288
Here's what's happening to ad blockers in Google Chrome (and other browsers)
(www.spacebar.news)
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
288 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
63009 readers
4841 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's like making knifes illegal in general because they have been used in a certain amount of murder cases.
And now, a new golden age of malvertisement will emerge...
Indeed. What a f-ing stupid argument: "We cannot trust the extensions that the user installed, therefor we give malware from advertisers free roam!"
If 42% of crimes used a handgun, we should ban those too.
You just made the argument for gun rights.
Thank you and I love you. <3
Definitely not. Gun ownership should be abolished like slavery was. A knife has good use for cutting and cooking, but a gun, especially in private hands, has absolutely no reason to exist.
I've got some awful news for you about slavery
Americans phrase it a bit different:
‘Fuckin guns fuck yea!’
Yep. One of the many intellectual challenges that the US is facing...
So you completely accept the state's monopoly on violence, and you also don't think farmers should be allowed to shoot pests?
This is a statement made by someone who lives in a political and ecological bubble.
Better than spreading this to everydays mass shooting event culprits, don't you agree?
"Spreading"? It's already spread.
Plus it's kind of impossible to understand how you see police brutality and the way they responded to the George Floyd protests and think, "Yeah, these guys should be trusted with the only guns in existence."
Like have you already forgotten about Uvalde? If the cops hadn't been there to cower behind their cars and stop people rescuing their kids then less kids would've died.
First: Is "every redneck yokel and his dumb brother is allowed to own an arsenal" in anyway better than a government monopoly in that regard?
Second: This would of course need properly selected and trained policemen, not those trigger-happy yokels that the US uses instead.
My position is from a country where "Police Brutality" is seen as an American or other third world country thing. We don't allow every random idiot to own a gun. We have properly trained police. We therefor also don't have issues like Uvalde and George Floyd. For an American, it is hard to draw a straight line between those factors, but in the rest of the civilized world, it is the standard.
So sorry for assuming you were talking about the US when you talked about school shootings.
I come from a country like that too, but if you think police brutality doesn't happen in your country then again: political bubble.
Go ahead, tell me what country you're from and I'll burst it for you.
I used to say the same thing about my country, Australia, where they've recently been imprisoning whistleblowers who expose clear government abuse. EDIT: They've also been doing racist colonial violence since day 0 and they have never stopped.
There is no such thing as a state that can be trusted with violence. They always use it to oppress.
Oh, and trusting random yokels with violence is better?
Unironically yes.
Now are you going to answer what I'm saying or are you just bowing out of all the points you tried to raise and which I answered?
My condolences.
I answered all the relevant ones.
You provided exactly zero reasoning for most of your statements and have now taken a condescending position. People like you are why we can't have nice things in the world.
WTF do you need a "reasoning" for that normal people should not have guns at all?
I prefer basing my opinions on logic, arguments, and facts over feelings. Your inability to articulate a response to certain arguments shows why this is still a debate. Further, you're relying on the idea that something is crazy to you, therefore it should be to everybody, but that's not how it works. There's racist people that use this exact type of reasoning to support their racism.
E.G.
"Black people are less than white people"
"WTF do you need a reasoning that black people are less than white people"
If your position is really stronger, then it shouldn't be hard for you to make arguments in favor of it.
So like... your answer is no.
That's the whole point of the state. And no, you guys are not fighting the US army with its armored vehicles, rockets, bombs, drones, etc. with your guns if it comes to this.
The point of the state is to maintain one class's domination over others, violence is just the means to achieving that. It's not a good thing.
And not all armed resistance takes the form of open warfare.
Under a strong state one viable way of resisting the state is community defense. For instance the Black Panthers began open carrying to observe police doing traffic stops, because black men kept getting killed (edit: of course we know they still are).
The state's response was weapons bans. That ban targetted the Black Panthers and was selectively enforced against them. This is where California got its reputation for banning guns. It was the state maintaining its ability to oppress people along class and racial lines.