Yes, I find that often, even those I agree with on the evils of censorship will make this categorical error. Free speech would be just as critically important if there was no Bill of Rights at all.
The "empty cartridge means scanner is disabled" and "empty color cartridge means no printing from black cartridge" scams were the last straw for me.
After dealing with such nonsense for years, I vowed to simply never buy another printer. Period. I refuse to devote more time and money to these scumbags. For my printing needs, it's easier (and way cheaper in the long run) to carry a thumb drive over to the local copy shop. Could not be happier with my decision.
It's one thing to dislike New York City, a sentiment common among those who don't live there, but it's another to deny that the metropolis remains one of the world's most desired places to live.
Despite the godawful rent and other negatives, people (who are neither sardines nor especially mentally ill) continue to spend lots of money to relocate there. In fact, the resulting explosion of living cost, and loss of NYC culture, from this massive influx is why so much of the old guard has fled over the past two decades. I doubt Airbnb has much to do with it.
But if they were a bit more selective about picking their fights, they might be considerably more effective in lending believable vocal support to those of their members who are not as far gone as these ones.
The police unions are extremely selective in the fights they wage. They will defend the most horrific criminal behavior when it's committed by an LEO. However, if the rare honest cop comes forward to expose a violent police crime or uncovers the thug culture of a department, that same union will subject the whistleblower to the most scathing public attack they can muster.
Defending corrupt police officers is just a subsidiary mission; the union's main role is upholding the privilege of cops to violate our rights.
Re: Great case for civil forfeiture (and why its awful)
The "underperforming" line refers to this part of the story: "A police drug dog signaled the presence of drugs in Pedro’s van, which was parked outside the house...A second dog alerted to the safe. No drugs, however, were found in either the van or the safe."
It's pretty obvious that, like most drug dogs do, these canines were simply following the cues of their handlers (based on police guesswork). It's government magic.
Those links about Mr. Randazza just lead back to this very page, so, unfortunately, there's no way of confirming the details or substance of your claims.
Please don’t muddy the water. They are called “recreational drugs” only because they are not used to treat illness. Like all prohibitionists, you are conflating addiction (chemical and emotional dependency) with the actual substances themselves. It’s an extremely authoritarian stance. If we don’t have dominion over our own bodies, then we have no rights that matter.
No trolling, just trying to parse your cognitive dissonance.
Given all of the social problems associated with alcohol, and your strong moral convictions about recreational substances, what is stopping you from advocating alcohol re-prohibition, and demanding that liquor store-owning scum be eradicated? I'm not claiming that it's "politically feasible," I'm saying you should be consistent and honest about your beliefs.
Yeah, right. Nearly everyone is just itching to feast on those cheap, plentiful, addictive drugs the moment they get decriminalized. The only thing separating normal folks from abject junkiedom is the potential for arrest. Because Americans would never break the law.
I was addicted to heroin for many years, and you could not be more wrong. Your belief that problems in society stem from not enough punishment is a medieval religious fantasy.
Allow me to modify your argument: "Violence can kill you, but [the legal system] is quite literally a fate worse than death, because it enslaves you, strips you of your dignity and your humanity, destroys your relationships with family and friends, impoverishes you, destroys your health, and all too often drives you to crime, before finally killing you." I got off the drugs, but there's no escaping the system.
Leaving the drug trade in the hands of criminals and street gangs is the whole point of prohibition. They don't want things safer. It is only nominally about abolishing some arbitrary group of recreational substances.
The US government only benefits when people die in this drug war. The carnage creates fear among the public, who clamor for more fewer rights and unconstitutional laws. It ensures there is always an enemy, an "other" - satisfying the country's eternal craving for war - and provides unlimited funding for militaristic pork. And it justifies any and all social control of the underclass.
For politicians, a poison- and violence-ridden black market is a feature, not a bug.
As an editor of some experience, I truly have no idea what your criticism is. Could you be more specific? What do you imagine is the "excess wording" in this post?
Chu and his gang are disingenuous scumbags. I think that Mike, as well as many others who have been studiously dissecting this guy's inane, incoherent proclamations, are incorrect to simply assume he's an idiot. Chu understands what he is proposing; he just figures that his tribe would be well-placed to game any new system. His critics blame stupidity for what should properly be attributed to malice.
The PEN signatories to that protest should be ashamed of themselves. Stripping away all political and social context of "selected" Hebdo cartoons, they made reckless accusations of racism based on their own ignorance of the French language.
If only the dead cartoonists had had the courtesy to explain their jokes to obtuse American intellectual scolds, I'm certain all of this unpleasantness could have been avoided.
I hate it when people smugly conflate the "right to free speech" and the concept that free speech is an incredibly important human value that's worth defending.
