GeneralInterest

joined 9 months ago
 

Do you think this kind of thing is worrying or not?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I live in the UK and we already have hate speech laws making certain speech illegal, e.g. extreme racist speech. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the encouragement of suicide was also illegal under such laws. Do we really think that people should have the right to encourage suicide? Surely the right of others to live is more important.

I dunno, I'm just suggesting it, I'm not saying the law should definitely be changed in this way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

It would be more democratic if Puerto Rico had the same congressional representation as a state. Same with DC. Also, maybe the number of senators for every state should be proportional to population, again to make things more democratic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

If it was just one occurrence then maybe a large fine or some community service. If someone does it multiple times then maybe prison time. I'm just guessing really. People who are more knowledgeable about the justice system than I am could probably answer this better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"Killing is fine as long as your numbers aren't too high"

It's just a dumb take isn't it.

Edit: you'll try to say "that's not what I'm saying" but it's what you're suggesting, by saying that Hamas are somehow more moral. What I'm suggesting is that maybe they're both bad. Also, if Hamas had the same amount of weaponry that Israel has, do we really think Hamas would hold back?

I think the ICJ was correct to want to bring the leaders of Israel and Hamas to trial for war crimes. I don't think it makes sense to give one side a pass, or say they're better, when both have killed many innocent people who didn't deserve death.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I’m not excusing Hamas. The fact that you read what I did says that you are either responding in bad faith

The fact that you seem so upset with me saying that killing civilians is bad no matter who does it implies to me that you think it's fine when some people do it. Or that it's fine as long as they don't kill too many people.

You're extremely stupid.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Yeah I'm not into the whole "let's excuse Hamas" thing. In my view killing civilians is bad, which is why I think both Hamas and the Israeli government are bad. Neither should kill civilians at all - not 1, not 100, not 1,000, etc.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I think I heard on the radio the other day someone saying that reparations should be less about handing cash to descendants of slaves, and more about investing in descendants of slaves, which I guess would mean ensuring that those descendants have an equal access to education and job opportunities, and maybe other adjustments. Whether that's a good idea, I guess society would have to decide, but I thought it was interesting.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

In the future it might not be though. Developing countries are getting richer and they have growing populations. Britain's population isn't growing that much. Even public opinion within Britain may one day favour reparations, let alone outside of Britain.

 

Thoughts on this?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

Ideally I don't think any civilian deaths should happen, so they're both wrong. I'm not going to say Hamas is somehow better because they killed fewer people. To me that seems like saying "oh you didn't kill too many people, that's fine then". Which would be completely wrong in my view.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

Is there any evidence of these CIA/Israeli bots / paid posters?

If somebody makes a pro-Israel post, maybe they just genuinely support Israel (I wouldn't say that's my view currently - I think both Israel and Hamas are wrong because both have killed civilians).

Edit: your downvotes aren't evidence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

The problem isn’t that there is pro suicide content, the problem is that people are listening to it. If your society is so gullible and fragile that they will kill themselves because some asshole online says to, you have a much much bigger problem than online speech.

I get why you don't want to restrict free speech. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

I think I would probably be okay with the encouragement of suicide being illegal. Imagine a child or young teenager committing suicide because people online encouraged them. Some young people might brush off any such encouragement, but some young people might not. I think the young person's right to life is more important than some online person's right to encourage somebody to commit suicide.

 

The CEO of Intuit (who make financial software) did an interview, and it seems a pretty normal interview. But some senior guy at the company asked for part of the interview to be deleted, after it took place.

By putting in that unusual request (rather angrily), more attention is being drawn to the interview.

Thoughts?

 

"Fidelity is currently valuing X at about $9.4 billion"

I found this funny.

view more: next ›