mentioned.
First hit: nothing
58 mins: nothing
1h39: mysogyny but within the context of a 'nigga with a pussy'
2h17m - talking about Andrew Tate and Greta Thurnberg; possibly a mysogony subtext
2h43m - anti-Police
> I think it's easy to take a stand in favor of free speech when speech is only speech, but that's a remarkably naive and gullible viewpoint to have. Do you think white supremacists that lynch black people don't use hate speech beforehand and talk about exterminating non-whites beforehand?
What's naïve is thinking that they would stop the lynching if someone told them they weren't allowed to talk about it. It would make zero difference.
> "But that's violence. That's diferent.", you might say. How do you think these people meet each other and collaborate with each other and normalize this kind of behavior? Through 'free speech'.
Conspiracy to commit crimes is illegal for a number of reasons and covers this problem adequately without needing to infringe on speech per se. But you should also remember that it is not words that kill people, it is the actual violence that follows that kills people, and that kind of violence is already illegal.
Plus, racist speech is how we find out who the racists are. David Duke basically outed himself as a Klan member by making racist political speeches in public, for example.
The problem is that these hate movements aren't necessarily linearly correlated to the level of free speech. If there is less free speech, then indirect speech, euphemisms, and dog whistles are used. It doesn't stop it. Once any rule is made, it can be worked around. Even worse, the additional rules often anger and energize these people due to a perceived feeling of persecution. And lastly, the rules always get misinterpreted and abused to shut down significant amounts of speech that should not have been censored.
Unless you can prove with certainty that free speech causes an increase in violence and death, then it's better to default to openness.
The KKK and white supremacists marched in their clown parades regularly for decades and we laughed at them. Is it a coincidence that their movements grew significantly with the amplification of messages against them and social media censorship against them. Various right wing figures used this as leverage to increase their virulence.
Back in the 80s and 90s, we laughed at the KKK. Anyone remember Bustin' Loose with Richard Pryor? Or when Michael Moore got gay black cheerleaders to cheer on a KKK march in some town?
At some point, people decided that we should fear the KKK and white supremacists, and that gave the racists an enormous amount of power even though their numbers are dwindling. I think the world was better when we mocked them and belittled them.
But now the strategy is to call anyone a racist, which is self-defeating and something I vehemently disagree with.
And here's [1] an example of the moment you can see a person double down and becoming even more racist due to being attacked. I don't really like Scott but he didn't strike me as a white supremacist until this comment by him.
I mean, that's a pretty common narrative. "They were being ATTACKED for being racist so they became MORE RACIST." And?
There's this black guy. They did this documentary on him a while back. He went and befriended KKK members and skinheads. Through his individual action, he was able to get people away from white nationalism. White liberals absolutely love him. They point at him as an example of what all people of color should aspire to. Turning hate to friendship through personal interaction.
(Speaking generally, not to you specifically.) The thing is, as a person of color, the onus isn't on me to convert your racist grandparent or uncle from being a racist piece of shit. Fuck them. That puts me in the subordinate position of having to placate a white supremacist and that, in of itself, is fucking white supremacy. Fuck. That.
When you see videos like this, imagine if something similar was made about black people? If I were white, I would be extremely offended if anyone made a video like this about me.
I think the story of Daryl Davis is exactly the point of free speech. If it were up to the fascist liberals, those KKK people would be cancelled into oblivion. But Daryl Davis reached out and talked to them, and through the power of his love, changed hundreds of people. He didn't build up more divisions, he broke them down. This is what Free Speech is all about.
> The thing is, as a person of color, the onus isn't on me to convert your racist grandparent or uncle from being a racist piece of shit. Fuck them. That puts me in the subordinate position of having to placate a white supremacist and that, in of itself, is fucking white supremacy. Fuck. That.
> Is it a coincidence that their movements grew significantly with the amplification of messages against them and social media censorship against them. Various right wing figures used this as leverage to increase their virulence.
Or did we just have a black president and a political party that leaned into white supremacy dog whistles?
I think it's the opposite. It's the people who are at the greatest risk of violence who have the most to fear from censorship. If you are anywhere near powerful enough to commit genocide, you are also powerful enough to ensure that it's your opponents and not you who are censored.