These are two different things. Yes, the first is only concerned with government action. The latter ideal is more broad, and exercising it requires some personal integrity, not simply passing the buck.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
Re: Free speech is free speech
Free Speech ≠ First Amendment
On the post: HP Launched Delayed DRM Time Bomb To Disable Competing Printer Cartridges
Re: Re: Re:
After dealing with such nonsense for years, I vowed to simply never buy another printer. Period. I refuse to devote more time and money to these scumbags. For my printing needs, it's easier (and way cheaper in the long run) to carry a thumb drive over to the local copy shop. Could not be happier with my decision.
On the post: Calm Down, People: Data Shows Airbnb Isn't Really Driving Up Rent
Re: Re: Rent hikes are not new are they?
Despite the godawful rent and other negatives, people (who are neither sardines nor especially mentally ill) continue to spend lots of money to relocate there. In fact, the resulting explosion of living cost, and loss of NYC culture, from this massive influx is why so much of the old guard has fled over the past two decades. I doubt Airbnb has much to do with it.
On the post: Body Cam Footage Of Cop Hitting Handcuffed Man Leads To Firing Of Three New Orleans Police Officers
Re: Re:
The police unions are extremely selective in the fights they wage. They will defend the most horrific criminal behavior when it's committed by an LEO. However, if the rare honest cop comes forward to expose a violent police crime or uncovers the thug culture of a department, that same union will subject the whistleblower to the most scathing public attack they can muster.
Defending corrupt police officers is just a subsidiary mission; the union's main role is upholding the privilege of cops to violate our rights.
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re:
However, quote 100 sentences and you don't have 100 fair uses, you have an infringement."
This is not true. At all.
On the post: Court Says Government Needs More Than The Permission Of A Couple Of Underperforming Drug Dogs To Justify Seizure Of $276,000
Re: Great case for civil forfeiture (and why its awful)
It's pretty obvious that, like most drug dogs do, these canines were simply following the cues of their handlers (based on police guesswork). It's government magic.
On the post: More People Recognizing Copyright's 'Free Speech Problem'
Re:
On the post: How The Dark Net Is Making Drug Purchases Safer By Eliminating Associated Violence And Improving Quality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The Dark Net Is Making Drug Purchases Safer By Eliminating Associated Violence And Improving Quality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given all of the social problems associated with alcohol, and your strong moral convictions about recreational substances, what is stopping you from advocating alcohol re-prohibition, and demanding that liquor store-owning scum be eradicated? I'm not claiming that it's "politically feasible," I'm saying you should be consistent and honest about your beliefs.
On the post: How The Dark Net Is Making Drug Purchases Safer By Eliminating Associated Violence And Improving Quality
Re: Re: Re:
No drug dealer ever made me get high. It would be interesting to see your list of all the "scum" who deserve death. I imagine it is quite long.
On the post: How The Dark Net Is Making Drug Purchases Safer By Eliminating Associated Violence And Improving Quality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The Dark Net Is Making Drug Purchases Safer By Eliminating Associated Violence And Improving Quality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
/sarc
On the post: How The Dark Net Is Making Drug Purchases Safer By Eliminating Associated Violence And Improving Quality
Re:
Allow me to modify your argument: "Violence can kill you, but [the legal system] is quite literally a fate worse than death, because it enslaves you, strips you of your dignity and your humanity, destroys your relationships with family and friends, impoverishes you, destroys your health, and all too often drives you to crime, before finally killing you." I got off the drugs, but there's no escaping the system.
On the post: How The Dark Net Is Making Drug Purchases Safer By Eliminating Associated Violence And Improving Quality
The US government only benefits when people die in this drug war. The carnage creates fear among the public, who clamor for more fewer rights and unconstitutional laws. It ensures there is always an enemy, an "other" - satisfying the country's eternal craving for war - and provides unlimited funding for militaristic pork. And it justifies any and all social control of the underclass.
For politicians, a poison- and violence-ridden black market is a feature, not a bug.
On the post: Harvard Law Review Freaks Out, Sends Christmas Eve Threat Over Public Domain Citation Guide
Re:
On the post: Want To Know How Ridiculous The Omnibus Bill Is? It Has A Meaningless Porn Filter Clause Four Times
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Doesn't Think Putting Historical Figures In Video Games Is Free Speech
Re:
Quite an interesting concept of what constitutes "history" you have there. What is it, life +70 years?
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re:
On the post: Charlie Hebdo Bows To Assassins' Veto, Hecklers' Veto; Will No Longer Mock Mohammed
English-only protest
http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com
If only the dead cartoonists had had the courtesy to explain their jokes to obtuse American intellectual scolds, I'm certain all of this unpleasantness could have been avoided.
On the post: Protocols Instead Of Platforms: Rethinking Reddit, Twitter, Moderation And Free Speech
Re: Re: That PSA is bullshit
These are two different things. Yes, the first is only concerned with government action. The latter ideal is more broad, and exercising it requires some personal integrity, not simply passing the buck.
Next >>