Consider what kind of books are being banned from American libraries. It's books portraying trans and gender-nonconforming people in a positive or neutral light, not books calling them "groomer pedophiles". It's books telling American history from the perspective of America's exploited minorities, not books calling for ethnic genocide or pretending the US actually upheld the principles of freedom and equality it was allegedly founded on.
To support censorship, especially state censorship, is to support the powerful in imposing their version of the truth on everyone else.
I mean, if banning Nazi'ism is considered 'state censorship' then yes, I wholeheartedly support state censorship. If that's 'imposing someone's truth on everyone else', so be it.
Even if you don't value free speech per se, you should recognize the danger of allowing the most powerful to decide what is true or acceptable. You could well find yourself on the opposite side of state censorship. There is no guarantee that Nazis will not again take advantage of a population that is used to follow the state's lead, this time to silence you, or that another group won't do the same. Normalizing such deference to the state is inherently dangerous, and a gift to whoever aspires to take control of it in the future.
It's frankly incomprehensible to me how anyone who doesn't support totalitarianism can look at history (or present day) and dare to normalize any amount of state control over speech.
> There is no guarantee that Nazis will not again take advantage of a population that is used to follow the state's lead, this time to silence you, or that another group won't do the same.
And that's fine. This argument keeps being brought up over and over again, but if this happened, nothing would please more because it would remove the ambiguity from the situation.
> It's frankly incomprehensible to me how anyone who doesn't support totalitarianism can look at history (or present day) and dare to normalize any amount of state control over speech.
I mean, the fact that you can look at The Holocaust or Jim Crow and think that any amount of tolerance should be shown to Nazi'ism or white supremacy is beyond incomprehensible to me. But that's the issue.
For a certain type of person, any legislation curtailing 'free speech', even if that is done to stamp out white supremacy is an existential threat to freedom in America.
But to people of color, allowing white supremacists to spout intolerance publicly with no repercussions (other than maybe getting 'cancelled') is an existential threat to THEIR freedom in America.
I don’t think this is considering the full picture. It would be great if we could magically eliminate nazi ideology, but is the best way to do that really to hand the government extra censorship powers? Do you think the government is going to use that power to benefit the minority groups that need defending, or to advance their own agenda? Even if you have the right elected officials in place to censor things the way you want, what if the next round of elections gives that power to the other team?
Dan Carlin had a great example of this when there was lots of strife between MAGA and antifa groups. Lots of antifa people were calling for censorship of nazi speech while carrying communist flags. Carlin pointed out that if you give the government the power to eliminate that far-right speech, your far-left speech is next to the chopping block.
now I might be naive, but I would tend to think that if I hated someone, for whatever reason, and he lobbied the biggest organized crime syndicate(government) to restrict my ability to talk about my hatred with anyone else, it might just be that I choose to talk with my fists instead of lips.
Surely you cannot think restricting speech helps you in any way? Do you think it helps turn those that dislike you on your side?
> Surely you cannot think restricting speech helps you in any way? Do you think it helps turn those that dislike you on your side?
I think it removes the ambiguity. If you find laws that prohibit someone from being a literal Nazi disagreeable and would choose not to live in a state because of it because of 'free speech', that's fine. Just as I'd be fine for not living in Florida or Mississippi for the inverse of that reason.
>Didn't this happen in 9/11 with one of the planes?
No, they scrambled F-16's I believe and were given orders to engage compromised aircraft, but they didn't shoot any down. 3 of the 4 planes crashed into buildings and 1 crashed in a field as the passengers attempted to retain control of the aircraft.
It's interesting this would pop up, because I was just thinking yesterday about how the holes of cans used to be a different shape. I believe it was mid to late 90's. They switched over to a larger hole.
I was telling my mom and she was telling me that it didn't happen. I was hoping they were going to cover this in the video but no such luck. This did actually happen, right?
Interestingly, I would have said that narrow mouth cans were available well into the 2000s in Australia. I distinctly remember seeing the first wide mouth cans replacing them. It's possible that because I remember them being introduced that they feel much newer than they are, though.
Yes at least in Germany you used to open cans by a lever and pull a small opening open by ripping a piece of the lid away. That usually left quite sharp edges, which I guess is why they changed the design.
Litter. And pull tab litter ending up slicing peoples' feet open. And idiots opening their beveragem dropping the pull tab inside, drinking it and slicing up their throat. No, they don't go all the way down, but they'll play hell with the soft tissue in the back of your mouth.
"Nurishment" cans, often found in the foreign foods aisle, still use the old style ring pull.
I'd guess it's because they are intended to be drunk like a soda can, but packaged in a tinned-sweetcorn style can. Those cans are unpressurized, use steel, and have significantly thicker walls (= more material cost)
I do wonder why they never decided to switch over? Perhaps they consider it part of the brand? Perhaps they still run the same canning factory for decades and without expanding sales don't see a need to retool? Perhaps the 2 pence per 1.50 product are insignificant when they have quite a market niche.
I remember grownups telling me how terrible the change was, because any dust on the tab now flipped downward and fell into the can, whereas before it was pulled away.
as a kid, we'd break the tab from the pull ring and then insert the fat end of the tab into the slot on the pull ring. we'd pull the ring back on the pull tab and release the ring flying. if we were really bored, we might actually go find the ring and do it again. i was surprised at how far these could fly like this.
He edited it. It was a random video before. Thought you were arguing about that incorrect video and saying I should've used the word relevant vs wrong. It's fixed now.
I remember commercials about the new bigger mouth. One where someone was choking on food and the it was like, "don't you sometimes wish you had a bigger mouth?".
Some quick googling found an old beer commercial [1]
I walk laps around the car in my garage and if the weather is particularly nice, I'll walk outside. I try to do this for about an hour a day.
Since this is Hacker News, and might fit the demographic, I built an abacus, specifically, for this task. Every time I make a lap, I increment it accordingly. That way I have at least some idea of the speed that I'm going.
Didn't read like he said it was disgusting. Sounded like it was just too difficult to deal with in a party. I just feel like they're in the way, not disgusting.
> One reason parties disappeared is because we have encouraged widespread neuroticism and anxiety about maintaining purity in different and various forms, and that intolerance has effectively eroded the social fabric.
Sounds like they're pretty disgusted by those type of people. Especially characterizing that type of behavior as "neuroticism and anxiety" instead of, ya know, trying not to die.
Maybe don't try to make what OP said worse than it was. It's fine if you don't agree, but don't extrapolate their argument into something they didn't say and then dislike them based on that.
Honestly, I mostly agree with OP, though I think I have chosen to mostly accomoate to the extent possible, just because I still want to throw parties. I mix a shirly temples and buy non-alcoholic rum and beer, get some vegan food if I'm serving food, etc. But it is, indeed, a pain, if maybe not a major one. I think the real issue here is just that people are glued to their screens and their pills. A lot of people don't want to party because they're already on a cocktail of pills (you know the ones) and that isn't compatible with a couple drinks for them.Mainly, though, people are atticted to games, doomscrolling, and TV, kind of in that order, and would prefer to sit getting quietly depressed rather than go out and spend time talking with people.
It sounds like you're ignoring one of the commenting guidelines, which is "assume good faith." You're reading things into the comment that aren't there, and replying to that rather than what was actually said.
This attitude has become so much more prevalent as well — hot take culture, focused on “dunking” and thereby looking better/smarter/whatever than the “competition”. Totally exhausting and another reason, perhaps, gathering with semi-strangers is less fun.
I have a similar issue with watching TV and movies and any form of media consumption. I stopped rewatching stuff. (for the most part) And now when I save stuff for later, I ask myself, "Is this something that I find truly compelling?" And if the answer is no, I don't save it. I appreciate that I could have liked it and allow the possibility that I might run into it later and in that moment, consume it, but I don't clog up my already sizable JustWatch list with more stuff. (~300 entries)
It's not so much 'people who left California are Republicans" but more, 'people who post on social media about how they're leaving California -are- Republicans".
With the questions all being like that with different wording, "I find myself getting frustrated in high stress situations.", "I enjoy high stress situations because they are exciting.", "Being around a lot of people all the time can be annoying", etc.
Over and over and over again for about fifteen minutes.